As we approach what’s looking like the hottest summer on record (and my former plans to eventually move up to Queensland for the beach weather become quaint and amusing), it’ll be interesting to watch how the hardcore “nothing we can do will change the climate” crowd will cope. Remember, their line is as follows:
- The climate is not changing;
- If it is, it doesn’t matter;
- If it does, it’s nothing to do with anything we’re doing;
- If it is, well, there’s nothing we can do about it anyway.
For many people, a record-breaking couple of summers and winters in a row might well dispense with point 1, but in the meantime I’d love an answer from the deniers to a very straightforward question: what increase in global temperature would be required for you to concede that the Earth is warming?
PS I’ve got a response to Bolt’s last mockery of why those who think the climate’s getting hotter would buy supposedly vulnerable properties by the sea – because they know they’re going to want somewhere to cool down!
UPDATE: Oh, good. Melbourne’s train network has crumbled already. This bodes well for the summer.
Moved On 
To the contrary the earth is cooling.
Soon there will be snow in places like Bali. Mumbai has already bid for the winter Olympics, providing the planet doesn’t cool too much.
Only last week whilst in Darwin I was wearing my thermal under wear at the beach.
I think Iain Hall has the right terminology for global warming alarmists “warminista’s” Yes it is getting a lot colder, hence the arrival of refugees on our shores, the poor bastards in Indonesia are dead set freezing to death.
That news ruined my plans Gary. I’ll have to re-think the beachfront development in Kalgoorlie.
Jeremy, when I first saw the hockey-stick graph (used in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ and used in the 2001 IPCC report) I thought “Oh shit, this is a strong argument for man-made global warming”.
The significance of the hockey stick is that it shows temperature being constant for the last 2000 years, and then turning up sharply in recent times, when CO2 has been increasing. The short answer to your question is that if temperatures for the last 10 years had continued to increase in line with the sharp upturn in the hockey stick, I’d certainly rethink my position. However, that hasn’t happened.
One major issue I have with the policy makers acting on alarmist reports is that many of the studies relied upon are unscientific. In particular it is a fairly standard tactic for authors of these studies to hide their data so that their methods and results cannot be checked. This is exactly what happened in the case of the hockey stick.
When Congress compelled Mann to release his data serious flaws in his methodology were revealed. The same issue occurred in the case of Keith Briffa (an IPCC reviewer), who managed to hide his data for 10 years. When he recently released some of his data (in a form that made it as hard as possible to analyse) serious questions were raised as to his methods of selection of data. This affected a whole series of studies which sought to re-affirm the original hockey-stick.
Even more curious is the case of the Hadley Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia which provides one of the basic datasets for calculating global temperature. These researchers release data after they have modified it. They will not release the raw data and their modifications, claiming more recently that they have lost large chunks of it.
Science is all about being sceptical, and enabling findings to be checked. The standard modus operandi of the catastrophists is to blindside us with alarming studies, hide the data and shriek that the science is settled. A better approach would be for policy makers to disregard all studies from authors who do not make all of their data available in a form that can be easily used.
In view of the stakes involved, a sensible policy maker would, in addition to requiring transparency, go out of their way to subject relevant studies to critical scrutiny.
So SB’s answer to your “very straightforward question” is: “No amount – because the science isn’t settled/the data is suss/there are doubts etc..”
See?
“That news ruined my plans Gary. I’ll have to re-think the beach front development in Kalgoorlie.”
You will have to invest in a winter ski resort somewhere, the island of Penang mayhaps???
You know if G.W. wasn’t such a serious issue, it would be funny.That people are in denial about what could be the most serious problem ever to face mankind, is just mind boggling.
Most of the worlds scientists by a country mile are connecting the dots, and as each day passes, the evidence is becoming clearer.The planet is heating up and we are causing it.
The people denying this salient fact should be regarded as the imbeciles most of them are.If the denialists are right, so what! it will cost us a few bucks.We waste money to the tune of billions every day on lost causes, that would make any money spent on trying to save the planet look like small change.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, the list goes on.The same people prattling on about G.W. and in denial are the same wankers turning up to the tea parties in the U.S. about the health care bill.Same right wing nutters, just a different issue.
If it had been the left in denial about G.W. the right would be where we are now.This isn’t about facts, just politics.
“The same issue occurred in the case of Keith Briffa (an IPCC reviewer), who managed to hide his data for 10 years. When he recently released some of his data (in a form that made it as hard as possible to analyse” – SB
BS, SB.
Briffa did not “hide’ his data. He was asked for the data, and he was directed by Briffa to the owners of the data – who gave it to him.
And “raw data”??….. squawk, squawk etc etc etc…
Any other irrational talking points you want to cut and paste?
We’ll see if it is the hottest summer on record. Sorry, but statements like that are causing people to doubt the arguments put forward. We don’t know and the meteorologists have a poor record in predicting this type of thing.
Barp, in answer to Jeremy’s question I said:
The fact is that for the last 10 years the temperature has not increased at all, let alone in line with the hockey stick trend.
The reason I was initially taken in by the hockey stick was that, if true, it showed that the current warming was unprecedented for the last 2000 years, and correlated with increases in CO2.
One of the things the hockey stick does is to eliminate the medieval warm period. It did this by the highly selective use of low-grade data. Prior to the hockey stick, the view was that the MWP was significantly hotter than now. There is ample evidence that this was the case. That being so, we would need temperatures several degrees warmer than now to eliminate the possibility that recent warming is within the normal range.
If, in addition to that, global temperature jumped and resumed the trend shown by the hockey-stick, that would be grounds for re-assessment.
What has actually happened in the last 10 years is that CO2 has continued to increase, but the temperature has cooled slightly.
What morons do is to claim that every hot or dry spell is proof of global warming. Of course they ignore things like the unseasonably cold weather the northern hemisphere is currently experiencing. Only a moron would try to have it both ways. Of course complete cretins would have you believe that the recent Samoan tsunami was also a result of global warming.
I want the Aborigines to release their temperature records for the last 30,000 years, then we will really see if there has been any change.
Don’t bother Fred, they’re hiding it.
All part of the global warming conspiracy.
Michael, Briffa’s data only came out when he made the mistake of publishing in a journal which took its data archiving policy seriously.
Lies and ridicule will only get you so far. No doubt your next resort will be to ad hominem attacks. Anything to avoid the issue.
Two things, SB.
1. Are you basing your “it hasn’t warmed in the last decade” on picking out the last El Nino year (1998), a natural high point?
2. “Of course they ignore things like the unseasonably cold weather the northern hemisphere is currently experiencing.”
That’s not the case at all – climate change predicts unseasonably hot AND cold weather, because the warming planet buggers up the ocean and atmospheric currents that regulate our weather.
Jeremy, if you ignore 1998, the next 10 years average out a t no increase. Some argue a slight decrease. My point is that the temperature hasn’t increased in line with increasing CO2 over a 10 year period.
On your second point, weather changes. It is unhelpful to look at individual weather events and claim that as evidence for global warming. It would be more logical to look at global data, and for the last 10 years that hasn’t supported the alarmist case.
“Michael, Briffa’s data only came out when he made the mistake of publishing in a journal which took its data archiving policy seriously.” – SB
Wrong, as usual.
McIntyre wrote to Briffa, Briffa put McIntyre intouch with the Russian owners of data, who then immediately supplied the data to McIntyre.
McIntyre eventually admitted that the owners of the data had given it to him in February 2004.
All the whining about “stonewalling’ and being denied access to the data was a load of BS.
Whether or not global warming is happening, our course ahead is clear: we must institute a system of carbon trading which delivers subsidies to those people who excavate and burn fossil fuels, and which makes the cost of energy greater for everyone else. This will solve everyone’s problems.
“Jeremy, if you ignore 1998, the next 10 years average out a t no increase. Some argue a slight decrease. ” – SB
You’re batting 100.
Wrong again.
The decadal trend from 1999 was warming.
Do you need some graphs posted?
SB, “Climate Audit”?
I always thought you were a bit of a ratbag/conservative stirrer with generally benign but genuinely held points of view.
Please say you are quoting “Climate Audit” as a shit-stir and not because you think it is a quality reference.
For those who don’t have any idea what this is all about go and spend a good deal of time at Tim Lambert’s “Deltoid” and cross-reference that (and links) with what you find at “Climate Audit”.
As one of Lambert’s commenters put it:
“a mobius strip of stupid.”
Wrong again Michael. Briffa had an obligation to archive the data when he published in Phil Trans B. he didn’t do it, and was subsequently compelled to do so by the editors.
It would have been simple for Briffa to provide the data. Instead he chose to play games. McIntyre explains:
Got anything other than ad hominen abuse to add to the discussion, Barp?
Abuse?
The “mobius strip of stupid” wasn’t directed at you.
The “shit-stir” was, in a hopeful way, giving you some benefit of the doubt.
I remember the Feb bushfires stuff where you came out early with the “lefties are to blame” and got a well deserved hosing (I’d thought it was your own personal ‘make a wish’ moment) but seems you really are trying to cite Climate Audit as having some weight.
I suppose I could be snide or apologise for ‘misunderestimating’ you, or something.
Anyway, it seems I was wrong. Your answer to Lefty’s question was: “No amount, because it hasn’t”.
Jeremy,
Don’t bother. The world could be frying in 50 degrees Celsius average surface temperature and the deniers would still not admit they were wrong. Their arrogance knows no bounds, they have blinded themselves to anything other than that comforting narrow little world view of theirs, along with their pictures of the Queen and pin up posters of George Bush and little Johnny.
Denialists like the Bolt admit they were wrong? Will never happen, no matter what the evidence!
Barp I was trying to explain above I was attracted to the AGW hypothesis at a time when the temperature was increasing with increases in CO2.
AGW is reasonable if you have a reasonable basis for excluding other factors, and if the temperature is going up. At the moment the temperature is not going up, and as best I can tell there was a MWP of a couple of degrees warmer than now.
The hockey-stick has been shown to be flawed and the spaghetti graphs that purported to support it have taken a hit as a result of Briffa finally releasing his data.
Climate Audit is a case of a fairly smart guy scrutinising climate models with some success. RealClimate is merely the Hockey Team acting like juvenile delinquents.
What Erik R said.
Facts aren’t important to these people, only factoids that reaffirm their blind faith.
SB you don’t have a clue.
Briffa provided data in 2008 because he was publishing a paper and complied with the the data guidelines of the journal, just as he did with his ealrier paper.
McIntyre failed to point out he had the data from the original source all along, until commenters at his blog kept pointing out that he was barking up the wrong tree.
Michael, McIntyre repeatedly requested the Data from Briffa. Briffa refused to provide it.
Briffa published in Science. They declined to make him disgorge his data when McIntyre requested it.
When Briffa published in Phil Trans B he did not archive his data as required. McIntyre requested it from Phil Trans B who required Briffa to publish it.
The fac that McIntyre was in possession of the data, but couldn’t be sure it was the same series Briffa used doesn’t make Briffa’s conduct any more savoury.
You only have an argument when you leave out important facts. Try to stop playing politics and just look at the facts.
“Michael, McIntyre repeatedly requested the Data from Briffa. Briffa refused to provide it.” – SB
Completely and utterly wrong.
Briffa told McIntyre who owned the data and told him to contact them. McIntyre did and got the data. Briffa did not own the data and could not give it to McIntyre.
Briffa followed all the correct protocols throughout.
McIntyre acted like an idiot and withheld the rather important detail that Briffa had directed him to the owners of the data.
Michael, you are wrong, as the quotes and links I have provided above demonstrate.
Briffa followed all the correct protocols throughout.
If Briffa had done this he would not have had to have been compelled to release the data which he subsequently did.
Briffa did not own the data and could not give it to McIntyre.
Funnily enough, Briffa was able to provide the data when required to by Phil Trans B. Briffa managed to delay by 10 years the critical examination of his findings. When the data did reach the light of day, it took only a few days for some very serious issues to be raised.
It would have been better for all concerned if Briffa had archived his data at the time of original publication. Or if Science had made him disgorge it when requested in 2006.
The fact is that Briffa is not an isolated example. Mann had to have his data subpoenaed out of him. Esper and Santer are still playing games.
If the IPCC wants to give so much prominence to these jokers, it deserves its shabby reputation. It has no business formulating policy on the basis of the work of ‘scientists’ who resist having their work checked.
“If Briffa had done this he would not have had to have been compelled to release the data which he subsequently did.” – SB
You don’t have any idea about science journals do you?
You keep saying “compelled” becuase that’s the denialist talking point. Briffa wanted to publish a new study – he did so in a particular journal and complied with the data guidelines for that journal- after the owners of the data gave their OK.
Journals data editorial guidelines have been evolving over the last few years as e-publishing of journals has taken off. The data guidelines in particular have changed a lot over the last decade. Now there are plenty of public access data repositories and journals are taking advantage of this to ensure more data is readily accessible. This seems to be the source of the confusion. The data guidelines have changed between Briff’s initial publication and his later one.
Though authors may still not make their data available for a variety of legitimate reasons. It’s no big conspiracy.
“Funnily enough, Briffa was able to provide the data when required to by Phil Trans B. Briffa managed to delay by 10 years the critical examination of his findings – SB
Even wronger.
Briffa supplied the data to the journal ,as per the journals requirments, with the data owners approval. When approached initially by McIntyre, Briffa sent McIntyre directly to the owners of the data – and they gave it to him.
It’s all been a massive hissy fit by a nit-picker who thinks he’s a giant-killer.
Michael, you keep twisting the narrative. To be science, studies need to be verifiable. Briffa lead a merry chase which resulted in a 10 year delay in the publication of his data. (Disclosure is not yet complete – more is expected from Briffa after christmas). It is not simply a matter of getting the data. It is also necessary to know which series Briffa used, and what he did to the data.
Also, if Briffa had complied with the Phil Trans B rules he would not have had to be later compelled to give out the info after publication.
He should have done it at the time of publication. He failed to do that.
Once the CC fanatics realise that they are not going to pull the wool over our eyes by playing hide-and-seek with their data, maybe their studies can be evaluated.
The simple point is that studies that re unverifiable should not be used as a basis for policy decisions with very serious consequences.
If the IPPC had insisted on this level of transparency, they may have had more credibility by now. Surely it is in everyone’s interests that the papers and models be subjected to as much scrutiny as possible.
Sadly we have seen these games played over and over again by the catastrophists.
Now, at least Science is getting a bit more serious about data archiving, although Nature has shown no signs of growing up i this regard.
It is quite clear that our understanding would have been much further advanced if Briffa hadn’t managed to keep his data out of the hands of his critics for so long. There is no scientific justification for your obdurate defence of Briffa. If the science is so settled why do the hockey team play stupid games to prevent checking of their work?
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
“Briffa lead a merry chase which resulted in a 10 year delay in the publication of his data. (Disclosure is not yet complete – more is expected from Briffa after christmas). It is not simply a matter of getting the data. It is also necessary to know which series Briffa used, and what he did to the data. ”
Why do you just keep repearting the same rubbish?
What “merry chase”?????
McIntyre had the data since 2004, courtesy of Briffa.
On the question of “which series” McIntyre has been asked on his blog (after he was forced to admit he had the data since 2004) if he went back and asked Briffa about this – no response.
Your comment regarding Nature show that you haven’t a clue what you are talking about – try go and reading the Nature editorial policies.
Here’s the reality of SBs conspiracies regarding the Briffa data,
“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“
What are you lot talking about? Everyone knows it’s more patriotic to use a cricket bat graph than a hockey stick one, anyway.
Micahel it appears that now your argument is reduced to “McIntyre didn’t ask Briffa the correct question”. That is beyond stupid. It certainly doesn’t explain why Briffa had to be forced to release data he should have released at the time of publication. In fact, he should have released the data 10 years ago when he first published.
Further, if a scientist is not in a position to provide archived data, they are not in a position to publish. Certainly their work should not be relied upon for important policy decisions. Until it becomes verifiable it is not science.
The issue with Nature and, until recently, Science, is not the existence of their policies but the enforcement of their policies. In the case of the IPCC, being basically an agenda driven political organisation, they have no such policy.
On a slightly different note, it seems that Rudd is following the political model identified by the great HL Mencken:
(Mencken’s quote is also apt to describe the response by politicians past and present to refugees)
“Micahel it appears that now your argument is reduced to “McIntyre didn’t ask Briffa the correct question”. That is beyond stupid” -SB
No, you complete moron.
The issue is that it was never Briffa’s data to release and when approached he directed McIntyre to the correct source of the data.
It’s all very, very simple.
McIntyre is an idiot.
And you follow in his footsteps.
Michael: The issue is that it was never Briffa’s data to release and when approached he directed McIntyre to the correct source of the data.
Then Briffa should not have published and no one should rely on his work. If you are going to use someone else’s data you should have title to it, including the right to release it to support your work.
Further, Briffa did eventually release the data when forced to. If he needed permissions, he should have got those first time around. If they weren’t forthcoming he should have waited to publish.
The approach of “Oh look, I have a study which shows dramatic climate change, but it relies on secret data” is insane. It is also common among the Hockey Team.
It is hardly surprising that you call McIntyre an idiot. Is it is higher standards of transparency or his superior logic that rankles you?
SB, it is perfectly clear that you simply don’t understand the process of science and journal publication.
Briffa used someone else’s data, with their permission, on the understanding that he did not have the authority to give it away. When approached by someone for the data, he directed them to the owners of the data, who could, and did, provide it.
Very, very, very, very, very simple. The data was always accessible.
Micahael:
The fact is that there was a spike in 1998, now attributed to anel nino effect, but at the time (ie before the subsequent cooling) it was proffered as evidence of the dreaded impending tipping point. Certainly it was material in my then view that we had a serious global warming problem.
What happened next was a dramatic decrease in temperature, then a slight increase and then a flattening out. Over all there has not been the expected warming.
There are many graphs out there designed to prove one point or another. The simple fact remains that the warming trend from the 70s has not been maintained post 1998. The AGW crowd say this is just a short term variation whereas the alternative view is that things have settled down in recent years, and we are in for a period of cooling.
This BBC article discusses the various views.
One thing is clear, namely that the IPCC has done us no favours by acting as an advocate of one particular view, rather than taking a reasoned and balanced approach.
Michael, the issue is very very simple. Briffa managed to keep his data secret for 10 years. He only gave it up when a journal finally enforced its archiving policy.
To say that McIntyre already had the data is misleading. there is a difference between having a large data set and knowing which bits Briffa cherry-picked in his research.
The Hockey Team generally has a problem. They don’t like their work being critically examined. Briffa, Mann, Jones, Santer, Esper, d’Arrigo all have resisted giving up their data. Mann had to be dragged before a government enquiry to get him to spill the beans. Shortly thereafter his work was shown to contain serious errors.
“Briffa managed to keep his data secret for 10 years. He only gave it up when a journal finally enforced its archiving policy.” – SB
Yes, so secret than anyone who asked him was directed to the owners of the data who would then give it out. That’s quite some secret. And there was no issue with the 2008 paper – have a look at the list of authors and you’ll see why.
Funny how the ‘skeptics’ are so completely gullible.
Michael, having the data set alone does not allow Briffa’s methodology to be tested. You also need to know which data Briffa used and how he cherry-picked that data. Briffa did not discuss his criteria for data selection in the paper.
Apart from anything else, non-discussion of selection criteria is bad science. The felony is compounded by Briffa’s coyness about releasing the data he relied upon.
It is hardly surprising that when the data used by Briffa could be identified very serious questions were raised about the validity of his work.
Methodology was in the published paper.
Data was freely available.
No secrets.
No conspiracy.
Stop being so gullible SB.
Funny that so many ‘sceptics’ are so selective with their scepticism.
For instance it seems to completely evaporate in the face of unverified blogs suggesting that AGW is fake. Those souces are believed wholeheartedly and unquestioningly – even when based on little more than a conflicting “he said, she said” version of events.
It’s because they’re not really sceptics. Just like SB, they are ideologues whose main interest in a sceptical position is that it enables them to set themselves up in opposition to what they perceive as the agenda of the Left. Same for Hall, Blair, Bolt – all of Australia’s self-styled conservative warriors.
Not that there’s anything wrong with knee-jerk anti-leftism. I just wish they were more honest about what they were doing.
Selection Criteria not in paper.
Failed to archive data until compelled to.
Consequently flaws in Briffa’s work not revealed for 10 years.
Business as usual for Hockey Team.
Unkind and unwarranted, Mondo. You know my views on different issues aren’t consistent with any particular ideology.
On this issue my views have changed over time as I have learned more about it. For all I know, I might be persuaded to change my mind again, although the simplistic evasions and childish abuse of Michael (a true ideologue if ever there was) are unlikely to do the trick.
Dolt.
Data was with the owners of the data who gave it to whom ever asked for it – McIntyre has had it since 2004.
Your credulity is astonishing.
That is not the issue, Michael. Briffa saying that he used some of that data over there is a long way short of the information required to verify his work.
Semantic sophistry will only get you so far, but you can’t escape the fact that the Hockey Team have a history of this type of behaviour. Briffa’s evasions are but one example. He didn’t archive his data until he was compelled to.
You know my views on different issues aren’t consistent with any particular ideology.
To the contrary SB – I know that you hold a deep personal hatred of politics that you personally associate with ‘the left’. Your writing here leaves absolutely no doubt of your immense bias against not only the policies of the Left, but a large proportion of the people who identify as ‘Left-wingers’.
It is a given that you will give greater credence to those attacking left-wing positions than you will to those supporting them. Your bias has been writ large on this blog for many years for anyone to see.
It’s on display above right now. You are insisting that a sinister explanation for data being withheld be preferred over an innocent one based on nothing more than your personal preference for the sinister explanation.
You might as well accept it SB. You’re an anti-Left ideologue (and I imagine quite proud of it).
Maybe he’s a climate research truther?
Mondo:
I have a problem with people who sell themselves short by signing on to a particular ideology. Leftists are a paradigm case. However, that doesn’t mean I disagree with every leftist position. That would make me as bad as them. My opposition is to the knee-jerk group-think behaviour that typifies the adoption of leftist ideology.
My objection is to ideology, not particular leftist positions some of which i agree with. in fact initially I went along with AGW, until I started digging further into it.
Not so. I am suggesting that if a scientist withholds data so that their work can’t be checked, politicians have no business using it as a basis for policy.
No. I am anti-ideology. That doesn’t make me an ideologue, does it?
No. I am anti-ideology. That doesn’t make me an ideologue, does it?
I guess if anyone was going to fail to qualify as an ideologue it would have to be someone who is anti-ideology.
Although I’m struggling with the concept.
“Not so. I am suggesting that if a scientist withholds data so that their work can’t be checked, politicians have no business using it as a basis for policy” – SB
That’s a quaint idea.
What next, will we have the free-market ideologues arguing for the dismantling of Medicare unless they see all the ‘raw data’ of every piece of health research??
WTF? Medicare?
Note, Michael, that SB continues to cling to the meme that Briffa ‘withheld’ his data in order to prevent checking of his work. In other words he has unquestioningly accepted the version of events put forward by McIntyre, and is arguing as though these are baseline facts.
A true sceptic would be sceptical of claims from both sides of the debate.
One thing is clear Mondo – that Briffa only provided the data after being compelled to do so.
The excuse that McIntyre had the data earlier is mischievous. The issue was which data Briffa used in his study, and how he selected that data. He did not give any selection criteria in his paper, which is a significant defect in itself.
The more general point is that Briffa’s behaviour is not an isolated incident. There are many other instances of the same sort of conduct from briffa’s colleagues.
Mann used the same technique with his infamous hockey stick graph. It was uncheckable due to Mann’s withholding of relevant data, so for years it was used to promote climate hysteria. After Mann was compelled to give up the data, the errors in his methodology were quickly exposed.
Science is about critical examination and verification of theories. People who put forward theories and then obstruct critical review of them are not practicing science.
WTF indeed SB.
Makes just as much sense as your repeated and false assertion that Briffa “withheld” data.
One thing is clear Mondo – that Briffa only provided the data after being compelled to do so.
That’s not at all clear from what’s been presented above. In fact I’d say Michael has refuted this claim every time you’ve made it.
Unless when you say “compelled” you mean “asked” – in which case I would agree that both you and Michael appear to be on the same page.
Here is team member and head of the CRU at East Anglia, Phil Jones:
Science at its best. Go the hockey team!
Mondo, Briffa published in Phil Trans B, a journal of the Royal Society. That journal requires archiving of data to be archived at the time of publication. Briffa failed to this. Following a request by McIntyre, the editors required Briffa to archive his data. Thus Briffa failed to archive the relevant data and in the end had to be compelled to do so.
I should add that the data in question had been used in prior studies, and prior attempts had been made to obtain it.
Dill,
The owner of the data had already given it to McIntyre, 4 years before.
Again, Briffa did not own the data, and had no rights to give or withhold it from anyone.
I tried to give you a hint earlier, but to no avail. One of Briffa’s co-authors on this paper, was the owner of the data, ie the person with authority to make decisions about the data.
Any chance of you applying even a scintilla of scepticism to the assertions of Steve McIntyre?
Dilldo
This post by McIntyre shows the difficulties faced in assuming that the data he had was that used by Briffa. Obviously he is a very naughty boy for not guessing right and then reverse engineering Briffa’s calcs. It would have been better for the data to be released at the time of publication, but that would be too much like real science as opposed to climate ‘science’.
You are missing the point entirely. If Briffa wasn’t in a position to back up his work, it wasn’t science. You’ve made my case for me.
Obviously you enjoy cat and mouse games as much as the Hockey Team seems to. You are sooooo clever.
Of course Briffa could have easily obtained clearance from his co-author. This assertion makes him look more juvenile, although that obviously improves his stature in your eyes.
Are you being deliberately thick?
Briffa published his paper. Someone wants the data. Briffa says, it’s not mine, I’ve been told I can’t release it, but if you check with my Russian colleague, who owns the data, he’ll be able to give it to you if he wants to.
I’m sorry that reality can’t accord with your misunderstandings, but that’s just the way it is.
Read the link in my previous post. It explains the situation quite well.
Briffa told MacIntyre that he would refer McIntyre’s request to the Russians. He did not get back to McIntyre with the outcome of that referral.
McIntyre had the data, which was available by then. He just didn’t know that it was the same data Briffa used. In fact there were good reasons to believe it could not be the data Briffa used.
Ultimately Briffa was forced to release the data and within a very short time, errors in his methodology were identified by McIntyre.
These errors should have been picked up by the subsequent authors who relied on Briffa’s work and whose work is now also affected by Briffa’s errors.
Briffa could have avoided this whole problem if he had been more forthcoming. Eventually he was forced to do the right thing, and behave like a scientist.
The basic problem is that if you can’t back up your arguments by producing the data you shouldn’t publish. If you do publish, your work is worthless as science and shouldn’t be relied on until it is able to be verified.
If you continue to ignore the basic fact that the data wasn’t Briffa’s to release , then yes, you can keep saying stupid things like Briffa “withheld” the data and Briffa was “forced” to release the data.
And if you display absolute and total credulity you can also continue to believe that the science published in science journals by dedicated and respected scientists is trumped by the opinion of one guy writing in his blog.
A sceptic might consider the said blogger’s long history of getting things completely wrong and his subsequent history after this Yamal joke of continuing to get the basics wrong (see his ‘upside down’ claims) as a stark warning on the dangers of uncritical acceptance of his opinions.
Clearly Briffa was forced to release the data: He didn’t archive at the time of submission of his article; McIntyre asked that the policy be enforced; Briffa grudgingly and slowly published some of the data, with more to come.
Which bit don’t you understand?
Uh, maybe the bit where Briffa could never be “forced” to release the data – a decision that could only be made by the owners of the data, who just happened to be the co-author of the paper. Duh.
Oh dear.
1. Briffa publishes in a journal, knowing that he must archive data on submission.
2. He does not do so.
3. McIntyre asks the journal to enforce its policies, which it does.
4. Briffa grudgingly and tardily complies.
Your point is that in the process of compliance he had to establish his right to release the data, and therefore the action of the editors did not amount to compelling Briffa to archive the data.
Or maybe you are saying that the lead author Briffa didn’t have the obligation to archive, but that doesn’t make sense.
Briffa led a merry chase. In the end he was compelled to release the data, and serious flaws in his methodology were identified.
Sadly, your logic does do not live up to your arrogant tone.
Briffa could have avoided this whole problem if he had been more forthcoming. Eventually he was forced to do the right thing, and behave like a scientist.
SB – Michael has now provided you with evidence that casts doubt on this claim. He has done so many times, yet you continue to ignore that evidence, preferring instead to simply re-assert your initial claim over and over.
A number of times throughout this discussion you have actually declared your preferred version of events to be ‘a fact’ when there is clearly no rational basis for that conclusion (i.e. the issue is clearly still under dispute).
Your behaviour in this regard is strongly reminiscent of that of creationists. You attack a scientist not on the basis of their work, but on the basis of a completely unverified anecdotal narrative that has been constructed by a critic. Instead of focusing on the science, you focus on completely subjective claims about the behaviour of the scientist – as though his reluctance to deal with creationists somehow indicates a lack of scientific rigor.
You are not arguing in good faith here. You are simply trying to enforce the primacy of your preconceived views over Michael’s.
Mondo: Michael has now provided you with evidence that casts doubt on this claim.
What evidence? Critical examination of Briffa’s paper was delayed for many years by Briffa’s antics.
During those years Briffa’s work was not science, but unverifiable assertion.
When he was finally compelled to release the data (and he hasn’t yet released it all) Briffa’s work was shown to be flawed.
If you want to see an example of Creationist anti-scientific thinking, see the comment from the head of Briffa’s unit at East Anglia Phil Jones:
My initial point was that unverifiable assertion is not science and should not be relied upon to make policy decisions of great magnitude. Nothing you or Michael have said has addressed this point.
SB you don’t even understand the journal guidelines so why do you keep commenting on them?
The journals distuinguish between data produced in the study being published and other measurement data that might be used. It’s the former that must be made available at the time of publication, not the latter. Briffa did so. Different policies apply to the latter.
McIntyre was asking for the latter, apparently not understanding the difference, or bothering to check the relevant journals guidelines on the matter.
Briffa acted in accordance with the journals guidelines.
If McIntyre really has anything of substance to say he would either write a commentary to the relevant journal or submit a manuscript.
and serious flaws in his methodology were identified
Here is the response (found online) by Briffa to McIntyre’s claimes that his science is wrong. Note that, unlike your dishonest representation above SB, flaws in his methodology have only been claimed by McIntyre – they have not been established:
The basis for McIntyre’s selection of which of our (i.e. Hantemirov and Shiyatov’s) data to exclude and which to use in replacement is not clear but his version of the chronology shows lower relative growth in recent decades than is displayed in my original chronology. He offers no justification for excluding the original data; and in one version of the chronology where he retains them, he appears to give them inappropriate low weights. I note that McIntyre qualifies the presentation of his version(s) of the chronology by reference to a number of valid points that require further investigation. Subsequent postings appear to pay no heed to these caveats. Whether the McIntyre version is any more robust a representation of regional tree growth in Yamal than my original, remains to be established.
In other words the conflict is one that has yet to be resolved. Whether Briffa’s science was flawed or not remains an open question – but not to you SB.
You are a McIntyre ‘believer’. You have accepted his version of the dispute as absolutely correct – displaying a startling lack of scepticism in the process.
I think that most regular readers of this blog will be able to deduce the reason you have so comprehensively aligned yourself with only one side of this debate.
Michael: Briffa acted in accordance with the journals guidelines.
No he didn’t. He didn’t archive his data at the time of submission of his paper.
Mondo
I was trying to be moderate using ‘flaws’ rather than stronger words. Clearly Briffa’s failure to specify his selection criteria is a flaw.
My initial point was that unverifiable assertion is not science and should not be relied upon to make policy decisions of great magnitude. Nothing you or Michael have said has addressed this point.
SB you are confusing Briffa’s data – ie the stuff he produced in the course of his research, with the Russians data -i they stuff they produced.
Briifa is responsible for the former not the latter. That material was published with his article.
It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat on error, it still wrong. Maybe if I express it mathematically you’ll get it;
1 x 0=0,
10 x 0 is still 0.
Michael that was the excuse Science used for not requiring Briffa to cough up the data. The Royal Society has higher standards and required Briffa to release the data he relied on in his work.
The fact that it was a Russian series was irrelevant to the Royal Society, but unfortunately not to Science.
My initial point was that unverifiable assertion is not science and should not be relied upon to make policy decisions of great magnitude. Nothing you or Mondo have said has addressed this point.
Science following their own editorial guidelines does not amount to an “excuse”.
Perhaps if Mcintyre wasn’t so obnoxious he might get something other than a strictly by-the-rules response.
Being such a stickler for ‘raw data’, maybe Steve could release all the multitude of emails he claims to have hounded people with. Might shed some interesting light.
There is quite a bit of the correspondence on his site. he certainly publishes all data and the relevant code to support his calcs.
I think the emails might show Steve in a none too flattering light.
My initial point was that unverifiable assertion is not science and should not be relied upon to make policy decisions of great magnitude.
If I’ve been avoiding this point it’s only because it is so straightforward and so basic as to almost constitute a tautology. It is the entire basis for the discussion here, and I had assumed that we were all operating from the basic assumption that scientific theory must be open to scrutiny and verification in order to be valid.
The argument is, of course, not about whether unverifiable assertions’ make good science. The argument is about whether Briffa did, in fact, make an unverifiable assertion – or, to correct your loose use of language SB, an ‘unverified’ assertion (it is, of course, verifiable).
You believe that he did, and you appear to make this claim based purely on the assertions of a single climate change sceptic who runs an anti-AGW blog. You accept most of McIntyre’s claims at face value, which is why you continue to stubbornly insist that sinister concealment of data has occurred when you can’t possibly know that to be true (especially given that an innocent and plausible explanation has been offered).
In short – you ‘ve picked a side. You have a preferred outcome based not on the science, but on your antipathy towards those supporting one side of the debate.
Mondo, Briffa’s work was unverifiable until he published the data on which his study was based. Before that there was no certainty as to which data he used. D’Arrigo had a similar problem.
As to being a single instance, I have cited other examples of evasive Hockey Team behaviour above, including Phil Jones’ remarkably revealing comment.
I originally picked a side – pro AGW. Now, like many people I’ve moved away from AGW. The Hockey Stick controversy was material in that, and McIntyre played an honourable role in that saga. Mann did himself no credit at all. It’s a shame you aren’t a little more open minded.
Nonsense SB.
He published his methodology along with the data that he produced and provided the source of the measurment data that he’d utilised.
Enough for anyone with half a brain to follow, and all in accordance with the journals publication guidelines.
McIntyre wants to blame everyone else for his inability to comprehend.
He didn’t publish the selection criteria he used to choose his data. That in itselfis a major defect.
McIntyre has done good work, resulting in others amending their own work. The hockey team has been obstructive, and juvenile. Gavin Schmidt’s referring to himself in the third person at Climate Audit was hilarious.
Climate Audit is much more open, reasonable and considered than the nest of childish vipers at Real Climate.
SB,
The idea of publishing is that so others can see, understand, and if they wish , replicate.
But that leaves out a vital assumption – the others are actually ‘others in that and related scientific fields’.
They could throw all the data in the world at me, but it would be highly unlikely I could re-do it. Why?, because i don’t have all the requesite detailed background knowledge of that scientific field. I guess if I read all the references, and all their references etc etc, I’d be getting there. But scientists are not glorified statisticians.
McIntyre does not have this knowledge either. But when he runs in to problems, it’s all the scientists fault for not holding his hand through the entire process and telling him exactly what must be done.
He’s a stats man who’s over-reached and got himself lost. If he knew how to do temp record reconstructions with proxies, he’d be submitting articles to the relevant journals, not writing a blog full of opinions.
Statistics is highly relevant to climate change models. Presumably this is why McIntyre is an IPCC reviewer.
McIntyre has made valuable contributions to the debate. As the Wegman report noted:
Note that Wegman was discussing Mann’s hockey stick graph which was famously used by Al Gore and the IPCC to make their case. In many ways it was the centrepiece of AGW alarmism for many years, until Mann was finally gave up his information.
Naturally McIntyre is hated by AGW partisans.
“McIntyre is an IPCC reviewer…” – SB
LOL.
No really, LOL.
You’re jumped the shark with this SB.
I’m an IPCC reviewer too. You do know that this is meaningless don’t you? To be an ‘IPCC reviewer’ you just needed to formaly request a copy of the reports. Heck, my cat could be an ‘IPCC reviewer’.
And Wegman! A politcal witch-hunt instigated by US Republicans. But you’re all down on the processes of reputable science journals!
Is your gullibility endless?
ahem ….you’ve jumped the shark…..
Although I understand that sneering assertion is at the core of your style, presumably because it plays well with your audience of this world, I don’t get your jump the shark comments.
I noted that statistics was highly relevant to climate modelling. You didn’t dispute that.
I noted that McIntyre was an IPCC reviewer. You think that is of little moment. Fine. Whatever. It is hardly the linchpin of my argument.
I quoted the Wegman report, which you seem to think is some sort of GOP witch-hunt. There seems to be a pattern of ad hominem abuse against everyone you disagree with.
The National Academy of Sciences Report also supported the McIntyre criticisms of Mann’s work. Are they also GOP witch-hunters?
I don’t know what else I can say in reply to your vacuous trolling.
Stats are very important in medicine too SB – care to have one operate on you??
Sorry about the ‘jump the shark ‘ – it is a bit obscure. Originally a phrase in reference to TV shows and their demise, it is gaining a general meaning of reaching a low point of absurdity.
As for Wegman – we have a non-climate scientist holding forth on climate science at the behest of a bunch of politicians hostile to the findings of climate scientists. I guess you could get an even-handed result from that, but the results said otherwise.
And the NAS report basically confirmed Mann’s findings and most importantly, this report that you refer to, agrees that the recent warming is due to the activities of man, or in their cautious language it ‘can’t be explained by natural variation such as solar activity, volcanoes etc’. (my paraphrase).
If you need any more sneering, just ask.
Michael if I was evaluating an epidemiological study I would be interested in what a statistician had to say about the methodology.
Given that a lot of climate science involves taking the data of others, analysing it and building models I would have thought that statistics was highly relevant.
And the NAS report basically confirmed Mann’s findings and most importantly, this report that you refer to, agrees that the recent warming is due to the activities of man, or in their cautious language it ‘can’t be explained by natural variation such as solar activity, volcanoes etc’. (my paraphrase).
Again, you have dodged the issue. I referenced the NAS report as finding that McIntyre’s criticisms of Mann were legitimate. Your paraphrase does not address that issue.
But the report doesn’t say that.
So how is it that I’ve dodged the issue???????
Michael: So how is it that I’ve dodged the issue???????
Like this:
I said:
McIntyre’s criticisms of main were mainly about the methods employed. Thus the report said stuff like:
That seems to me like the committee saying that M&M had valid points. This is at odds with your characterisation of McIntyre.
You dodged that issue by talking about the overall conclusion of the NAS report, and ignoring the fact that the report “supported McIntyre’s criticisms of Mann’s work”.
Thus you avoided having to concede that McIntyre has produced valid criticisms of Mann’s methodology.
It was a whole lot more convenient for you to dodge that issue by referring to another part of the report which isn’t particularly relevant to the point I was making.
“Some of these criticisms [M&Ms] are more relevant than others…”
Ain’t that the truth – ie. much of it was rubbish and what wasn’t was already well known.
Heck, did you even read Mann’s first papers? That’s what he said about his own results – they were preliminary results with lower confidence levels and would need to be verified by further studies using more proxies in an effort to seek more certainty before his findings could be confirmed.
By the time M&M came out with their quibbles, the real scientists had been busy doing the work Mann had suggested and where publishing papers confirming Mann’s initial results while addressing the deficiences.
The NAS report confirmed that the reconstructions of Mann et al are an accurate reflection of climate trends.
McIntyre’s quibbles are irrelevent to the science. No wonder he’s stuck to blogging since then.
“Much of it was rubbish” is your spin. What McIntyre did was to show that the principal components analysis adopted by Mann was flawed. This is not simply a matter of getting some more data together, it goes to the methods employed by Mann.
The excuse of ‘Oh we said there could be problems in our work’ is being played out again in the Yamal controversy where Briffa is now talking about an earlier reference by him to problems which may arise from “inhomogeneous sources”. I don’t regard the Yamal debate as settled. The controversy is still going on.
The issue with both Mann and Briffa is that if even they acknowledged “lower confidence levels” in their work or problems which may arise from “inhomogoneous sources”, why was their work used so vociferously by Gore and the IPCC to bash us with the mantra that the “science was settled”?
Surely even you can see that I might feel a little cheated and a little more sceptical about AGW if the showpiece research, which everyone said was settled, was in fact subject to qualification by the authors. This coupled with the difficulties of obtaining data relied on by the Hockey Team (“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” ) is enough to give any reasonable person pause.
Your response of out and out ridicule doesn’t help. The most effective responses to McIntyre are those that are purely dispassionate.
My spin? – no, the report you referred to, stating that some of M&M criticisms are irrelevant.
And of course you’re missing the big picture. After considering all the criticisms, such as McIntyres’, this very cautious summary comes to the conclusion that recent warming is unprecendented in the last 400 yrs, possibly longer, that Mann’s initial results have been confirmed and strengthened, and that the observed warming has no natural cause.
But, for the irrational denialists, what they somehow take out of all this that McIntyre has “broken the hockey stick” and disproven Mann’s findings.
Michael:
Yes, your spin. What the report said was that some points where more relevant than others. It didn’t say that any of them were irrelevant. In fact it said:
You need to read more carefully – that phrase was in respect to the totality of all criticisms, and having taken in to account all of them, went on to say – unprecedented warming, no natural causes.
You’ve exemplified the problem of the denialists quite nicely – an obsessive focus on a tiny detail to the exclusion of the overall picture. It’s like someone glued to a microscope parked on top of an elephant and exclaiming – ‘what ever it is, it’s hairy!’.
The issue you have chosen to raise is that of McIntyre’s credibility. I was, at this stage, demonstrating the role of McIntyre in highlighting errors in Mann’s methodology. Undoubtedly McIntyre did that.
Instead of admitting you were egregiously spinning, you now move on to a new argument – that bad method + right conclusions = good science.
The first step is to admit that McIntyre had a valid point, and that the IPCC, Gore and the peer reviewers for that matter did not pick up the errors in Mann’s work before trumpeting that ‘the science’ was settled. Once we have got past this it might be appropriate to discuss the bigger picture.
I note that you have studiously avoided my bigger picture, namely that unverifiable assertion is not a good basis for far-reaching policy. You have stuck studiously to defaming McIntyre, and now when it is clear that he has, in fact, made a useful contribution you want to move on to another argument without admitting to the defects in your initial position.
Hmmm.
McIntyte’s single, solitary, tiny contribution to whole debate has you transfixed, while the entire mass of research papers on climate science, spanning dozens of institutions, and hundreds of scientists you dismiss as “unverifibable assertions”.
If McIntyre had anything of substance to conribute, he’d be writing his own papers. If he could improve the feild of knowledge, he’d team up with climate scientists to improve the methods.
But he prefers the instant gratification of the blog to the hard slog of real science.
But he prefers the instant gratification of the blog to the hard slog of real science.
That, Michael, is pure GOLD – can I steal it?
Typically unbalanced, Michael. You are totally unable to concede any virtue at all in the hated McIntyre. Your ‘single, solitary, tiny’ comment is more a description of your lone brain cell than a fair comment on McIntyre’s work
He did expose Mann’s flawed methodology and, although the matter is not yet settled, he has raised serious issues with the way Briffa treated the Yamal results. This could well see the end of the spaghetti monsters.
One useful thing McIntyre has done is to expose the extent of the unwillingness of the Hockey Team to make public the data that underlies their research. This indicates that much of their work is unverifiable assertion, and no basis for the formulation of policy.
Meanwhile you can keep on bleating that “the science is settled, the science is settled, the science is settled”. The trouble is it is not. In fact much of it isn’t science at all.
If McIntyre has more than one paper in a real journal, I stand corrected.
McIntyre thinks he’s done some major debunking but the facts don’t support that. Since Mann’s original work, subsequent papers have verified his findings, using different data, expanded sets and various methodologies.
The problem with McIntyre is that he seems to equate the possibility of an alternative way as proof in itself that the original approach was wrong. There’s more than one way to skin a cat. But McIntyre takes it even a step further and accuses scientists of deliberate fraud, sometimes directly, other times via insinuation.
The main game is being played by scientists and McIntyre is on the sidelines screaming obscenities.
If his ideas were as earth-shattering as he says, he’s be publishing them. While he continues to act in a contemptuous manner, he will be generally treated with contempt (Keith Briffa excepted, who responded with exemplary politeness to McIntyre’s disgraceful accusations of fraud) .
Show me where McIntyre made a disgraceful accusation of fraud against Briffa, you old shark-jumper.
In fact McIntyre has been polite, as in this quote:
This is typical of McIntyre’s approach. Needless to say Real Climate has not offered McIntyre the same courtesy.
“To what extent is the Yamal HS a product of the selection process….?” – SM
“…the data affected by CRU cherrypicking…” – SM
“They cherry pick sites, but don’t cherry pick trees within a site” – SM
The ever polite Steve, ever prefering snide insinuation, is suggesting they deliberately choose particular data values that would deliver a preconceived result – when applied to a scientific publication is an allegation of fraud.
Though he did forget himself a little in comments (see 2nd above) where he said plainly what he had tried to imply in the initial post.
Though as you note above, he did later try to backpeddle and pretend that it was everyone else who was saying “cherry-pick” and not him. Backpeddle – yes, apologise – no.
So,that’s not politeness, it’s unctousness.
There are repeated claims of this type, with McIntyre suugesting that scientists are picking data with the explicit purpose of producing a particular result.
McIntyre = scumbag.
The first comment is hardly a disgraceful accusation of fraud, as the selection process is at the heart of the matter, and an obvious topic for discussion.
McIntyre did say what he meant by cherry-picking. His use of ‘cherry-picking’ is not sinister as you make it out to be, it is neutral.
McIntyre did say at the outset of the recent controversy back in September:
I suppose that is just another case of ever prefering snide insinuation,?
Meanwhile if you want scumbags and dripping cynicism, just toddle over to Real Climate, where the ‘real scientists’ show how it is done.
Cherry-picking is an accusation of deliberately producing a desrired result – scientific fraud.
Ans after predicting his insinuations would cause “rash language” they of course did, and as my example shows, McIntyre was one of the indulgents. In fact it casued a whole stream of bile and invective from the denialists with broad accusations of deliberate fraud agianst scientists. McIntyre eventually made some mealy-mouthed comments about how the stream of wild accusations weren’t supported by his comments, but as your quote plainly states, he knew his band of screeching monkeys would do exactly this.
Nice.
Michael:
As the quotes above demonstrate McIntyre made plain what he meant by cherry-picking, and it wasn’t scientific fraud.
Cherry picking implies deliberately selecting, in this case data which matched regional temperature records. That is not scientific fraud, although it may well be a flawed method, as you end up comparing unlike things.
Oh I see, he defends himself on the use of ‘cherry-picking’ on the basis that, while we know what cherry-picking means, when he uses the term it doesn’t mean ‘cherry-picking’, but something else. And re-defined retrospectively, of course.
The phrase “cherry-picking” entails deliberate selection based on some pre-determined criterion, in the case of cherries this criterion might be that the cherries are ripe. In the case of Briffa’s data the pre-determined criterion was consistency with existing temperature records.
You are cherry-picking McIntyre’s statements so that you can take them out of context, and construe them in accordance with your own pre-determined judgments about McIntyre.
I apologise for cherry-picking McIntye’s use of the term “cherry-picking” (eg. “CRU cherrypicking”), since when he uses “cherry-picking” he clearly doesn’t mean cherry-picking, but something else that definitely is not cherry-picking.
But just to be clear, when you accuse me of “cherry-picking”, are you saying that I’m deliberately selecting data elements that produce a preferred result, or are you saying I’ve done a McIntyre cherry-pick, which is a totally above board method of data selection, which can be called cherry-picking but isn’t actually cherry-picking?
He explained what he meant. You, being addicted to spin rather than reason, just chose to ignore that bit.
the funny thing with the cherry picking in Yamal is that by picking the cores that correlate to the known temperature, only one outcome is possible (the blade of the hockey stick), and it is known in advance.
Ultimately this fails the giggle test because there is no longer a comparison between like things.
Yes, I got that, cherry-picking is not cherry-picking when McIntyre says so.
And now you’re at it too.
Since you’re so keen on blogs on this issue, can I suggest that instead of reading a blog by someone who doesn’t have any expertise in the topic (ie. McIntyre) , maybe you’d be interested (long shot, I know) in a blog written by someone in the field,
http://delayedoscillator.wordpress.com/
What do you think Briffa meant by this: