1,000 years of climate data confirms Australia's warming

by serf Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:18

"Thus, in a just-published US National Science Foundation-funded study, participants' science knowledge and numeracy was tested and compared with levels of concern regarding climate change. The soft-studies profs were amazed, however, to find that as one moves up the scale of science knowledge and numeracy, people become more sceptical, not less.

According to the profs, this is not because the idea of imminent carbon-driven catastrophe is perhaps a bit scientifically suspect. Rather it is because people classed as "egalitarian communitarians" (roughly speaking, left-wingers) are always highly concerned about climate change, and become slightly more so as they acquire more science and numeracy. Unfortunately, however, "hierarchical individualists" (basically, right-wingers) are quite concerned about climate change when they're ignorant: but if they have any scientific, mathematic or technical education this causes them to become strongly sceptical.

As scientific/tech knowledge and numeracy appears to be more common among "hierarchical individualists" than among "egalitarian communitarians", this meant that in the sample as a whole the effect of more scientific knowledge and numeracy was to increase scepticism."

So it appears left wingers become more concerned, wheras right wingers become more sceptical when both groups are given more science and numeracy, so teaching science and math is no guarantee of success in the matter of creating more general awareness of climate change.

you conveniently left out some of the article RS/LB. The article is actually not anti climate change per se. It's just sceptical of the use of tactics the "anti" brigade have been using for years on an unsuspecting public being considered for use by the "pro" brigade out of sheer frustration at the failure of increased science and numeracy to convince people about climate change. Rightly so.

It's sad to see how stupid people can be but still we shouldn't sink to your level RS/LB!!!. ;-)

However, watching lemmings run off a cliff en masse and feeling powerless, does make some scientists (wrongly) consider contemplating even the underhand tactics used for years by people like JoNova and her friends the koch brothers (and your good self LB!), for the overall good of humanity, because they are VERY effective

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_mat...ical/

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:10

Glad to see any mild comment that challenges your pontifications can still heat your athmospherics.

As for 'saving the earth'(oh how you do love to impute)..there wil,be plenty of earth left to cover my bones. Thats enough for anyone.

me and serf probably share an inclination not to think it possible to learn anything from a pedantic and up-tight ideologue with an agenda protruding from his prow..especially when he attributes an agenda to any questioner which they have not displayed and which does not represent their positions.

I'll leave the dishonesty measure, as per, to the eye of the readers.

And would you be Kinsale or Shellmullet yerself?Distinkt whiff of H2S.

by Lord Byron Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:10

can be found here: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.a...c.png

And that is just the sea Ice - the land Ice (the ICECAP Opie) is also growing

Antarctica constitutes 90% of the worlds ice

A graph showing just how mis-informed people are regarding the state of the worlds Ice

by Lord Byron Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:49

all I was questioning was your evident joy at 99% of Britons believing your case 'according to the latest survey'.

Opie it's on the page here in black and white - you said "conducted by Honest Pete Sutherland in the backroom of the Wall St clubhouse."

You CLEARLY were questioning the integrity of the person carried out the survey

Why you would bother to deny what is plain for all to see is a mystery

by Lord Byron Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:46

the reported retreat of the icecaps,

One Icecap is in retreat - it constitutes about 7 % (that's SEVEN percent, for the numerically challanged)of all Ice in the world - the other Icecap is growing - it constitues about 90% (that's NINETY percent for the numerically challanged) oif all Ice in the world - But you shoiuld already know this Opie - after all I've provided you with the data that proves it many times - but you of course ignored it all, repeatedly -

If nothing else your dedication to maintaining your ignorance is impressive though.

retreat of glaciers from the Andes to the Himalayas,

Many Himalayan Glaciers are in fact growing - again you have been shown the proof but refuse to accept it - we already dealt witth this nonsense here - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/101422?search_text=anta...88046 - and here:http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaci...tains The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows

The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

-

you of course didn't read it despite commenting on it - something both you and serf do frequently - how either of you hope to ever learn anything about anything is a complete mystery

extinctions of species What? Seriously - wtf are you talking about ? Wtf does that have to do with Global Warrming -
You appear to be seriously confused as to what constitutes 'Pollution/Environmental' issues, and what constitutes examples of 'Global Warming'.

eradication of life in the oceans - WTF? What have the greenies been pumping into that little head of yours Opie -

a lie put out by those 'green' idiots?

Well just look at the things above which you have claimed are happening almost none of them are true - So it's quite obvious , who the liar here is.

You really will believe just about anything, won't you Opie, as long as the person spouting such nonsense says they want to 'save the earth'

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Fri Jun 29, 2012 09:32

Its all your adamant certainty again. Despite what you wrote, I come with no preconceived opinion, and would be open to your argument if your presentation were less dogmatic.

Is not scepticism a scientific virue, and certainty of absolutes a vice?Or do your charts supersede relativity?If so, congratulations..I'll call the Nobel commitee.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Fri Jun 29, 2012 09:27

Settle down there...all I was questioning was your evident joy at 99% of Britons believing your case 'according to the latest survey'.

For all your scientism...you do come across like a frustrated Madisone Avenue exec trying to sell margarine or whiter than white toothpaste..

Your vitriolic response wasn't very scientific. I had expected you to just refer me to the earlier barrage of 'facts and figures', but at least see my point as to the sloppyness of THAT post.

Oh and by the way, I'm sure the deck hands on the Titanic would have shown you charts to prove we were well south of the icebergs. Answer me a question and I might even consider your evidence....is the reported retreat of the icecaps, movement north of growing belts, retreat of glaciers from the Andes to the Himalayas, extinctions of species and eradication of life in the oceans a lie put out by those 'green' idiots?
I'm quite close to the oil industry myself just at the minute, and they are rubbing their hands with glee at the retreating ice and its prospects for extraction.

Simple enough?

by Lord Byron Thu Jun 28, 2012 23:58

Climate Alarmists Vs. REALITY - Reality WINS !!

Contrary to Alarmist predictions, higher degrees of science literacy and numeracy are associated with a decrease in the perceived seriousness of climate change risks.

Perception Vs. Reality - the graph on the left was what the Climate Alarmists wanted to find - On the right is what they actually found -

by Lord Byron Thu Jun 28, 2012 23:48

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_mat...ical/

"A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens.

The results of the survey are especially remarkable as it was plainly not intended to show any such thing: Rather, the researchers and trick-cyclists who carried it out were doing so from the position that the "scientific consensus" (carbon-driven global warming is ongoing and extremely dangerous) is a settled fact, and the priority is now to find some way of getting US voters to believe in the need for urgent, immediate and massive action to reduce CO2 emissions. . . .

.....Thus, in a just-published US National Science Foundation-funded study, participants' science knowledge and numeracy was tested and compared with levels of concern regarding climate change. The soft-studies profs were amazed, however, to find that as one moves up the scale of science knowledge and numeracy, people become more sceptical, not less.

Given that the profs had assumed from the start that scepticism is wrong, this forced them to the conclusion that simply teaching people more science and giving them more facts and numbers is not a good idea as it will lead them into bad (sceptical) decisions"

Opus and Serf can download this new study which is published by Nature Climate Change here. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fu....html

Opus' thoughts on the methedology etc should be most enlightening . . . . . .

by Lord Byron Thu Jun 28, 2012 23:34

conducted by Honest Pete Sutherland in the backroom of the Wall St clubhouse.

You can download the PDF, with results and methodology, here - http://www.angus-reid.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/20...e.pdf

You could of course download it and study the methodolgy and tell us all where the survey gets it wrong.

But of course we all know that, like your fellow denier of reality Serf, you'll do no such thing.

Despite all the info you have been provided with, both of you will still continue to deny reality,

it is after all the defining characteristic of people such as yourself and serf that despite all the copious amount of waffle you both spout about 'the Science' and how it should be practiced, both of you have gone to astounding lenghts to avoid dealing with any of it - which I spose is only to be expected when, as in the case of you and Serf, your moitivation is the furtherance of a political agenda,

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Thu Jun 28, 2012 18:02

conducted by Honest Pete Sutherland in the backroom of the Wall St clubhouse.

All your statement proves(if its true) is that the greenwash PR is working. Canutesville.

by Lord Byron Thu Jun 28, 2012 17:10

"Snowing people under in more and more shite than can ever be verified"

That's the thing though - It all can be verified -

YOIu claiming that it can't be verified is completely dishonest nonsense

You've been supplied with source references for Original graphs and for Temperture data - - but you just refuse to do it, prefferring instead to DENY REALITY.

Good luck with that

by LB Thu Jun 28, 2012 17:05

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/28/climate_survey_...nada/

In Britain, global warming skeptics now outnumber believers

Fewer Britons than ever support the proposition that global warming is caused by human-driven CO2 emissions, according to the latest survey.

Some 48 per cent of Britons now agree with the suggestion that warming could be "mostly natural" and that the idea of it being human-caused has yet to be proven. By comparison only 43 per cent agree with the idea that warming is "mostly" caused by industrial and vehicular CO2 emissions.

by serf Wed Jun 20, 2012 23:09

"People might then wonder about why Serf completely refuses to address the content of the graph."

Perhaps because wheras all the data on the original graph has been treated and scaled according to a precise published methodology which can be verified, I have absolutely no reason to trust the wavy red line tacked on by JoNova has been subject to any rigor whatsoever, never mind the exact same methodology, scaling processes etc. as the rest of the IPCC data in the graph. It's just a red wavy line essentially.

However I DO know for certain that JoNova only has only done research in muscular dystrophy not mathematics. I also know she has taken money from Heartland institute and the koch brothers. Neither of which inspires confidence to say the least!!

Snowing people under in more and more shite than can ever be verified while certainly a standard technique for astroturfing on the internet, is not convincing anyone here RS.

Climate change is almost universally accepted at this stage by scientists.

Here's an interesting table containing, in the left column, all the organisations that consider humanity is driving climate change and in the right column all those that do not.

http://getenergysmartnow.com/2012/02/20/climate-change-...able/

I guess that puts you in the right column mr fake scientist, along with the "american association of petroleum geologists" that is. :-D

Funny, most other "real scientists" seem to be in the left column.

by Lord Byron Wed Jun 20, 2012 12:30

As predicted you of course once again ignore the content of the graph from JoNova.

As predicted you once again try to distract from the FACT that despite all your childish name calling and all your ranting relating to funding and oil co's, you have yet to point out ANY inaccuracy in ANY of the graphs posted.

The amount of effortt you are expending in order to distract from the fact that you are ignoring RELAITY is quite astounding

Four Graphs have been posted in recent comments - you have chosen to ignore what they all show -

All four compare 'predictions' by climate scientists versus the REALITY of the recent Temperature record.

You've been given sources for temp data and Climate Model 'predictions'. You could easily check to see if any of the graphs are falsliy reprseenting the Temp data or the Climate Model 'predictions'.

But you have not done so nor will you do so, because then you would be confronted with REALITY which seems to be contradicting some of the main tenets of the new religion of Catastrophic Human-Caused Global Warming which you appear to have signed up to

It is obvious to any intelligent and sane individual that cares to look that the 'predictions' produced by the Models used by 'scientists' such as James Hansen and many of the authors at Real Climate are diverging significantly from REALITY

The fact that you seem to think that reposting the same graph but with the addition of some outlining in yellow and insertion of the word 'denier', is some sort of intellignet coherent argument or rebuttal is a little mystifying.

But it doesn't change thae FACT that despite all your childish name calling and all your ranting relating to funding and oil co's, you have yet to point out ANY inaccuracy in ANY of the graphs posted.

Here, in REALITY, the Climate is not behaving as the Climate 'Scientists' said it would.

Here, in REALITY, it is obvious that the Climate 'Scientists' lack the understanding to make any 'predicitions' about future climate.

You can ignore REALITY if you wish

You can Deny REALITY if you wish

but ranting at everyone else because they won't follow you along in your denial of REALITY is asking a bit much

by serf Wed Jun 20, 2012 11:27

Here is the graph I posted

science courtesy of IPCC. extra bit grafted on, courtesy of paint package and dodgy climate denier

by Lord Byron Tue Jun 19, 2012 11:22

Serf: "I did point out that you were using a graph with some extra stuff tacked on in a paint package which was not on the IPCC site, even though yourself and others were palming it off all over the internet as their data. "

The Graph graph at the bottom of this comment is the graph posted on Indymedia which Serf is referring to. At the time of original posting it was clearly stated that the graph had temp data grafted onto it - a common practice in all branches of Science, irrespective of Serf's thoughts on the matter, such as they are.

Here is the link to the origianl graph DIRECT from the IPPC website itself, which I provided to Serf months ago, - http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig....html

Serf was provided with original graph used as mentioned above, clearly available at the IPCC website, contrary to what Serf is claiming above -

IMHO no honest or sane person would claim that the original graph did not come from the IPCC and expect to be believed,

it clearly does come from the IPCC, given that the URL says 'IPCC.ch".

NB: ALL graphs posted, irrespective of source, comparing Climate Scientist 'predictions' versus REALITY are ALL clearly in general agreemnet - The 'predictions' of the Climate 'Scientists' are starkly diverging from reality and therefore the Models which produce such 'predictions' are clearly not fit for the purpose.

Graph, from 2007, of Temp 'predictions' from year 2000 onwards, with actual REAL post-2000 Temp data grafted on

by Lord Byron Tue Jun 19, 2012 10:36

Here is a graph of Global Heat content 'predictions' from James Hansen, compaered to Relaity

One can plainly see that Hansen and REALITY arte diverging sharply

Source for actual Ocean Temp data is the Argo Ocean-Bouy network

Global Ocean Heat Content - James Hansen versus REALITY - Reality Wins again!

by Lord Byron Tue Jun 19, 2012 10:25

hopefully this one will be legible

Darling of the Global Warming Alarmists, James Hanson, versus Reality - Reality Wins!!

by Lord Byron Tue Jun 19, 2012 10:21

James Hansen´s predictions versus observations http://www.kaltesonne.de/?p=4006
Jan-Erik Solheim
Oslo, Norway, June 10, 2012
Professor(emeritus)

One of the most important papers in the history of the climate alarm is published by J. Hansen and collaborators in Journal of Geophysical Research (1988). The title is ”Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies”.

In this paper they present the GISS model II to simulate the global climate effects of time-dependent variations of atmospheric trace gases and aerosols. They demonstrate the effect of 3 scenarios:

• A : Increase of 1.5% CO2 emissions per year
  
• B: Approximate constant increase of CO2 emissions after 2000
  
• C: No increase in CO2 emissions after the year 2000

The CO2 emissions have since 2000 increased with 2.5%, which means that we should expect a more drastic temperature increase than in model A. In the figure three scenarios are shown together with the observed global temperature curve – all shown as 5 year running mean.

The arrow above scenario A is what they may have predicted with a 2.5 % CO2 increase which is observed, instead of the 1.5% in scenario A. However, the observed temperature increase is about 0.6C, while the predicted increase is about 1.5C.

We must conclude that the simulations of 1988 have failed 150%. The sorry state of affairs is that these simulations are believed to be a true forecast by our politicians.

++++++++++++

The graph below: Temperature forecast by Hansen's group from the year 1988. The various scenarios are

• 1.5% increase in CO2 (blue),
  
• constant increase in CO2 emissions (green) and
  
• stagnant CO2 emissions (red).

In reality: CO2 emissions increased by as much as 2.5%, which would correspond to the scenario above the blue curve. The black curve is the ultimate real-measured temperature (rolling 5-year average).

Hansen's model overestimates the temperature by 1.9 ° C, which is a whopping 150% wrong. Figure supplemented by Hansen et al. (1988).

Darling of the Global Warming Alarmists, James Hanson, versus Reality - Reality Wins!!

by Lord Byron Tue Jun 19, 2012 10:11

SO do plese try and point out the innaccuracies, if any, in the graph in question.

NB: the sources used are clearly detailed at the bottom of the graph - anyone, even Serf, can go to the sources and double-check to see if JoNova was misrepresenting the data in question.

Anyone one that bothers to do so (* obviously not Serf, since he's had ample opportunity to do so before now and has chosen not to) can plainly see that her graph is an accurate protrayal of the data in question.

People might then wonder about why Serf completely refuses to address the content of the graph.

A Graph showing how completely useless leading Climate Scientists turned out to be when it comes to 'predicting' future climate/temp

by Lord Byron Tue Jun 19, 2012 09:39

I'm frankly a little surprised that you are pimping then now as evidence of some wrong-doing on my part.

Given your behaviour in those threads I personally would have thought that you'd actually not want people to see either thread

Actually the fact that you seem to think those threads make me look bad is kinda worrying and makes me wonder about your actual ability to perceive reality

by Lord Byron Tue Jun 19, 2012 09:31

"Well I did point out that you were using a graph with some extra stuff tacked on in a paint package which was not on the IPCC site, even though yourself and others were palming it off all over the internet as their data.

That was pretty "unscientific" of you and I'm sure JoNova got a few more dollars from the koch brothers for her troubles."

Nothing 'unscientific' in that at all - that mere fac that you claim it is is just more evidence of your unfamiliarity with things scientific - You were given numerous such graphs where you were usually also given the source of the original graph as well as the source for the later grafted temps - That way you could check for yourself - for some strange reason you deliberatelt chose not to - preferring instaed to rant about funding and make sly7 accusations.

Irrespective of whatever you claim about JoNova, the FACT remains that despite aLL the silly childish bluster and name calling form Serf, the poor craytur has beeen completely unable to find ANY innacuracy in her graphs.

Claiming that she is dishonest while being obviously completely unable to point out any dishonesty on her part, shows that it is Serf that is dishonest, not JoNova

Your clear duplicity is here for all to see.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/101422

and yet for some reason you make openly vague accusations rather than any specific charges -

Noit only did I re-read the Indymedia article itself, and found nothing for me to worry about, I also re-read this thread, http://www.indymedia.ie/article/100696
and I have to say that in both threads it is you not I that comes off looking dishonest and duplicitious

I would recommend reading both threads to anyone else that might want to see a little of Serf in full 'save-the-planet' rage - the propensity for childish behaviour on his part is not confined to this thread alone - it's how he usually reacts when this subject comes up for discussion

by serf Tue Jun 19, 2012 03:50

"Once again, as pointed out earlier, Serf is forced into childish name-calling to cover up the FACT that ONCE AGAIN he is unable to point out ANY inaacuracies in any of the graphs posted which originated from JoNova."

Well I did point out that you were using a graph with some extra stuff tacked on in a paint package which was not on the IPCC site, even though yourself and others were palming it off all over the internet as their data.

That was pretty "unscientific" of you and I'm sure JoNova got a few more dollars from the koch brothers for her troubles.

If that's any indication of your scientific integrity then you really can't be trusted at all.

Your clear duplicity is here for all to see.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/101422

Perhaps that explains why I don't take your "fake scientist" ravings seriously. You're just a con artist posing as a scientist. And not even a good one at that. Nobody is fooled by you. Don't lose the day job ok?.

by Lord Byron Tue Jun 19, 2012 01:18

Computer models utterly fail to predict climate changes in regions - http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/06/13/junk-scienc...test/

by Ross McKitrick

"A few years ago a biologist I know looked at how climate change might affect the spread of a particular invasive insect species. He obtained climate-model projections for North America under standard greenhouse-gas scenarios from two modelling labs, and then tried to characterize how the insect habitat might change. To his surprise, he found very different results depending on which model was used. Even though both models were using the same input data, they made opposite predictions about regional climate patterns in North America.

This reminded me of a presentation I’d seen years earlier about predicted changes in U.S. rainfall patterns under global warming. The two models being used for a government report again made diametrically opposite predictions. In region after region, if one model predicted a tendency toward more flooding, the other tended to predict drying.

Just how good are climate models at predicting regional patterns of climate change? I had occasion to survey this literature as part of a recently completed research project on the subject. The simple summary is that, with few exceptions, climate models not only fail to do better than random numbers, in some cases they are actually worse. . . . . . ."

Ross McKitrick is a professor of economics at the University of Guelph and an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - he has also on several occasions caused SERIOUS embarrassment to some of the authors on the blog Real Climate

by Lord Byron Tue Jun 19, 2012 00:53

As for "lord" montford. dont even bother! :-D

Of course if Serf actually knew anything about the subject he'd know that Andrew Montford is not a 'Lord' or anything of the sort. He runs a website called Bishop Hill, http://www.bishop-hill.net/, nothing more, and has to my knowledge never made any sort of claim to being a lord or anything of the sort. -

Serf is probably right now tdesperatly trying to find some Real Climnate blog post wherein Montford is falsely accussed of claiming to be a member of the British aristocracy.

BTW Bishop Hill, http://www.bishop-hill.net/ is a fantastic resource for anyone wishing to cut through the climate bullshit peddled by the likes of Serf and Real Climate -

Serf is obviously confused and has mixed him up witth someone else. So, in terms of accuracy and general knowledge of the subject, it's business as usual from Serf, as far as I can see

Since Serf posted a hit piece a few months ago on the man from some ridiculous site called 'sourcewatch' which was written almost entirely by some anonymous troll going by the delightful name of HengistMacStone' one might have thought that he'd know that already - but the that's what happens when one doesn't really know anything about what one is talking about, and has to rely entirely on copy&pasting the first thing one finds on the internet, in order to try and cover up ones lack of any useful knowledge on the subject matter.

Serf often very obviously does not even bother to read what he himself is c&p-ing from others,

The fact is you post here as "real scientist" yet you persist in quoting well known paid climate crank wank such as JoNova

Once again, as pointed out earlier, Serf is forced into childish name-calling to cover up the FACT that ONCE AGAIN he is unable to point out ANY inaacuracies in any of the graphs posted which originated from JoNova.

You're nothing if not completely predictable, Serf

by serf Tue Jun 19, 2012 00:27

don't spit your dummy RS!

settle down, take a breath then drink your medecine ok?

I don't want to be responsible for a heart attack just 'cos I outed some professional climate denier in the pay of the rich and powerful ;-)

As for "lord" montford. dont even bother! :-D

The fact is you post here as "real scientist" yet you persist in quoting well known paid climate crank wank such as JoNova

And it's really rather hilarious you quoting the rules to me when you have been so absolutely obnoxious and rude to other posters here previously. ask opus. I guess you can't take what you give others.

Now fuck off back under the rock you came from RS. I thought you were banned. (ducks!...;-)

by Lord Byron Mon Jun 18, 2012 23:45

"Funny how you have done such an about turn on jonova when you were previously citing her as evidence while abusing and ridiculing others for not accepting your evidence on previous thread."

No one has done any about turn on anything

The only reason I can think of for Serf falsely claiming I have is that it might distract attention fromn the FACT that despite all (and there has been a LOT) of ridiculous bluster and silly name calling from Serf, the poor creature has yet to point out so much as ONE error in ANY graph or anything else I have posted.

when you can find an error in any of the graphs posted do please point it out - so far you have been utterly unable to to come up with any, preferring instaed to try and distract people from your complete inability in this rregard, by childishly screaming insults and launching rather desperate (and sometimers frankly delusional) attempts at character assassination

by Lord Macintyre Mon Jun 18, 2012 23:36

Here is another Montford piece which discusses the sad attempt at distortion and dishonesty from the 'scientists' that run Real Climate, which Serf posted above
RealClimate on Yamal http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/5/11/realclimate-o....html

"Briffa, as we know, reprocessed data from Hantemirov and Shiyatov in his 2000 paper on Yamal. He used the same data again in his 2008 paper on regional chronologies. Schmidt says:

McIntyre is accusing Briffa of ‘deception’ in stating that he did not ‘consider’ doing a larger more regional reconstruction at that time. However, it is clear from the 2000 paper that the point was to show hemispheric coherence across multiple tree ring records, not to create regional chronologies. Nothing was being ‘deceptively’ hidden and the Yamal curve is only a small part of the paper in any case.

As McIntyre's article is quite clear that the Yamal regional chronology dates back only to 2006 it can of course not be relevant to the 2000 paper. This is something that he makes quite clear in his article.

One of the purposes of Briffa (2000) was clearly to demonstrate the effect of RCS methodology on the Hantemirov and Shiyatov 2002 dataset. I have no objection to CRU claiming this “purpose” for Briffa (2000).
But, by 2008, this was no longer their “purpose”.

Indeed, one doubts whether the editors of Phil Trans B would have accepted a 2008 paper with such a mundane purpose. The actual “purpose” of Briffa et al 2008 is stated quite clearly and was entirely different: it introduced and discussed “regional” chronologies.

[Real Climate] is therefore engaging in some serious disinformation. Unfortunately, this is not the only occasion. For example, he points out that McIntyre had long ago received "the data" from the Russians who originally collated it.

...at the time McIntyre was haranguing Briffa and Osborn, McIntyre had actually had the raw Yamal data for over 2 years (again, unmentioned on Climate Audit), and he had had them for over 5 years when he declared that he had finally got them in 2009 (immediately prior to "Hey Ya! (mal)" (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/h...-mal/) his accusations (again false) against Briffa of inappropriate selection of trees in his Yamal chronology).

[Real Climate] suggests that McIntyre should have assumed that the data as used by Briffa were the same as those used by the Russians. This is an interesting line of argument because of course his colleague Michael Mann has argued vociferously in the past that the only correct place to get the data is from the actual author of the paper (see the Hockey Stick Illusion Chapter 4). However, since we know that the Russians' data was not the same as Briffa's (see the core count profiles for the two versions in (http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/26/briffas-yamal-crack-...ists/) this article) Schmidt's argument again looks more like disinformation than an attempt to explain the truth."

by Lord Byron Mon Jun 18, 2012 23:33

Andrew Montofrd explains quite clearly why YAMAL and MacIntyres work IS important, and why the so-called 'scientists at Real CLimate want to continue to con people into believing that MacIntyre's work on the subject is immaterial

I won't post the whole thing - unlike some I'm not that selfish clogging up the whole page with cut&Paste because I don't know what I'm talking about, and so have to rely on C&P instead - interested readers can click on the link below.

The Yamal deception http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/5/9/the-yamal-dece....html

"The story of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick reconstruction, its statistical bias and the influence of the bristlecone pines is well known. Steve McIntyre's research into the other reconstructions of the temperatures of the last millennium has received less publicity, however. The story of the Yamal chronology may change that.

The bristlecone pines that created the shape of the Hockey Stick graph are used in nearly every millennial temperature reconstruction around today, but there are also a handful of other tree ring series that are nearly as common and just as influential on the results. Back at the start of McIntyre's research into the area of paleoclimate, one of the most significant of these was called Polar Urals, a chronology first published by Keith Briffa of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

At the time, it was used in pretty much every temperature reconstruction around. In his paper, Briffa made the startling claim that the coldest year of the millennium was AD 1032, a statement that, if true, would have completely overturned the idea of the Medieval Warm Period. It is not hard to see why paleoclimatologists found the series so alluring. . . . "

by serf Mon Jun 18, 2012 15:12

Regarding Steven Mcintyre

Yamalian yawns

Steve McIntyre is free to do any analysis he wants on any data he can find. But when he ladles his work with unjustified and false accusations of misconduct and deception, he demeans both himself and his contributions. The idea that scientists should be bullied into doing analyses McIntyre wants and delivering the results to him prior to publication out of fear of very public attacks on their integrity is ludicrous.

By rights we should be outraged and appalled that (yet again) unfounded claims of scientific misconduct and dishonesty are buzzing around the blogosphere, once again initiated by Steve McIntyre, and unfailingly and uncritically promoted by the usual supporters. However this has become such a common occurrence that we are no longer shocked nor surprised that misinformation based on nothing but prior assumptions gains an easy toehold on the contrarian blogs (especially at times when they are keen to ‘move on’ from more discomforting events).

So instead of outrage, we’ll settle for simply making a few observations that undermine the narrative that McIntyre and company are trying to put out.

First of all, it should be made clear that McIntyre’s FOI EIR requests on the subject of Yamal are not for raw data, nor for the code or analysis methodology behind a published result, but for an analysis of publicly available data that has not been completed and has not yet been published. To be clear, these requests are for unpublished work.

Second, the unpublished work in question is a reconstruction of regional temperatures from the region of Yamal in Siberia. Regional reconstructions are generally more worthwhile than reconstructions from a single site because, if there is shared variance, the regional result is likely to be more robust and be more representative – and that makes it more valuable for continental and hemispheric comparisons. The key issues are whether all the trees (or some subset of them) share a common signal (are they mostly temperature sensitive? are some localities anomalous? etc.). It isn’t as simple as just averaging all the trees in a grid box or two. The history of such efforts follows a mostly standard path – local chronologies are put together, different ‘standardisation’ techniques are applied, more data is collected, wider collations are put together, and then regional reconstructions start to appear. Places that are remote (like Yamal) have the advantage of a lack of local human interference, and plenty of fossil material, but they are tricky to get to and data collection can be slow (not least because of the political situation in recent decades).

UK FOI (and EIR) legislation (quite sensibly) specifically exempts unpublished work from release provided the results are being prepared for publication (or are incomplete). So McIntyre’s appeals have tried to insinuate that no such publication is in progress (which is false) or that the public interest in knowing about a regional tree ring reconstruction from an obscure part of Siberia trumps the obvious interest that academics have in being able to work on projects exclusively prior to publication. This is a hard sell, unless of course one greatly exaggerates the importance of a single proxy record – but who would do that? (Oh yes: YAD06 – the most important tree in the world, The global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie etc.). Note that premature public access to unpublished work is something that many people (including Anthony Watts) feel quite strongly about.

Worse, McIntyre has claimed in his appeal that the length of time since the Briffa et al (2008) paper implies that the regional Yamal reconstruction has been suppressed for nefarious motives. But I find it a little rich that the instigator of a multitude of FOI requests, appeals, inquiries, appeals about inquires, FOIs about appeals, inquiries into FOI appeals etc. is now using the CRU’s lack of productivity as a reason to support more FOI releases. This is actually quite funny.

Furthermore, McIntyre is using the fact that Briffa and colleagues responded online to his last deceptive claims about Yamal, to claim that all Yamal-related info must now be placed in the public domain (including, as mentioned above, unpublished reconstructions being prepared for a paper). How this will encourage scientists to be open to real-time discussions with critics is a little puzzling. Mention some partial analysis online, and be hit immediately with a FOI for the rest…?

The history of this oddity (and it is odd) dates back to McIntyre’s early obsession with a reconstruction called the “Polar Urals” Briffa et al. (1995). This was a very early attempt at a local multi-proxy reconstruction, using a regression of both tree-ring widths and densities. McIntyre has previously objected to observations that 1032 was a particularly cold year in this reconstruction (though it was), that the dating of the trees was suspect (though it wasn’t), and that no-one revisited this reconstruction when reprocessed chronologies became available. [Little-known fact: McIntyre and McKitrick submitted a comment to Nature complaining about the dating issues in 1995 paper around Dec 2005/Jan 2006, which was rejected upon receipt of Briffa's response (which was an attachment in the second tranche of CRU emails). Neither this submission, the rejection (for good cause), nor the Polar Urals dating issue have been mentioned on Climate Audit subsequently.]

Around this point, McIntyre got the erroneous idea that studies were being done, but were being suppressed if they showed something ‘inconvenient’. This is of course a classic conspiracy theory and one that can’t be easily disproved. Accusation: you did something and then hid it. Response: No I didn’t, take a look. Accusation: You just hid it somewhere else. Etc. However, this is Keith Briffa we are talking about: the lead author of Briffa et al, (1998)(pdf) describing the “inconvenient” divergence problem in some tree ring density records, a subject that has been described and taken up by multiple authors – Jacoby, D’Arrigo, Esper, Wilson etc. Why McIntyre thought (thinks?) that one single reconstruction was so special that people would go to any lengths to protect it, while at the same time the same people were openly discussing problems in reconstructions across the whole northern hemisphere, remains mysterious.

Similarly, McIntyre recently accused Eric Steig of suppressing ‘inconvenient’ results from an ice core record from Siple Dome (Antarctica). Examination of the record in question actually demonstrates that it has exceptionally high values in the late 20th Century (reflecting the highest temperatures in at least the last 700 years, Mayewski et al.), exactly counter to McIntyre’s theory. McIntyre made these accusations public “a couple of days” – his words – after requesting the data, since apparently university professors have nothing more pressing to do than than respond instantly to McIntyre’s requests. In short, you have to give McIntyre what he wants within 48 hours or he will publicly attack your integrity. Unsurprisingly, no apology for that unjustified smear has been forthcoming.

So on to Yamal. The original data for the Yamal series came from two Russian researchers (Rashit Hantemirov and Stepan Shiyatov), and was given to CRU for collation with other tree-ring reconstructions (Briffa, 2000). As a small part of that paper, Briffa reprocessed the raw Yamal data with the regional curve standardisation (RCS) technique. The Russians published their version of the chronology with a different standardization a little later (Hantemirov and Shiyatov, 2002). McIntyre is accusing Briffa of ‘deception’ in stating that he did not ‘consider’ doing a larger more regional reconstruction at that time. However, it is clear from the 2000 paper that the point was to show hemispheric coherence across multiple tree ring records, not to create regional chronologies. Nothing was being ‘deceptively’ hidden and the Yamal curve is only a small part of the paper in any case.

Another little appreciated fact: When McIntyre started to get interested in this, he asked Briffa for the underlying measurement data from Yamal and two other locations whose reconstructions were used in Osborn and Briffa (2006). In May 2006, Briffa politely replied:

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

Briffa was conforming to the standard protocol that directs people to the originators of data series for access to the underlying data, as opposed to the reconstructions which had been archived with the paper. McIntyre expressed great exasperation at this point, which is odd because in email 1548, McIntyre is quoted (from Sep 26, 2009 (and note the divergence in post URL and actual title)):

A few days ago, I became aware that the long-sought Yamal measurement data url had materialized at Briffa’s website – after many years of effort on my part and nearly 10 years after its original use in Briffa (2000).

To which Rashit Hanterminov responds:

Steve has an amnesia. I had sent him these data at February 2, 2004 on his demand.

Thus at the time McIntyre was haranguing Briffa and Osborn, McIntyre had actually had the raw Yamal data for over 2 years (again, unmentioned on Climate Audit), and he had had them for over 5 years when he declared that he had finally got them in 2009 (immediately prior to his accusations (again false) against Briffa of inappropriate selection of trees in his Yamal chronology).

Back to the main story. Of course, regional reconstructions are a definite goal of the dendro-climatology community and Briffa and colleagues have been working on these for years. Some of those results were published in Briffa et al (2008) as part of a special issue on the boreal forest and global change. Special issues come with deadlines, and as explained in a submission to the Muir Russell inquiry, a regional Yamal reconstruction putting together multiple sources of tree ring data was indeed ‘considered’ but wasn’t finished in time. McIntyre’s claim of deception comes from a strained reading of the MR submission (it is actually quite good reading). In response to extended (and yet again false) accusations from Ross McKitrick in the Financial Post:

Between these [two other reconstructions] we had intended to explore an integrated Polar Urals/Yamal larch series but it was felt that this work could not be completed in time and Briffa made the decision to reprocess the Yamal ring-width data to hand, using improved standardization techniques, and include this series in the submitted paper [Briffa et al., 2008].

Subsequently, in response to the issues raised by McIntyre, we explored the use of additional ring-width data local to the Yamal sub-fossil data. This work established the general validity of the published Yamal chronology information, albeit with significant statistical uncertainty, including during the medieval time and the late 20th century. [Refers to the online Oct 2009 response]

…

We still intend to publish an extended review paper that will compare and contrast features of the different published (and unpublished) versions of various regional composite chronologies in northern Eurasia and the effect on the character of climate reconstructions of calibrating them using different regression techniques.

So, Briffa et al did consider a regional reconstruction and are indeed working on it for publication, and it didn’t get into the 2008 paper due to time constraints. Clear, no?

However, a little later on in the submission, there is this paragraph:

(From McKitrick):

Thus the key ingredient in most of the studies that have been invoked to support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series, depends on the influence of a woefully thin subsample of trees and the exclusion of readily-available data for the same area.

McKitrick is implying that we considered and deliberately excluded data from our Yamal chronology. The data that he is referring to were never considered at the time because the purpose of the work reported in Briffa (2000) and Briffa et al. (2008) was to reprocess the existing dataset of Hantemirov and Shiyatov (2002).

(my highlights).

This is clearly a response to McKitrick’s unjustified accusations, and in using the reference to the 2008 paper is a little contradictory to the paragraphs above which were much more explicit about the background and purpose of the 2008 paper. However, to take a slight mis-statement in a single sentence, when copious other information was being provided in the same submission, and accusing people of deliberate deception is a huge overreach. Were they trying to deceive only the people who hadn’t read the previous page? It makes no sense at all. Instead, McIntyre conflates the situation at the time of the 2000 paper with the very different situation around 2008 in order to paint a imaginary picture of perfidy.

The one new element this week is the UK ICO partial ruling on McIntyre’s appeal for access to the (still unpublished) regional Yamal reconstruction. For reasons that are as yet unclear (since the full ICO ruling has not yet been issued), the list of components from which the regional reconstruction might be built were released by UEA. All of this data is already public domain. And of course, since Briffa et al have been working on regional reconstructions since prior to the 2008 paper it is unsurprising that they have such a list. McIntyre then quotes an email from Osborn sent in 2006 in support of his claim that the reconstructions were finished at that point, but that is again a very strained reading. Osborn only lists the areas (and grid boxes) in which regional reconstructions might be attempted since “most of the trees lie within those boxes”. It makes no statement whatsoever about the work having already been done.

McIntyre’s subsequent insta-reconstruction from the list is apparently the ‘smoking gun’ that the results are being withheld because they are inconvenient, but if any actual scientist had produced such a poorly explained, unvalidated, uncalibrated, reconstruction with no error bars or bootstrapping or demonstrations of common signals etc., McIntyre would have been (rightly) scornful. Though apparently, scientists are supposed to accept his reconstruction at face value. The irony is of course that the demonstration that a regional reconstruction is valid takes effort, and needs to be properly documented. That requires a paper in the technical literature and the only way for Briffa et al to now defend themselves against McIntyre’s accusations is to publish that paper (which one can guarantee will have different results to what McIntyre has thrown together). In the meantime, they can’t discuss it online or defend themselves because the issue with the FOI appeal is precisely their ability to work on projects prior to publication without being forced to go public before they are finished.

Finally, a couple of observations regarding the follow-through from Andrew Montford and Anthony Watts. Montford’s summary is an easier read than anything McIntyre writes, but it is clear Montford’s talents lie in the direction of fiction, not documentary work. All of his claims of “why paleoclimatologists found the series so alluring”, or that the publication “must have been a severe blow”, or “another hockey stick” was “made almost to order to meet the requirements of the paleoclimate community” and other accusations are simply products of his imagination. He also makes up claims, that for instance, McIntyre asking Briffa for the Yamal data “was, as expected, turned down flat” (not true – the actual response was given above) and he imagines even more ‘deceptions’ than McIntyre. Since he assumes the worst of the people involved, everything he sees is twisted to conform to his prior assumptions – if there is an innocent explanation, he expends no time considering it. As for Watts, the funny thing is that he immediately thinks that Michael Mann needs to answer these accusations, and attempts a twitter campaign of harassment when Mike, rightly, points out that Yamal doesn’t actually impact that much and, in any case, it has nothing to do with him at all. Watts is clearly a cheerleader for the ‘Blame Mike First’ campaign, so maybe his next post will be on why Mike is responsible for the Greek bank default (have you seen those bond yield curves?!?).

It should also go without saying that sometimes life gets in the way of work, and suggestions that academics have to work on issues according to a timetable dictated by hostile and abusive commentators is completely antithetical to the notion of free inquiry or the inevitable constraints of real life. McIntyre is of course free to do any analysis he wants, but he has no right to demand that other people do work for him under fear of highly public false accusations of dishonesty. We can nonetheless look forward to more of these episodes, mainly because they serve their purpose so well.

2-Click-Like Handler
References

K.R. Briffa, V.V. Shishov, T.M. Melvin, E.A. Vaganov, H. Grudd, R.M. Hantemirov, M. Eronen, and M.M. Naurzbaev, "Trends in recent temperature and radial tree growth spanning 2000 years across northwest Eurasia", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 363, 2008, pp. 2269-2282. DOI.
K.R. Briffa, P.D. Jones, F. Schweingruber, S. Shiyatov, and E. Cook, "Unusual twentieth-century summer warmth in a 1,000-year temperature record from Siberia", Nature, vol. 376, 1995, pp. 156-159. DOI.
K.R. Briffa, F.H. Schweingruber, P.D. Jones, T.J. Osborn, I.C. Harris, S.G. Shiyatov, E.A. Vaganov, and H. Grudd, "Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today?", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 353, 1998, pp. 65-73. DOI.
P.A. Mayewski, K.A. Maasch, J.W.C. White, E.J. Steig, E. Meyerson, I. Goodwin, V.I. Morgan, T. van Ommen, M.A.J. Curran, J. Souney, and K. Kreutz, "A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere extratropical climate variability", Annals of Glaciology, vol. 39, 2004, pp. 127-132. DOI.
K.R. Briffa, "Annual climate variability in the Holocene: interpreting the message of ancient trees", Quaternary Science Reviews, vol. 19, 2000, pp. 87-105. DOI.
R.M. Hantemirov, and S.G. Shiyatov, "A continuous multimillennial ring-width chronology in Yamal, northwestern Siberia", The Holocene, vol. 12, pp. 717-726. DOI.
T.J. Osborn, "The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years", Science, vol. 311, 2006, pp. 841-844. DOI.

It's clear from the above that Mcintyre engages in some pretty underhand behaviour.
People should be aware of this. Hence my post

Funny how you have done such an about turn on jonova when you were previously citing her as evidence while abusing and ridiculing others for not accepting your evidence on previous thread.

I guess corporate rats desert a sinking ship and find another one. Currently it's Steven mcintyre until the funding links surface. Only a mattter of time R.S. ;-)

by @Serf Mon Jun 18, 2012 07:06

http://www.indymedia.ie/editorial

#13: Continuing debates across multiple articles. Indymedia is not a bulletin board. All comments should directly relate to the article or preceding comments. Users should refrain from constantly bringing up points from previous threads, unless they have a close relevance to the new article. Users should also note that repetitive demands of another user to answer a particular question or point is a reason for deletion especially when it occurs across multiple threads.

Serf's persistent breaking of multiple editorial guidelines will probably of course be completely ignored, as usual

by R.S Mon Jun 18, 2012 05:26

"I said nothing about the paper."

yes

You said nothing about the fact that MacIntyre was completely correct.

That the flaws he pointed out were fatal to the paper in question. You preferred instead to try and smear him by quoting from the very people he has frequently discredited. hardly an unbiased source, Real Climate, since some of the the blog operators have been proven wrong several times by MacIntyre.

You said nothing about the fact that David Karoly, one of the authors, actually sent a message to Macintyre admitting that his paper was fatally flawed

For some reason instead of acknowledging the obvious, you chose to scream 'liar' at the mere mention of MacIntyre's name.

tsk tsk.

Fairly obvious that in this instance, where MacIntyre is concerned, to you screaming 'LIAR' is more important, than ever acknowledging the truth. After all even Karoly himself could do it, . . . you? not so much

Everyone knows the RealClimate people hate MacIntyre - their distaste for him is available for all to clearly see in the first tranche of Climategate emails.

One well known Climate 'Scientist' , according to his own emails, apparently openly and deliberately broke the law, relating to FOI and also encouraged others to do so, in order to hide their data and statistical methods from MacIntyre.

Probably the only reason the 'scientist' in question wasn't prosecuted is that it was discovered after the statute of limitations had expired

That's not even remotley resembling honest behaviour.

That pretty much sums up the a lot of the behaviour of the Climate 'Scientists', right there.

MacIntyre's asking for data drives the Climate 'Scientists' nuts (and you it seems) because his calm disection of their statistical errors regularly shows them to be either inept or duplicitious.

If they were open and honest about their data selection (and rejection) and were prepared to be open about the esoteric 'statistical methods' they employ, then Macintyre wouldn't have to use FOI requests to get at what should be readily available.

If this annoys you, as it appears to do - perhaps you should request from your heroes that they start to be open with their data and honest about their methods, that way MacIntyre wouldn't have to FOI them to get at info that should be readily available.

All the Climate Scientists in question are public employees, using public funding and facilities to carry out 'research' (*at least that is what they like to call it) that has major implications for public policy now and into the future. They have no business hiding data and refusing to detail statistical methodology so as to make it impossible to replicate their 'research'.

That they try to hide so much of thier 'work' from scrutiny should be a concern to any intelligent person. That they feel the need to hide anything at all ('Hide the Decline'!) causes many people to wonder just what it is that they are so ashamed of?

by serf Mon Jun 18, 2012 02:33

I said nothing about the paper.

I merely wished to fill in any readers on where you and your sources are coming from. I think it's important that people have some context and background.

Sorry if that upsets you.

by R.S Mon Jun 18, 2012 01:16

except to say that almost the whole of the of Serf's post above breaks almost every one of the site-guidelines relating to behaviour of posters.

If the editorial team were at all concerned with the reputation of the site they'd remove it immediately.

But of course, expecting them to actually live up to the rules they set, that's just me living in cloud-cuckoo land obviously

Serf has nothing but sad pathetic attempts at character assassination , as usual

Say what you like about Jo Nova but calling MacIntyre dishonest is actually astoundingly dishonest of Serf.

MacIntyre has more integrity than the whole of the AGW community combined. Certrainly far more than Serf could ever muster.

AND the paper in question WAS withdrawn. The author, Karoly, even admitted that MacIntyre's work was on of the reasons the paper HAD to be withdrawn- Notice how Serf completely ignored THAT!

Ignore the science - attack the messenger - THAT is how people like Serf behave because they have nothing of interest to say about the topic in question

by serf Sun Jun 17, 2012 23:02

Since we mentioned biographies, how about a biography for jonova whose website you directly linked to, the well known disgraced conspiracist climate skeptic funded by the heartland institute and the infamous koch brothers?

see here for details:
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/101422
We've been through this around here before but "real scientist" persists in posting his stuff here because he thinks folks around here aren't "weathered" in the ways of the climate change deniers so he thinks they'll be easy pickings. He's too shit scared to post his crap on a real climate site such as http://www.realclimate.org/ where no doubt he'd be torn a completely new asshole!

JoNova a known climate skeptic conspiracist whose research was not on climate but on muscular dystrophy and who is funded by the heartland institute and the famous billionaire koch brothers.

Here's some common knowledge about JoNova:

As a blogger Nova concentrates on disputing the existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and also covers related topics such as Peter Spencer's hunger strike against New South Wales laws on combating climate change.[11] Nova had a five-part debate on AGW with Dr Andrew Glikson, first on Quadrant Online,[12] and continuing on her own blog.[13]

Despite the support she has received from the Heartland Institute, she has downplayed the funding available to sceptics. Writing on "The Drum", ABC's current affairs website, she said "Sceptics are fighting a billion dollar industry aligned with a trillion dollar trading scheme. Big Oil's supposed evil influence has been vastly outdone by Big Government, and even those taxpayer billions are trumped by Big-Banking". She pointed out that as well as funding sceptic organisations such as the Heartland Institute, Exxon Mobil had given to carbon-friendly initiatives such as $100 million to Stanford University's Global Climate and Energy Project, and $600 million for researching biofuels.[14]
Joanne Nova and her partner David Evan's web site sciencespeak.com[1] includes presentations and other documents which postulate the existence of conspiracy and corruption in climate science[15]. The presentations and documents at the web site present evidence which has been disproved, but continues to be used by Joanne Nova both in the presentations available and also at her public speaking events[16]. For example, the poor siting of some temperature measurement stations in the USA is presented as proof that "The Western Climate Establishment is Cheating"[15], despite a reanalysis of the data by Dr Richard Muller, with preliminary results presented to the US Congress that "the warming seen in the “poor” stations is virtually indistinguishable from that seen in the “good” stations"[17]. The analysis was partly funded by "the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation"[18]. A study which contradicts the claims in Evans and Nova's document, with funding from "Oil billionaires Charles and David Koch [who] are the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning", and performed by "a longtime critic of the global warming consensus"[18] makes it unlikely that the conspiracy proposed by Evans and Nova exists[18].
Another claim in the document "Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt"[15] is that "The western climate establishment run the Argo [ocean monitoring] network, but they have made it extraordinarily difficult to obtain the ocean temperature from the Argo data"[15]. In contrast to the claim, the Argo data (and free data viewing software) is mostly online and is easily accessible at the NOAA web site for Argo[19], and at the Argo project web site[20].

So....your sources include Conspiracists funded by the heartland institute. and the koch brothers

This can only mean one thing....we are in the presence of greatness folks....its....."real scientist" again back from the dead calling himself after a "real poet" now. Is there no profession he won't sully in his quest to defend corporate oil positions on climate change?. Maybe it'll be "real doctor" next, or "real teacher" perhaps.

but we all know that his "real" profession is more likely "oil company PR shill".

Steve Mcintyre is also a well known dishonest broker and pest to climate scientists. read this and you'll get the idea:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/05/y...11699

He often relies on making FOI requests etc on unpublished material to try to give the impression information is being deliberately hidden in some big climate conspiracy, when he knows full well that it isn't the case.

by Lord Byron Sun Jun 17, 2012 12:17

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/300000-dollars-and-thr...rgis/

Blog review is where the real science gets tested
Skeptics have been looking through the paper, and three weeks after it was published a team at (http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/08/gergis-et-al-put-on-...hold/) Climate Audit (kudos to Jean S and Nick Stokes) uncovered a problem so significant that the authors announced that this paper is “on hold”. It has been, rather embarassingly, withdrawn from the American Meteorological Society website (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-0...649.1)

Bishop Hill (http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/6/7/another-hockey....html) has probably the best summary of what this means, and how it unfolded.

When Steve McIntyre asked for the full data, she refused. (http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/31/myles-allen-calls-fo...hame/)

Gergis has an activist past (http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/05/are-cli...ists/) which she has recently tried to hide. Therefore it is impossible for her to portray herself as 'impartial' or 'Unbiased'.

She was proud to mention in her (http://joellegergis.wordpress.com/biography/) biography that her data has been requested from 16 nations (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4A...fox-a.)

So requests from Tunisia, Cuba, and Brazil are OK; but Canada — not so much. Apparently she didn’t appreciate his expertise with statistics and told him to get the data himself from the original authors, and added ” This is commonly referred to as ‘research’. We will not be entertaining any further correspondence on the matter.

by Lord Byron Fri Jun 15, 2012 16:31

"2 minutes is all it took me to track down the findings."

that's all good and well, but no one mentioned the 'findings' not being available.

The 'Data' is what was mentioned - particularly 'useful info' about the data, whoich would include informnation on both the data used and the data rejected.

That info was not forthcomming from the authors when requested.

by Lord Byron Fri Jun 15, 2012 14:06

Steve MacIntyre finds fatal flaws in Austrailian 'Hockey Stick' Study

Gergis et al “Put on Hold” http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/08/gergis-et-al-put-on-...hold/

"A few days ago, Joelle Gergis closed her letter refusing data stating:

We will not be entertaining any further correspondence on the matter.

Gergis’ statement seems to have been premature. David Karoly, the senior author, who had been copied on Gergis’ surly email and who is also known as one of the originators of the “death threat” story, wrote today:

Dear Stephen,
I am contacting you on behalf of all the authors of the Gergis et al (2012) study ‘Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium’

An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, which may affect the results. While the paper states that “both proxy climate and instrumental data were linearly detrended over the 1921–1990 period”, we discovered on Tuesday 5 June that the records used in the final analysis were not detrended for proxy selection, making this statement incorrect.

Although this is an unfortunate data processing issue, it is likely to have implications for the results reported in the study. The journal has been contacted and the publication of the study has been put on hold.

This is a normal part of science. The testing of scientific studies through independent analysis of data and methods strengthens the conclusions. In this study, an issue has been identified and the results are being re-checked.

We would be grateful if you would post the notice below on your ClimateAudit web site.

We would like to thank you and the participants at the
ClimateAudit blog for your scrutiny of our study, which also identified this data processing issue.

Thanks, David Karoly

Statement by Lead Author of Austrailian Climate 'Hockey-Stick' Study:

Print publication of scientific study put on hold
An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium” by Joelle Gergis, Raphael Neukom, Stephen Phipps, Ailie Gallant and David Karoly, accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate.

We are currently reviewing the data and results.

The inconsistency between replicated correlations and Gergis claims was first pointed out by Jean S here (http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/31/myles-allen-calls-fo...36480) on June 5 at 4:42 pm blog time. As readers have noted in comments, it’s interesting that Karoly says that they had independently discovered this issue on June 5 – . . ."

by Prometheus Fri Jun 15, 2012 13:06

2 minutes is all it took me to track down the findings. They are probably online as well in a fancier version but you get them for free here.

http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~sjphipps/publications/g...2.pdf

by oh dear Fri Jun 15, 2012 01:32

The publishers of this suppossed 'study' have refused to release any useful details concerning the data on which they based the study

This means that it is impossible for ANYONE else to replicate the study and see if there is any truth in what the authors claim

That is the very polar OPPOSITE of 'Science'.

The most basic requirement of anything that wishes to be declared 'Scientific' is that tit be reproducable.

Essentially the authors have made it impossible to verify their work - and deliberately so too.

So what is it that they are afraid of?