Briffa2013

Discussion in 'Environment' started by IanC, Jul 1, 2013.

  1. IanC
    Online

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,276
    Thanks Received:
    544
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +607
    is anyone out there following the repercussions of Briffa 2013 at Real Climate, Climate Audit, and elsewhere?

    Briffa et al. (2013) Quaternary Science Reviews

    RealClimate: Yamal and Polar Urals: a research update

    CRU Abandons Yamal Superstick « Climate Audit


    I really find the whole thing rather amusing. some of the more interesting points- the data that the hockey team was sequestering from FOIA shows what the skeptics have been saying all along. and the new reason for these differences (root-collars) totally throws Mann and just about every other paleo-reconstruction from the last two decades 'under the bus'.
     
  2. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    6,093
    Thanks Received:
    1,030
    Trophy Points:
    192
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +1,162
    But there was no "sequestering." I think that's the primary point to be gathered, how consistently dishonest McIntyre has been.

    The secondary point is how McIntyre is a cult hero, and can do no wrong in the eyes of his followers.

    The third point is how denialists always fall back on accusations of data-fudging. Always.
     
  3. IanC
    Online

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,276
    Thanks Received:
    544
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +607
    a while back I asked you these questions, which you ducked-
    any answers yet?

    you keep saying McIntyre is dishonest but you never actually say what it is that he has done. I am honestly interested in knowing what specific things you hold against McIntyre. if you asked me why I thought Mann or Jones or Lewandowsky or Gleick or ...... were ethically suspect I could bring up specific instances to illustrate my conjecture. where is your smoking gun against McIntyre?

    the thread is about Briffa2013. his original Yamal datasets had large upticks for the 20th century, in large part because of one tree, YAD061, that was about 6 standard deviations high. do you think it was reasonable for Briffa to hide his data for as long as he did? was it a good thing for climate science?

    McIntyre has been at the forefront of action to get data of all kinds released into public domain. information once released lives forever on the net and can be used to independently check new papers that come out. all of the latest hockeystick reconstructions have been shown to have severe problems because of that available information. the original Mann98,99 hockeystick would be laughed at if it was submitted now. was it wrong of McIntyre to relentlessly search out the data, and point out the errors?

    what do you think of the shenanigans, and outright lies, produced by the Hockey Team to deny access to McIntyre and company? do you ever wonder if maybe some of the top climate scientists had some significant lapses in judgement over how they treated skeptical inquiries?
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2013
  4. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    6,093
    Thanks Received:
    1,030
    Trophy Points:
    192
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +1,162
    Neither of us read the other's sources deeply, so spare me the moralizing. I read a wide array, you read a couple cultists.

    Since their positions seem to be "I want to bask in the adulation of a cult, so I'll throw out some red meat", of course I don't agree with that.

    Memorandum submitted by Stephen McIntyre
    ---
    8. Although there was no scientific basis for such an arbitrary adjustment, peer reviewers of Briffa et al (1992) did not object. "Bodging" then seems to entered into the CRU toolkit to get reconstructions to "look" right, as evidenced by the Climategate documents containing annotations that the method contains "fudge factors" or "very artificial corrections for decline" (e.g. http://di2.nu/foia/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro)

    ;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
    ---

    Sounds serious, eh? Trouble is, McIntyre was raving about work that was never published, was never intended to be published, and was only used for doing sanity checks on various calibration scenarios. Yet McIntyre claimed it was a regularly used fudge factor for published data.

    He lied about Briffa, in a report to Parliament no less. And he's never showed regret over it, never backed down from it.

    McIntyre lied about Briffa 2000, which makes his testimony on Briffa 2013 less than trustworthy.

    Do you think it was good of McIntyre to lie about how much significance that tree had?

    Here's a graph showing the results of tree series temps with and without all trees of that age, including YAD061. They're barely different.

    http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/8987/cru200.pdf

    You mean you simply believed McIntyre without checking the data? One should never, ever believe a word from McIntyre without double and triple checking it. All of McIntyre's claims tend to fall apart when examined closely.

    Your hero has feet of clay. Don't take it too hard.

    By the way, did you ever join one of his FOIA harassment campaigns?
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2013
  5. IanC
    Online

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,276
    Thanks Received:
    544
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +607
    Im sorry I haven't responded to this yet. to tell you the truth I am having a hard time understanding your complaint. Briffa put in a 'bodge', or in other papers just deleted the offending time periods( at both ends of his data). other people used his work without acknowledging the 'fine print' where Briffa hints at his wholesale pruning of the cherry tree. and the reconstruction that McIntyre produced a few years ago using data scoured from a different source but still the same data showed.... the same graph as Briffa2013, now that he is using all the data.

    so this is your strongest complaint? wow.

    I suggest every one read mammoth's link to the document submitted (and ignored) to the british inquiry.
     
  6. RollingThunder
    Offline

    RollingThunder VIP Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,099
    Thanks Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +266
    LOLOLOLOL.....you are such a funny, gullible and very confused little retard....why don't you try reading some actual science instead of your non-peer-reviewed blogosphere pseudo-science written by oil corp stooges? Oh, right, that would debunk your precious myths and blow your mind.

    Hey Ya! (mal) at RealClimate

    & Briffa's rebuttal of McIntyre

    Examining the validity of the published RCS Yamal tree-ring chronology
     
  7. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    15,496
    Thanks Received:
    1,769
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +2,225
    The chart you tossed in above indicates you don't have a F-ing clue how unique YAD061 was.. Your chart does NOT even come close to showing how individual trees were cherry picked.. You've obviously never seen the Yamal data set...

    [​IMG]

    How convienient eh? Picking 13 trees out of 50.. And intentionally including the outliers that favored your thesis???

    McIntyre didn't lie.. You just toss up "apologist" briefs that don't show ANYTHING about the fraud..
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2013
  8. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    6,093
    Thanks Received:
    1,030
    Trophy Points:
    192
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +1,162
    I don't blame Flac too much for this latest ineptness. His masters said scientists had deliberately cherry-picked a couple trees to fake the whole hockey stick, and that made it truth, end of story. Flac won't dare question the authority of his cult leaders.

    No one outside of his cult has been programmed with the "everything is a fraud!" directive, so no one pays any attention to the raving. To the cultists, that also proves how everyone else is in on the big conspiracy to cover up truth. Should any data disagree with the cult, it obviously has to be further proof of data fabrication. McIntyre will mumble something statistical-sounding to "prove" it, and the cult will believe, being that God has spoken.
     
  9. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    15,496
    Thanks Received:
    1,769
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +2,225
    Had you ever seen the VARIATION in Briffa's tree ring set before by individual tree?? Y __ N __

    Do you know what trees were EXCLUDED from Briffas selection of the Yamal tree set?? Y__ N __

    Would excluding tree rings from a very limited set would constitute fraud without a valid explanation??

    Y___ N ___

    Do you think that HIDING THE DATA set for so long was ethical or honest?? Y__ N__

    The fraud is undeniable --- except for your weakass attempts.. Leaves you without anything to say than to attack the messengers..
     
  10. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,704
    Thanks Received:
    287
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +418
    Cook doesn't spoon feed his pets that sort of info over at SS.
     
  11. IanC
    Online

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,276
    Thanks Received:
    544
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +607
    I have you on 'ignore' because of your long winded posts in large fonts, so I didnt see this post until now.

    McIntrye had been legitimately asking for data from Briffa on Yamal for years, with no response from either Briffa or the journals which published his work. Briffa then made a poor choice by submitting a paper to Phil. Trans. B which had a policy of not publishing without having the data available. (most journals do but they dont enforce it). when faced with releasing the data or retracting the paper Briffa eventually placed the data online. unhappily, in pieces, without notification.

    Phil. Trans. B « Climate Audit

    and finally the actual tree data was archived by Sep2009-

    Fresh Data on Briffa?s Yamal #1 « Climate Audit

    as per Rolling Thunder's link, Briffa has a different take on the multi-year effort to release the data-

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

    it is up to individuals to decide which version of events, and the explanations for it, are most likely. Briffa knew that there were only a few handfuls of trees used for recent times (including the infamous YAD061) and prefered to sequester the information. McIntyre knew of the weaknesses before the release of AR4 and had been trying hard to expose the cherrypicked proxy which was an integral part of all the reconstructions in the spagetti graph.

    McIntrye's revised version using extra data found 'online' was reviled and scorned by the Team. and yet a couple of years later Briffa comes out with a new version, with 'better' methodology that is practically an exact replica of what McIntyre said it should look like!

    I really wish Mann and the rest of the Team's AR4 emails had been released because a lot of them dealt with exactly this issue. McIntyre had done his best as an IPCC reviewer to expose all this but was thwarted at every turn. does anyone remember Wahl's paper that supported Mann's hockeystick and rebutted McIntyre and McIttrick's paper on its deficits? you shouldnt because it didnt get published even though the IPCC used it as supporting evidence in its report. the scandalous abuse of peer review and journal policy should be known by everyone but it seems to get ignored every time an 'Inquiry' comes along to paper-over and whitewash past transgressions.
     
  12. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    6,093
    Thanks Received:
    1,030
    Trophy Points:
    192
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +1,162
    Sure. Which is one reason I know you're spouting crap.

    I also understand you're unaware of how much crap you're spouting, being that you refuse to get any data from outside of your few cult blogs. You're far too emotionally invested in your own self-image as brave skeptic, so you're not going to risk that by getting any info from outside the inbred clique.

    So, what we know is that your cult guru, Steve McIntyre, is the only one on the planet who found the real truth. Almost every other climate scientist on the planet is deliberately lying. Good of you junior truth seekers to point out that great conspiracy to everyone. Too bad you can't get anyone outside of the cult-of-McIntyre to fall for it.

    The McIntyre way:

    1. Misunderstand the data.
    2. Instead of asking about the data, instantly scream "fraud!".
    3. Demand all the data from the guy you just called a fraud.
    4. When he rightfully tells you to sod off, declare he's hiding data.

    Scientists are actually very friendly with people who don't scream "fraud" at them. Had McIntyre simply asked nicely, they would have explained to him where he got it wrong. McIntyre acts like an ass, and then declares that scientists refuse talk to him because they're hiding data, instead of refusing to talk with him because he's such an ass.
     
  13. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    15,496
    Thanks Received:
    1,769
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +2,225
    A little heat there cat.. And lots of smoke.. You ignored my other simple questions..

    And we are NOT talking about astrophysics here. It's a fairly simple data set of 50 someodd SIMPLE time series. The crook in question, selected 10 of these to support his work..

    Anyone coming along would question WHY a time series that was 8 sigma DIFFERENT from the sample norm would be included... There was never a valid answer.. That's why there was a dust-up.

    Simple analysis of the FULL AVAILABLE data set show no appreciable trend comparable to Briffa's final product.

    Thus -- we can surmise that the Briffa sample set was based around selection of YAD061 and purposely reducing the sample number to accentuate that effect.

    The crime is that simple. And the cover-up was even more obvious...
    You want to pretend it didn't happen.. Have at it...
     
  14. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    23,169
    Thanks Received:
    3,586
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +3,807




    I especially like Real climates histrionics. Pathetic, but amusing...
     
  15. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    23,169
    Thanks Received:
    3,586
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +3,807





    The climate mafia has NEVER been friendly with ANYONE who questioned them. EVER.
     
  16. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    6,093
    Thanks Received:
    1,030
    Trophy Points:
    192
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +1,162
    Westwall, what the hell is wrong with you?

    For months, I've been playing extra nice with you.

    I don't follow you around and bitterly sulk in response to your posts.

    I haven't called you a liar or abused you, but you've given me a constant torrent of abuse and screaming "liar!" at me.

    I don't accuse you of using socks, but you accuse me nonstop.

    I don't lie about your creds and call you a fraud, but you accuse me of being a fraud at every opportunity, spitting on my military record and laughing about it.

    I never neg you, except in retaliation, yet you neg me at every opportunity.

    I act like an adult, while you don't seem to be capable of the same.

    You want to play these little games with me? Great. Hey, you just negged me twice within 48 hours. Not a smart move.
     
  17. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    6,093
    Thanks Received:
    1,030
    Trophy Points:
    192
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +1,162
    I ignore the Unibomber Manifesto as well.

    You and the Unibomber should get together and brag about how that proves your glorious victories.
     
  18. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    15,496
    Thanks Received:
    1,769
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +2,225
    Another melt-down eh??

    Supporting and protecting your heroes is a tough demanding job..

    I wouldn't want it... Maybe you should take a break from skepticalscience and read some other crap.
     
  19. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    23,169
    Thanks Received:
    3,586
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +3,807




    I neg you when you provably lie. Period. That's my criteria. You often act like an adult but frequently you don't, I am the same. Sometimes I act a little petulantly.......just ...like....you. You have indeed called me a fraud. I think you are a sock because you post like several other warmists who seem to be on here incessantly. If you aren't then please accept my apology, but I would suggest you change your posting style.

    I negged you because you lied. The fact that it happened within 48 hours is because you seem to be truth challenged.
     
  20. IanC
    Online

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,276
    Thanks Received:
    544
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +607

    what I find amusing (and incredibly hard to believe) is how the Hockey Team 'discovers' their own mistakes independently, and only hours after it has been printed at Climate Audit. hahahaha. papers that have been through peer review and published, only to find the same error months after they stopped working on them because they were complete, and only a teensy-weensy later than McIntyre or one of his commenters.
     

Share This Page