Briffa2013

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

  1. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,390
    Thanks Received:
    559
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +652
    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 Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    6,580
    Thanks Received:
    1,137
    Trophy Points:
    192
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +1,401
    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
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,390
    Thanks Received:
    559
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +652
    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 Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    6,580
    Thanks Received:
    1,137
    Trophy Points:
    192
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +1,401
    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
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,390
    Thanks Received:
    559
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +652
    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:
    3,327
    Thanks Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +288
    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:
    1,770
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +2,227
    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 Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    6,580
    Thanks Received:
    1,137
    Trophy Points:
    192
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +1,401
    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:
    1,770
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +2,227
    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:
    5,071
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +574
    Cook doesn't spoon feed his pets that sort of info over at SS.
     

Share This Page