Marcott2013

[orogenicman]

Do you really want a list of all the things McIntyre has accomplished at Climate Audit?

No sir I do not. It would be like me asking you to provide a list of accomplishments by Leonard Nimoy on his old television show about ancient astronauts.

Even more important is the fact that he has made the internal workings of climate science accessible to the ordinary layman. There is no deferring to authority over there. And a lot less censorship of dissenting opinions as well.

And no science. Congratulations.

No science? Since when has correcting other's mistakes not been science?

Steig got his flawed Antarctica paper printed in Nature, on the cover no less. Statisticians at Climate Audit showed him where it was wrong. The Team laughed and said, so what are you going to write you're own paper?

So they did. Peer reviewers would not accept it as a direct rebuttal of Steig, it had to be just an improved version. Back and forth the paper was bounced with reviwer B making ever more shrill, nitpicking, or bizarre changes. After a year of being savaged in peer review (unlike pal review) the paper wad finally published, albeit with many of its fangs pulled by reviwer B.

Steig was allowed to reply, as is only fair. He made a big fuss over one of the changes implimented on reviwer B's insistence. But on the whole the paper was successful in showing that Steig' paper had incorrectly smeared warmth from the peninsula over into the rest of the continent by flawed methodology. CAHad won a small victory, the Team had shown its muscles in making it next to impossible for skeptical papers to get published.

But that was not the end of the story. Steig tripped himself up and subsequently admitted that he.........was reviwer B!!!!

How dishonorable is it to force an incorrect alteration on a paper from the anonymity of reviwer, only to publically criticize it later?

I would like to be able to hold climate scientists in the highest esteem and defer to their authority but as the climategate emails and this specific example show, there is plenty of pettiness and distortion going on in the background that makes it reasonable to doubt their ethics, especially when they are backed into a corner.

If you believe that correcting mistakes (and not obfuscating the issues) is what they are doing, you are sadly mistaken. And you don't correct mistakes in science in a frelling political blog. You submit your manuscript to the relevant peer reviewed scientific journal for rebuttal. Yes, I know, they've complained that they can't get their crap published because the scientific community is biased against them. But that's true of any CRAP submitted for scientific publication. Even valid submissions take time to get published. It took me nearly ten years to get my first paper submitted, partially because it was so large, and contained submission of 8 species new to science, but also because of the backlog of submissions. We all have these issues. The system is not perfect. Welcome to the real frelling world.

Climategate e-mails? Are you kidding me? Of course, you have no problem with the fact that a government server was hacked in violation of national and international law, that confidential e-mails were posted all over the internet, and that the good names of respected scientists were smeared all over the media, despite the fact that panel after panel found no wrongdoing other than a misdemeanor violation of the FOIA that was past its statute of limitations, requested for information the person requesting the information later admitted that he ALREADY frelling HAD!!! And you think this is the kind unethical behavior is what scientists should aspire to? Really? REALLY???

If you want any credibility in your arguments, you should leave bs like that at the door.

 

[orogenicman]

Those graphs are plotted up directly from the information supplied with Marcott2013. As I said before. I have not downloaded them myself. If you think Willis screwed with them, say so. Otherwise they are what the proxies look like. I personally don't think they are overwhelmingly convincing but they are similar to any other proxy records. Lots of noise to little signal.

That's because you don't know what you are looking at. For instance, I am an amateur astronomer. I take lots of astrophotographs of very faint objects. Modern astrophotography is much more sophisticated than the days when they used photographic plates. And in fact, the technology and methods used today by the amateur astronomer was not only not available to us 20 years ago, they were unavailable to professional astronomers. The result is that amateurs, with far less equipment and expense are producing stunning images that rival and in some cases, surpass anything the large observatories were producing 20 years ago.

I bring this up for this reason. When you look at the raw master image below, you don't see much: just some stars with a very black background.

Very little signal apparent, right? Wrong. Once the image if fully processed, this is the result:

To the untrained eye, there wasn't much there. But to the skilled technician, it's a gold mine of data.

So what's the point of all this? The point is that if you don't know what you are doing, and there is no doubt that you don't, then, of course, all you are going to see is a lot of noise, and no signal. So my advice to you is to either take a class, or let the big boys who actually know what they are doing do their work.

you got my thanks above..

HOWEVER, a collection of simple data series, all purporting to represent T = F(x) is NOT the image processing "teasing" (as Ian said) all that beauty out.. You are using THOUSANDS of spectral, temporal, radiometric spatial properties to make that image enhancement.. T = F(x) a hundred times over doesn't REALLY offer that much up when the ORIGINAL data is mostly disconsonant noise..

Tell ya what captain.. Take that same photo thru 100 different telescopes including some that Santa brought for Christmas.. Try to use ALL the data in the reconstruction, and let's see the result...

No one said it was easy. But I tell yas what, Private, that kind of work is done all the time. You didn't know this? Huh.

 

[orogenicman]

Oro- I have no doubt that there are legitimate ways of teasing more info from noisy data. Unfortunately there are also illegitimate ways of finding corroborating evidence such as YAD061 which had a growth spurt that was obviously caused in main part by factors other than temperature. The problem with PC analysis is that it gives so much weight to outliers. It is easy to screw up, and climate science is not known for seeking out help from statisticians.

Getting stuck on one tree is rather silly, don't you think? Particularly when that issue has been addressed ad nausea. And IanC, Marcott isn't giving untoward weight to outliers. His is the most inclusive database in the business. And finally, you are assuming that PhD scientists are unfamiliar with statistics. Poor assumption. Marcott has addressed all of the concerns of the denialist league. The problem is not that his answers are unsatisfactory. The problem is that there is no answer he or anyone else can give that will satisfy them.

But let me ask you a question. Why did McIntyre hound Briffa for his data for such a long time when he actually had it all along? Is this the kind of honesty you look forward to every morning when you get up and read Wattsupwiththat?

Do you really think Marcott didn't use principle component analysis on that hodgepodge of proxies? His graph certainly isn't just an average.

McIntyre has collected many data sets over the years. Some public, some confidential. Many are gray, having only partial inclusion of all the available specimens, like Briffa's. MC was hounding Briffa to find which trees, what methodology of inclusion. Briffa was cherry picking, now less so, that is why his new series looks like McIntyre said it should.

Yes, I know McIntyre has collected lots of datasets over the years. He has also requested data that he ALREADY had and then made a huge stink about his request allegedly being ignored. How asinine is that?

 

[flacaltenn]

That's because you don't know what you are looking at. For instance, I am an amateur astronomer. I take lots of astrophotographs of very faint objects. Modern astrophotography is much more sophisticated than the days when they used photographic plates. And in fact, the technology and methods used today by the amateur astronomer was not only not available to us 20 years ago, they were unavailable to professional astronomers. The result is that amateurs, with far less equipment and expense are producing stunning images that rival and in some cases, surpass anything the large observatories were producing 20 years ago.

I bring this up for this reason. When you look at the raw master image below, you don't see much: just some stars with a very black background.

Very little signal apparent, right? Wrong. Once the image if fully processed, this is the result:

To the untrained eye, there wasn't much there. But to the skilled technician, it's a gold mine of data.

So what's the point of all this? The point is that if you don't know what you are doing, and there is no doubt that you don't, then, of course, all you are going to see is a lot of noise, and no signal. So my advice to you is to either take a class, or let the big boys who actually know what they are doing do their work.

you got my thanks above..

HOWEVER, a collection of simple data series, all purporting to represent T = F(x) is NOT the image processing "teasing" (as Ian said) all that beauty out.. You are using THOUSANDS of spectral, temporal, radiometric spatial properties to make that image enhancement.. T = F(x) a hundred times over doesn't REALLY offer that much up when the ORIGINAL data is mostly disconsonant noise..

Tell ya what captain.. Take that same photo thru 100 different telescopes including some that Santa brought for Christmas.. Try to use ALL the data in the reconstruction, and let's see the result...

No one said it was easy. But I tell yas what, Private, that kind of work is done all the time. You didn't know this? Huh.

There's a lot I don't know.. But image and signal processing have been essential tools for my wonderful career.. I think I could handle a few hundred Temp vs Time proxies that were previously vetted by experts in those fields.. Don't know. That might be an excess of self-esteem --- but I don't think so...

In FACT Captain.. In my experience, it's often when someone comes in cold from ANOTHER DISCIPLINE that the most wondrous scientific things starts to happen..

You should try that sometime up in the old dark observatory...

 

[westwall]

Do you really want a list of all the things McIntyre has accomplished at Climate Audit?

No sir I do not. It would be like me asking you to provide a list of accomplishments by Leonard Nimoy on his old television show about ancient astronauts.

Even more important is the fact that he has made the internal workings of climate science accessible to the ordinary layman. There is no deferring to authority over there. And a lot less censorship of dissenting opinions as well.

And no science. Congratulations.

No science? Since when has correcting other's mistakes not been science?

Steig got his flawed Antarctica paper printed in Nature, on the cover no less. Statisticians at Climate Audit showed him where it was wrong. The Team laughed and said, so what are you going to write you're own paper?

So they did. Peer reviewers would not accept it as a direct rebuttal of Steig, it had to be just an improved version. Back and forth the paper was bounced with reviwer B making ever more shrill, nitpicking, or bizarre changes. After a year of being savaged in peer review (unlike pal review) the paper wad finally published, albeit with many of its fangs pulled by reviwer B.

Steig was allowed to reply, as is only fair. He made a big fuss over one of the changes implimented on reviwer B's insistence. But on the whole the paper was successful in showing that Steig' paper had incorrectly smeared warmth from the peninsula over into the rest of the continent by flawed methodology. CAHad won a small victory, the Team had shown its muscles in making it next to impossible for skeptical papers to get published.

But that was not the end of the story. Steig tripped himself up and subsequently admitted that he.........was reviwer B!!!!

How dishonorable is it to force an incorrect alteration on a paper from the anonymity of reviwer, only to publically criticize it later?

I would like to be able to hold climate scientists in the highest esteem and defer to their authority but as the climategate emails and this specific example show, there is plenty of pettiness and distortion going on in the background that makes it reasonable to doubt their ethics, especially when they are backed into a corner.

One correction Ian, it is not dishonorable to do what Steig did, it is fucking unethical and a violation of the peer review process flat and simple. Had he been a geologist found to have corrupted the process like that, he would be out on his ass in a heartbeat and unemployable in the academic world.

 

[westwall]

No sir I do not. It would be like me asking you to provide a list of accomplishments by Leonard Nimoy on his old television show about ancient astronauts.



And no science. Congratulations.

No science? Since when has correcting other's mistakes not been science?

Steig got his flawed Antarctica paper printed in Nature, on the cover no less. Statisticians at Climate Audit showed him where it was wrong. The Team laughed and said, so what are you going to write you're own paper?

So they did. Peer reviewers would not accept it as a direct rebuttal of Steig, it had to be just an improved version. Back and forth the paper was bounced with reviwer B making ever more shrill, nitpicking, or bizarre changes. After a year of being savaged in peer review (unlike pal review) the paper wad finally published, albeit with many of its fangs pulled by reviwer B.

Steig was allowed to reply, as is only fair. He made a big fuss over one of the changes implimented on reviwer B's insistence. But on the whole the paper was successful in showing that Steig' paper had incorrectly smeared warmth from the peninsula over into the rest of the continent by flawed methodology. CAHad won a small victory, the Team had shown its muscles in making it next to impossible for skeptical papers to get published.

But that was not the end of the story. Steig tripped himself up and subsequently admitted that he.........was reviwer B!!!!

How dishonorable is it to force an incorrect alteration on a paper from the anonymity of reviwer, only to publically criticize it later?

I would like to be able to hold climate scientists in the highest esteem and defer to their authority but as the climategate emails and this specific example show, there is plenty of pettiness and distortion going on in the background that makes it reasonable to doubt their ethics, especially when they are backed into a corner.

If you believe that correcting mistakes (and not obfuscating the issues) is what they are doing, you are sadly mistaken. And you don't correct mistakes in science in a frelling political blog. You submit your manuscript to the relevant peer reviewed scientific journal for rebuttal. Yes, I know, they've complained that they can't get their crap published because the scientific community is biased against them. But that's true of any CRAP submitted for scientific publication. Even valid submissions take time to get published. It took me nearly ten years to get my first paper submitted, partially because it was so large, and contained submission of 8 species new to science, but also because of the backlog of submissions. We all have these issues. The system is not perfect. Welcome to the real frelling world.

Climategate e-mails? Are you kidding me? Of course, you have no problem with the fact that a government server was hacked in violation of national and international law, that confidential e-mails were posted all over the internet, and that the good names of respected scientists were smeared all over the media, despite the fact that panel after panel found no wrongdoing other than a misdemeanor violation of the FOIA that was past its statute of limitations, requested for information the person requesting the information later admitted that he ALREADY frelling HAD!!! And you think this is the kind unethical behavior is what scientists should aspire to? Really? REALLY???

If you want any credibility in your arguments, you should leave bs like that at the door.

Fuck you and your lecturing you twerp. The "team" has made it almost impossible to have skeptical papers published as you well know and as even the whitewashing CLIMATEGATE "investigations" held.

Credibility is far beyond you or your clones to ever attain again. You are frauds, pure and simple, and it is giving me great pleasure to see you clowns dismantled piece by piece.

 

[westwall]

That's because you don't know what you are looking at. For instance, I am an amateur astronomer. I take lots of astrophotographs of very faint objects. Modern astrophotography is much more sophisticated than the days when they used photographic plates. And in fact, the technology and methods used today by the amateur astronomer was not only not available to us 20 years ago, they were unavailable to professional astronomers. The result is that amateurs, with far less equipment and expense are producing stunning images that rival and in some cases, surpass anything the large observatories were producing 20 years ago.

I bring this up for this reason. When you look at the raw master image below, you don't see much: just some stars with a very black background.

Very little signal apparent, right? Wrong. Once the image if fully processed, this is the result:

To the untrained eye, there wasn't much there. But to the skilled technician, it's a gold mine of data.

So what's the point of all this? The point is that if you don't know what you are doing, and there is no doubt that you don't, then, of course, all you are going to see is a lot of noise, and no signal. So my advice to you is to either take a class, or let the big boys who actually know what they are doing do their work.

you got my thanks above..

HOWEVER, a collection of simple data series, all purporting to represent T = F(x) is NOT the image processing "teasing" (as Ian said) all that beauty out.. You are using THOUSANDS of spectral, temporal, radiometric spatial properties to make that image enhancement.. T = F(x) a hundred times over doesn't REALLY offer that much up when the ORIGINAL data is mostly disconsonant noise..

Tell ya what captain.. Take that same photo thru 100 different telescopes including some that Santa brought for Christmas.. Try to use ALL the data in the reconstruction, and let's see the result...

No one said it was easy. But I tell yas what, Private, that kind of work is done all the time. You didn't know this? Huh.

Not easy? Actually it is. I worked on the LANDSAT Thematic Mapper when I worked for SBRC back in the day and while incredibly expensive the process was amazingly simple.

 

[Zona]

Willis has done a good job of posting up the proxies and showing how many of them fail to meet the criteria laid out in the Marcott methodology. Marcott?s proxies ? 10% fail their own criteria for inclusion | Watts Up With That?

but the main problem is still pasting high resolution high variance recent data onto low resolution low variance historic data

Fascinating. More graphs please.

 

[IanC]

Willis has done a good job of posting up the proxies and showing how many of them fail to meet the criteria laid out in the Marcott methodology. Marcott?s proxies ? 10% fail their own criteria for inclusion | Watts Up With That?

but the main problem is still pasting high resolution high variance recent data onto low resolution low variance historic data

Fascinating. More graphs please.

I cannot tell if you're joking or not. I actually like seeing the less processed individual proxies but I know its not everybody's cup of tea. I can easily bump up the Shakun proxies printed in the same style if you actually want to see them.

 

[IanC]

Getting stuck on one tree is rather silly, don't you think? Particularly when that issue has been addressed ad nausea. And IanC, Marcott isn't giving untoward weight to outliers. His is the most inclusive database in the business. And finally, you are assuming that PhD scientists are unfamiliar with statistics. Poor assumption. Marcott has addressed all of the concerns of the denialist league. The problem is not that his answers are unsatisfactory. The problem is that there is no answer he or anyone else can give that will satisfy them.

But let me ask you a question. Why did McIntyre hound Briffa for his data for such a long time when he actually had it all along? Is this the kind of honesty you look forward to every morning when you get up and read Wattsupwiththat?

Do you really think Marcott didn't use principle component analysis on that hodgepodge of proxies? His graph certainly isn't just an average.

McIntyre has collected many data sets over the years. Some public, some confidential. Many are gray, having only partial inclusion of all the available specimens, like Briffa's. MC was hounding Briffa to find which trees, what methodology of inclusion. Briffa was cherry picking, now less so, that is why his new series looks like McIntyre said it should.

Yes, I know McIntyre has collected lots of datasets over the years. He has also requested data that he ALREADY had and then made a huge stink about his request allegedly being ignored. How asinine is that?

Really? If someone has data on 10,000 trees in an area but the author of a paper only uses a few hundred of those, you consider it improper to ask which trees were used? And the selection criteria?

Why are you an apologist for bad scientific practise? I don't understand why you support Briffa, Mann and others refusing to make their data available. Part of the scientific method is for others to reproduce the experiment and get the same result.

 

[orogenicman]

Do you really think Marcott didn't use principle component analysis on that hodgepodge of proxies? His graph certainly isn't just an average.

McIntyre has collected many data sets over the years. Some public, some confidential. Many are gray, having only partial inclusion of all the available specimens, like Briffa's. MC was hounding Briffa to find which trees, what methodology of inclusion. Briffa was cherry picking, now less so, that is why his new series looks like McIntyre said it should.

Yes, I know McIntyre has collected lots of datasets over the years. He has also requested data that he ALREADY had and then made a huge stink about his request allegedly being ignored. How asinine is that?

Really? If someone has data on 10,000 trees in an area but the author of a paper only uses a few hundred of those, you consider it improper to ask which trees were used? And the selection criteria?

Why are you an apologist for bad scientific practise? I don't understand why you support Briffa, Mann and others refusing to make their data available. Part of the scientific method is for others to reproduce the experiment and get the same result.

Because the claim that their data is not available is a lie. McIntyre whined about Briffa not providing his data for a couple of years until it was revealed - HE HAD IT ALL ALONG! So why do you support liars working on behalf of the petrochemical industry who aren't even scientists?

 

[orogenicman]

Marcott's response.

RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.

 

[IanC]

No sir I do not. It would be like me asking you to provide a list of accomplishments by Leonard Nimoy on his old television show about ancient astronauts.



And no science. Congratulations.

No science? Since when has correcting other's mistakes not been science?

Steig got his flawed Antarctica paper printed in Nature, on the cover no less. Statisticians at Climate Audit showed him where it was wrong. The Team laughed and said, so what are you going to write you're own paper?

So they did. Peer reviewers would not accept it as a direct rebuttal of Steig, it had to be just an improved version. Back and forth the paper was bounced with reviwer B making ever more shrill, nitpicking, or bizarre changes. After a year of being savaged in peer review (unlike pal review) the paper wad finally published, albeit with many of its fangs pulled by reviwer B.

Steig was allowed to reply, as is only fair. He made a big fuss over one of the changes implimented on reviwer B's insistence. But on the whole the paper was successful in showing that Steig' paper had incorrectly smeared warmth from the peninsula over into the rest of the continent by flawed methodology. CAHad won a small victory, the Team had shown its muscles in making it next to impossible for skeptical papers to get published.

But that was not the end of the story. Steig tripped himself up and subsequently admitted that he.........was reviwer B!!!!

How dishonorable is it to force an incorrect alteration on a paper from the anonymity of reviwer, only to publically criticize it later?

I would like to be able to hold climate scientists in the highest esteem and defer to their authority but as the climategate emails and this specific example show, there is plenty of pettiness and distortion going on in the background that makes it reasonable to doubt their ethics, especially when they are backed into a corner.

If you believe that correcting mistakes (and not obfuscating the issues) is what they are doing, you are sadly mistaken. And you don't correct mistakes in science in a frelling political blog. You submit your manuscript to the relevant peer reviewed scientific journal for rebuttal. Yes, I know, they've complained that they can't get their crap published because the scientific community is biased against them. But that's true of any CRAP submitted for scientific publication. Even valid submissions take time to get published. It took me nearly ten years to get my first paper submitted, partially because it was so large, and contained submission of 8 species new to science, but also because of the backlog of submissions. We all have these issues. The system is not perfect. Welcome to the real frelling world.

Climategate e-mails? Are you kidding me? Of course, you have no problem with the fact that a government server was hacked in violation of national and international law, that confidential e-mails were posted all over the internet, and that the good names of respected scientists were smeared all over the media, despite the fact that panel after panel found no wrongdoing other than a misdemeanor violation of the FOIA that was past its statute of limitations, requested for information the person requesting the information later admitted that he ALREADY frelling HAD!!! And you think this is the kind unethical behavior is what scientists should aspire to? Really? REALLY???

If you want any credibility in your arguments, you should leave bs like that at the door.

If you have aproblem with the climategate emails being released then take it up with the person who released them. It certainly wasn't McIntyre or Watts. Once the genie is out of the bottle.....

The Inquiries were a whitewash. I have gone through all of this before. Jones wasn't even asked about whether he sent the 'delete all emails' email. Somehow I don't think they were actually looking to find wrongdoing.

 

[IanC]

Yes, I know McIntyre has collected lots of datasets over the years. He has also requested data that he ALREADY had and then made a huge stink about his request allegedly being ignored. How asinine is that?

Really? If someone has data on 10,000 trees in an area but the author of a paper only uses a few hundred of those, you consider it improper to ask which trees were used? And the selection criteria?

Why are you an apologist for bad scientific practise? I don't understand why you support Briffa, Mann and others refusing to make their data available. Part of the scientific method is for others to reproduce the experiment and get the same result.

Because the claim that their data is not available is a lie. McIntyre whined about Briffa not providing his data for a couple of years until it was revealed - HE HAD IT ALL ALONG! So why do you support liars working on behalf of the petrochemical industry who aren't even scientists?

Explain exactly what you mean by saying 'he had it all along'. Briffa would not divulge the data set he used until the journal Phil Trans B forced him to. And even then he only released it in parts, over the course of a year, in secluded, unannounced links on his website. How is that open science? I believe you are accusing the wrong party of unethical behaviour.

 

[orogenicman]

Really? If someone has data on 10,000 trees in an area but the author of a paper only uses a few hundred of those, you consider it improper to ask which trees were used? And the selection criteria?

Why are you an apologist for bad scientific practise? I don't understand why you support Briffa, Mann and others refusing to make their data available. Part of the scientific method is for others to reproduce the experiment and get the same result.

Because the claim that their data is not available is a lie. McIntyre whined about Briffa not providing his data for a couple of years until it was revealed - HE HAD IT ALL ALONG! So why do you support liars working on behalf of the petrochemical industry who aren't even scientists?

Explain exactly what you mean by saying 'he had it all along'. Briffa would not divulge the data set he used until the journal Phil Trans B forced him to. And even then he only released it in parts, over the course of a year, in secluded, unannounced links on his website. How is that open science? I believe you are accusing the wrong party of unethical behaviour.

Yamal controversy - RationalWiki

The Yamal controversy was an explosion of drama in the global warming blog wars that spilled over into the pages of mainstream newspapers. In the wake of Climategate, deniers latched onto a set of tree-ring data called the Yamal series that had been the topic of some of the leaked e-mails (after they were done squawking about "nature tricks" and "hiding the decline," of course). The Yamal series refers to the tree-ring data taken from the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia by a team of Russian researchers, Hantemirov and Shiyatov, in the late '90s. Hantemirov and Shivatov released more of their data in 2009 and Steve McIntyre jumped all over it, snarking:


“”I’m assuming that CA readers are aware that, once the Yamal series got on the street in 2000, it got used like crack cocaine by paleoclimatologists, and of its critical role in many spaghetti graph reconstructions, including, most recently, a critical role in the Kaufman reconstruction.[1]


Keith Briffa, a climatoligist at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia, had based a number of temperature reconstructions on a subset of the Yamal data. He claimed he had used a different methodology than Hantemirov and Shivatov because the original methodology didn't preserve long-term climate change.[2] McIntyre accused Briffa of cherry-picking. Of course, it would be perfectly legitimate to criticize Briffa's reconstruction and perform a new reconstruction on one's own. However, McIntyre just downloaded some other unrelated Yamal dataset from the internet and chucked it into the original set.[3] Deniers, obviously, failed to care about this and the "Yamal is a lie!" claim shot through the deniosphere, with Anthony Watts picking up the story next.[4] It then found its way into the right-wing rags, with James Delingpole and others declaring that the "hockey stick" graph had been soundly "debunked."[5][6]

However, Briffa's Yamal reconstructions were only included in four of the twelve hockey stick reconstructions and even McIntyre criticized other deniers for blowing his "critique" of Briffa out of proportion and walked back his accusations of cherry-picking. Sure enough, both Briffa and a member of the original Russian team released full reconstructions using the previously unreleased data and the hockey stick shape returned, confirming Briffa's original assertions.[7][8]

However, the incident was still missing something: That classic McIntyre hypocrisy. McIntyre had been whining for quite some time that Briffa had been blowing him off (gee, wonder why?). However, Briffa, even though he had a good excuse, hadn't been stonewalling McIntyre — the complete dataset was under the control of the Russian team that had collected it. After Briffa notified him of this, McIntyre then flippantly replied he had had the data all along!


“”In response to your point that I wasn't "diligent enough" in pursuing the matter with the Russians, in fact, I already had a version of the data from the Russians, one that I'd had since 2004.[9]

 

[flacaltenn]

you got my thanks above..

HOWEVER, a collection of simple data series, all purporting to represent T = F(x) is NOT the image processing "teasing" (as Ian said) all that beauty out.. You are using THOUSANDS of spectral, temporal, radiometric spatial properties to make that image enhancement.. T = F(x) a hundred times over doesn't REALLY offer that much up when the ORIGINAL data is mostly disconsonant noise..

Tell ya what captain.. Take that same photo thru 100 different telescopes including some that Santa brought for Christmas.. Try to use ALL the data in the reconstruction, and let's see the result...

No one said it was easy. But I tell yas what, Private, that kind of work is done all the time. You didn't know this? Huh.

Not easy? Actually it is. I worked on the LANDSAT Thematic Mapper when I worked for SBRC back in the day and while incredibly expensive the process was amazingly simple.

Good thing it was incredibly expensive.. Paid my salary helping to design the image array processors that drove some of the LandSat and other earth resource processing..

 

[flacaltenn]

Because the claim that their data is not available is a lie. McIntyre whined about Briffa not providing his data for a couple of years until it was revealed - HE HAD IT ALL ALONG! So why do you support liars working on behalf of the petrochemical industry who aren't even scientists?

Explain exactly what you mean by saying 'he had it all along'. Briffa would not divulge the data set he used until the journal Phil Trans B forced him to. And even then he only released it in parts, over the course of a year, in secluded, unannounced links on his website. How is that open science? I believe you are accusing the wrong party of unethical behaviour.

Yamal controversy - RationalWiki

The Yamal controversy was an explosion of drama in the global warming blog wars that spilled over into the pages of mainstream newspapers. In the wake of Climategate, deniers latched onto a set of tree-ring data called the Yamal series that had been the topic of some of the leaked e-mails (after they were done squawking about "nature tricks" and "hiding the decline," of course). The Yamal series refers to the tree-ring data taken from the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia by a team of Russian researchers, Hantemirov and Shiyatov, in the late '90s. Hantemirov and Shivatov released more of their data in 2009 and Steve McIntyre jumped all over it, snarking:


“”I’m assuming that CA readers are aware that, once the Yamal series got on the street in 2000, it got used like crack cocaine by paleoclimatologists, and of its critical role in many spaghetti graph reconstructions, including, most recently, a critical role in the Kaufman reconstruction.[1]


Keith Briffa, a climatoligist at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia, had based a number of temperature reconstructions on a subset of the Yamal data. He claimed he had used a different methodology than Hantemirov and Shivatov because the original methodology didn't preserve long-term climate change.[2] McIntyre accused Briffa of cherry-picking. Of course, it would be perfectly legitimate to criticize Briffa's reconstruction and perform a new reconstruction on one's own. However, McIntyre just downloaded some other unrelated Yamal dataset from the internet and chucked it into the original set.[3] Deniers, obviously, failed to care about this and the "Yamal is a lie!" claim shot through the deniosphere, with Anthony Watts picking up the story next.[4] It then found its way into the right-wing rags, with James Delingpole and others declaring that the "hockey stick" graph had been soundly "debunked."[5][6]

However, Briffa's Yamal reconstructions were only included in four of the twelve hockey stick reconstructions and even McIntyre criticized other deniers for blowing his "critique" of Briffa out of proportion and walked back his accusations of cherry-picking. Sure enough, both Briffa and a member of the original Russian team released full reconstructions using the previously unreleased data and the hockey stick shape returned, confirming Briffa's original assertions.[7][8]

However, the incident was still missing something: That classic McIntyre hypocrisy. McIntyre had been whining for quite some time that Briffa had been blowing him off (gee, wonder why?). However, Briffa, even though he had a good excuse, hadn't been stonewalling McIntyre — the complete dataset was under the control of the Russian team that had collected it. After Briffa notified him of this, McIntyre then flippantly replied he had had the data all along!


“”In response to your point that I wasn't "diligent enough" in pursuing the matter with the Russians, in fact, I already had a version of the data from the Russians, one that I'd had since 2004.[9]

Quite telling here the "TONE" of this "alternate" Wiki...

However, McIntyre just downloaded some other unrelated Yamal dataset from the internet and chucked it into the original set.[3] Deniers, obviously, failed to care about this and the "Yamal is a lie!" claim shot through the deniosphere, with Anthony Watts picking up the story next.[4] It then found its way into the right-wing rags, with James Delingpole and others declaring that the "hockey stick" graph had been soundly "debunked."[

To tell ya the truth, I'd never BEEN to the "rationalWiki" before.. So I thought I'd bop on over there.. Front page proudly proclaims its objectives..

Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

1.Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
2.Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
3.Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
4.Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.

NOTE CAREFULLY #4.. If you DISAGREE --- you are welcome to "engage in constructive dialogue", but any chance of you CONTRIBUTING or swaying our mission is hopeless. Remind you of any academic roadblocks to publishing that you've seen lately in science anywhere??

And then you find an ENTIRE screed section on anti-religious debunking and baiting..

My God --- these are the boys who can't get along and decide to go form their own minute and inconsequential site catering to their over-inflated egos..

I'm beginning to doubt if I'm gonna learn much from our new contributor...

 

[orogenicman]

Explain exactly what you mean by saying 'he had it all along'. Briffa would not divulge the data set he used until the journal Phil Trans B forced him to. And even then he only released it in parts, over the course of a year, in secluded, unannounced links on his website. How is that open science? I believe you are accusing the wrong party of unethical behaviour.

Yamal controversy - RationalWiki

The Yamal controversy was an explosion of drama in the global warming blog wars that spilled over into the pages of mainstream newspapers. In the wake of Climategate, deniers latched onto a set of tree-ring data called the Yamal series that had been the topic of some of the leaked e-mails (after they were done squawking about "nature tricks" and "hiding the decline," of course). The Yamal series refers to the tree-ring data taken from the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia by a team of Russian researchers, Hantemirov and Shiyatov, in the late '90s. Hantemirov and Shivatov released more of their data in 2009 and Steve McIntyre jumped all over it, snarking:


“”I’m assuming that CA readers are aware that, once the Yamal series got on the street in 2000, it got used like crack cocaine by paleoclimatologists, and of its critical role in many spaghetti graph reconstructions, including, most recently, a critical role in the Kaufman reconstruction.[1]


Keith Briffa, a climatoligist at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia, had based a number of temperature reconstructions on a subset of the Yamal data. He claimed he had used a different methodology than Hantemirov and Shivatov because the original methodology didn't preserve long-term climate change.[2] McIntyre accused Briffa of cherry-picking. Of course, it would be perfectly legitimate to criticize Briffa's reconstruction and perform a new reconstruction on one's own. However, McIntyre just downloaded some other unrelated Yamal dataset from the internet and chucked it into the original set.[3] Deniers, obviously, failed to care about this and the "Yamal is a lie!" claim shot through the deniosphere, with Anthony Watts picking up the story next.[4] It then found its way into the right-wing rags, with James Delingpole and others declaring that the "hockey stick" graph had been soundly "debunked."[5][6]

However, Briffa's Yamal reconstructions were only included in four of the twelve hockey stick reconstructions and even McIntyre criticized other deniers for blowing his "critique" of Briffa out of proportion and walked back his accusations of cherry-picking. Sure enough, both Briffa and a member of the original Russian team released full reconstructions using the previously unreleased data and the hockey stick shape returned, confirming Briffa's original assertions.[7][8]

However, the incident was still missing something: That classic McIntyre hypocrisy. McIntyre had been whining for quite some time that Briffa had been blowing him off (gee, wonder why?). However, Briffa, even though he had a good excuse, hadn't been stonewalling McIntyre — the complete dataset was under the control of the Russian team that had collected it. After Briffa notified him of this, McIntyre then flippantly replied he had had the data all along!


“”In response to your point that I wasn't "diligent enough" in pursuing the matter with the Russians, in fact, I already had a version of the data from the Russians, one that I'd had since 2004.[9]

Quite telling here the "TONE" of this "alternate" Wiki...

However, McIntyre just downloaded some other unrelated Yamal dataset from the internet and chucked it into the original set.[3] Deniers, obviously, failed to care about this and the "Yamal is a lie!" claim shot through the deniosphere, with Anthony Watts picking up the story next.[4] It then found its way into the right-wing rags, with James Delingpole and others declaring that the "hockey stick" graph had been soundly "debunked."[

To tell ya the truth, I'd never BEEN to the "rationalWiki" before.. So I thought I'd bop on over there.. Front page proudly proclaims its objectives..

Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

1.Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
2.Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
3.Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
4.Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.

NOTE CAREFULLY #4.. If you DISAGREE --- you are welcome to "engage in constructive dialogue", but any chance of you CONTRIBUTING or swaying our mission is hopeless. Remind you of any academic roadblocks to publishing that you've seen lately in science anywhere??

And then you find an ENTIRE screed section on anti-religious debunking and baiting..

My God --- these are the boys who can't get along and decide to go form their own minute and inconsequential site catering to their over-inflated egos..

I'm beginning to doubt if I'm gonna learn much from our new contributor...

I suppose the statement "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue" bypassed your frontal cortex altogether, eh? What the "anti-religious debunking and baiting" done elsewhere on that site has to do with my posts or our discussion is for you to explain. Having said that, I could care less, just so you know.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yamal controversy - RationalWiki

The Yamal controversy was an explosion of drama in the global warming blog wars that spilled over into the pages of mainstream newspapers. In the wake of Climategate, deniers latched onto a set of tree-ring data called the Yamal series that had been the topic of some of the leaked e-mails (after they were done squawking about "nature tricks" and "hiding the decline," of course). The Yamal series refers to the tree-ring data taken from the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia by a team of Russian researchers, Hantemirov and Shiyatov, in the late '90s. Hantemirov and Shivatov released more of their data in 2009 and Steve McIntyre jumped all over it, snarking:


“”I’m assuming that CA readers are aware that, once the Yamal series got on the street in 2000, it got used like crack cocaine by paleoclimatologists, and of its critical role in many spaghetti graph reconstructions, including, most recently, a critical role in the Kaufman reconstruction.[1]


Keith Briffa, a climatoligist at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia, had based a number of temperature reconstructions on a subset of the Yamal data. He claimed he had used a different methodology than Hantemirov and Shivatov because the original methodology didn't preserve long-term climate change.[2] McIntyre accused Briffa of cherry-picking. Of course, it would be perfectly legitimate to criticize Briffa's reconstruction and perform a new reconstruction on one's own. However, McIntyre just downloaded some other unrelated Yamal dataset from the internet and chucked it into the original set.[3] Deniers, obviously, failed to care about this and the "Yamal is a lie!" claim shot through the deniosphere, with Anthony Watts picking up the story next.[4] It then found its way into the right-wing rags, with James Delingpole and others declaring that the "hockey stick" graph had been soundly "debunked."[5][6]

However, Briffa's Yamal reconstructions were only included in four of the twelve hockey stick reconstructions and even McIntyre criticized other deniers for blowing his "critique" of Briffa out of proportion and walked back his accusations of cherry-picking. Sure enough, both Briffa and a member of the original Russian team released full reconstructions using the previously unreleased data and the hockey stick shape returned, confirming Briffa's original assertions.[7][8]

However, the incident was still missing something: That classic McIntyre hypocrisy. McIntyre had been whining for quite some time that Briffa had been blowing him off (gee, wonder why?). However, Briffa, even though he had a good excuse, hadn't been stonewalling McIntyre — the complete dataset was under the control of the Russian team that had collected it. After Briffa notified him of this, McIntyre then flippantly replied he had had the data all along!


“”In response to your point that I wasn't "diligent enough" in pursuing the matter with the Russians, in fact, I already had a version of the data from the Russians, one that I'd had since 2004.[9]

Quite telling here the "TONE" of this "alternate" Wiki...



To tell ya the truth, I'd never BEEN to the "rationalWiki" before.. So I thought I'd bop on over there.. Front page proudly proclaims its objectives..

Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

1.Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
2.Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
3.Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
4.Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.

NOTE CAREFULLY #4.. If you DISAGREE --- you are welcome to "engage in constructive dialogue", but any chance of you CONTRIBUTING or swaying our mission is hopeless. Remind you of any academic roadblocks to publishing that you've seen lately in science anywhere??

And then you find an ENTIRE screed section on anti-religious debunking and baiting..

My God --- these are the boys who can't get along and decide to go form their own minute and inconsequential site catering to their over-inflated egos..

I'm beginning to doubt if I'm gonna learn much from our new contributor...

I suppose the statement "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue" bypassed your frontal cortex altogether, eh? What the "anti-religious debunking and baiting" done elsewhere on that site has to do with my posts or our discussion is for you to explain. Having said that, I could care less, just so you know.

Told you... I might get "constructive dialogue" but would never have a chance striking the inflammatory language from your RationalWiki quote above.. THAT'S editorial style book and DESIGNED to attract narrow-minded folks such as yourself who must be always protected from being subjected to facts and opinions you don't like.

All the news we're screened for you in a political dialectic wrapper you can comprehend.

Think I'll go back -- register --- and offer them that front page banner idea for free.

As well as being given the warm feeling that you will find NO GOOD words or deeds of "religious" zealots in the following pages..

Really man --- can't you use a PUBLIC Wiki that doesn't incite partisian bashing on every entry? Please explain...

 

[orogenicman]

Quite telling here the "TONE" of this "alternate" Wiki...



To tell ya the truth, I'd never BEEN to the "rationalWiki" before.. So I thought I'd bop on over there.. Front page proudly proclaims its objectives..



NOTE CAREFULLY #4.. If you DISAGREE --- you are welcome to "engage in constructive dialogue", but any chance of you CONTRIBUTING or swaying our mission is hopeless. Remind you of any academic roadblocks to publishing that you've seen lately in science anywhere??

And then you find an ENTIRE screed section on anti-religious debunking and baiting..

My God --- these are the boys who can't get along and decide to go form their own minute and inconsequential site catering to their over-inflated egos..

I'm beginning to doubt if I'm gonna learn much from our new contributor...

I suppose the statement "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue" bypassed your frontal cortex altogether, eh? What the "anti-religious debunking and baiting" done elsewhere on that site has to do with my posts or our discussion is for you to explain. Having said that, I could care less, just so you know.

Told you... I might get "constructive dialogue" but would never have a chance striking the inflammatory language from your RationalWiki quote above.. THAT'S editorial style book and DESIGNED to attract narrow-minded folks such as yourself who must be always protected from being subjected to facts and opinions you don't like.

All the news we're screened for you in a political dialectic wrapper you can comprehend.

Think I'll go back -- register --- and offer them that front page banner idea for free.

As well as being given the warm feeling that you will find NO GOOD words or deeds of "religious" zealots in the following pages..

Really man --- can't you use a PUBLIC Wiki that doesn't incite partisian bashing on every entry? Please explain...

Have you read the crap posted at Wattsup? At McIntyre's web site? And you are complaining that someone not a right wing born again anti-science crusader is daring to use inflammatory language on their web site? Oh my. Dude, there is no "Wiki" that doesn't have some sort of bias. Many of them do, however, have valid information, and what's even more important, at least they provide bibliographies with their postings.