Briffa2013

[IanC]

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'.

 

[mamooth]

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.

 

[IanC]

a while back I asked you these questions, which you ducked-

Quote: Originally Posted by mamooth
The Global Warming denialists are very similar to the Lysenkoists. Instead of good science, they demand a fantasy science that backs the dogma of their political party. And if any scientist dissents from the party line, they want that scientist sent to a political gulag.

Just look at how screams of "fraud!" are standard among denialists. Being that fraud is a crime, they clearly do want most scientists jailed. They displayed that Lysenkoist trait most proudly when the Virginia Attorney General tried fabricating charges to get Dr. Michael Mann jailed. I haven't seen a single denialist anywhere criticize that stunt. Every single last one of them doubled down on the party line that Dr. Mann was an EnemyOfTheState who needed to be made an example of.

When I see some denialists start denouncing such Stalinist attempts to get dissenting scientists jailed, I'll stop comparing them to Lysenkoists. But I don't think that will happen soon. TheParty has issued its marching orders, and denialists don't dare disobey TheParty.

(edit- IanC quote starts here)
????? what is 'TheParty'? where can I find these 'marching orders'? for that matter, who are the 'Global Warming Denialists'?


you dont seem to have a very good grip on the reality of AGW skepticism. do you ever actually read anything written by skeptics or do you just go to SkepticalScience for their ColesNote version?

Curry and McIntyre were mentioned in the OP. do you read their blogs, do you actually know anything about their positions on the climate change issues? do you disagree with their positions on improving scientific integrity? can you disagree with any specific public position that they have taken? can you give me an example? I dont want a link to a Tamino or SkS hit piece, although you can use their ideas. post a link to a Curry or McIntyre statement, and then say why you think it is wrong, or even just unfair.

as far as Michael Mann goes, do you think it is appropriate that he still uses the upsidedown Tiljander proxies? do you think he lied to the NAS inquiry when he said he had never calculated r^2 correlation values for MBH98 even though his computer program specifically had a sub routine for doing so? do you think he prevaricated to the Penn State inquiry when he said he never deleted AR4 emails, or facilitated anyone else to do so? even though Eugene Wahl testified at a later inquiry that he recieved the famous 'FOIA delete all emails' email from Mann, and did in fact delete them? just what would Mann actually have to do for you to lose faith in him? hahahaha, perhaps printing up a certificate stating he won a Nobel Prize? hahahahaha.

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?

 

[mamooth]

you dont seem to have a very good grip on the reality of AGW skepticism. do you ever actually read anything written by skeptics or do you just go to SkepticalScience for their ColesNote version?

Neither of us read the other's sources deeply, so spare me the moralizing. I read a wide array, you read a couple cultists.

Do you disagree with their positions on improving scientific integrity?

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.

Can you disagree with any specific public position that they have taken? can you give me an example?

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.

the thread is about Briffa2013.

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

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?

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.

what do you think of the shenanigans, and outright lies, produced by the Hockey Team to deny access to McIntyre and company?

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?

 

[IanC]

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.

 

[RollingThunder]

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'.

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

 

[flacaltenn]

you dont seem to have a very good grip on the reality of AGW skepticism. do you ever actually read anything written by skeptics or do you just go to SkepticalScience for their ColesNote version?

Neither of us read the other's sources deeply, so spare me the moralizing. I read a wide array, you read a couple cultists.

Do you disagree with their positions on improving scientific integrity?

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.

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?

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.

what do you think of the shenanigans, and outright lies, produced by the Hockey Team to deny access to McIntyre and company?

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?

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...

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..

 

[mamooth]

The chart you tossed in above indicates you don't have a F-ing clue how unique YAD061 was.

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

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..

 

[SSDD]

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..

Cook doesn't spoon feed his pets that sort of info over at SS.

 

[IanC]

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'.

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

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.

I have some happier news to report from Phil Trans B, which, unlike the International Journal of Climatology, has a data policy and takes it seriously. Phil Trans B is a science journal published by the Royal Society as opposed to a climate science journal published by the Royal Meteorological Society.

Last summer, I reported that I had requested that Briffa archive data for Briffa et al 2008, pursuant to policies of Phil Trans B. I received a cordial note at the time from the editor that they took their policies seriously and would follow up on it. They responded cordially when I followed up on several occasions and said that they were working on it (and, given that they were dealing with core Team members, this is no small undertaking) and hoped to have the data by the end of the year.

A couple of days ago, I was notified by Phil Trans B that the first installment (Scandinavian data) was online here and that the authors had undertaken to have the balance online “in the New Year”.

All in all, a very professional response from Phil Trans B, placing the surly response from International Journal of Climatology in rather stark contrast and perhaps highlighting rather neatly the questionable data standards that are deemed acceptable by the Royal Meteorological Society and some climate scientists.

I’ve done a quick look at the data available so far: there are spline and RCS chronologies, which appear to match the figure, and measurement data for Tornetrask/Finland combined. I’ll discuss the data on another occasion.

Phil. Trans. B « Climate Audit

and finally the actual tree data was archived by Sep2009-

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).

I am very grateful to the editors of Phil Trans B (Roy Soc) – at long last, a journal editor stood up to CRU, requiring Briffa to archive supporting data. They actually asked Briffa to archive the data last year. He asked for further time. When I looked earlier this year, it was still unarchived. However, when I looked again a few days ago, it had finally been archived (without anyone at CRU having the courtesy to inform me that they had rectified the situation.)

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.

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-

Briffa has also been attacked by McIntyre for not releasing the original ring-width measurement records from which the various chronologies discussed in Briffa (2000) and Briffa et al. (2008) were made. We would like to reiterate that these data were never "owned" by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and we have never had the right to distribute them. These data were acquired in the context of collaborative research with colleagues who developed them. Requests for these data have been redirected towards the appropriate institutions and individuals. When the Briffa (2000) paper was published, release of these data was specifically embargoed by our colleagues who were still working towards further publications using them. Following publication of the 2008 paper, at the request of the Royal Society, Briffa approached colleagues in Sweden, Ekaterinburg and Krasnoyarsk and their permission was given to release the data. This was done in 2008 and 2009. Incidentally, we understand that Rashit Hantemirov sent McIntyre the Yamal data used in the papers cited above at his request as early as 2nd February, 2004.

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.

 

[mamooth]

Had you ever seen the VARIATION in Briffa's tree ring set before by individual tree?? Y __ N __

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

Had you ever seen the VARIATION in Briffa's tree ring set before by individual tree?? Y __ N __

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.

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...

 

[westwall]

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'.

I especially like Real climates histrionics. Pathetic, but amusing...

 

[westwall]

Had you ever seen the VARIATION in Briffa's tree ring set before by individual tree?? Y __ N __

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.

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

 

[mamooth]

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.

 

[mamooth]

You ignored my other simple questions.

I ignore the Unibomber Manifesto as well.

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

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

 

[westwall]

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.

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.

 

[IanC]

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'.

I especially like Real climates histrionics. Pathetic, but amusing...

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.