Yamal, McI, Hockey stick etc
Discussion
The denier community has got all heated about the Yamal issue on the IYFEOCC thread. Starting here: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Here's what McI says about it with regard to James Delingpole's report:
"A couple of points on your blog article. You've conflated two different studies. There are many issues pertaining to the Mann hockey stick, but the Yamal controversy is not one of them. Other than in the sense that "independent" reconstructions using the Yamal series in disputes are said to support the Mann hockey stick.
You say: "This sounds esoteric, but here’s the important bit: what McIntyre discovered was that Professor Briffa had cherry picked his 'tree data sets' in order to reach the conclusion he wanted to reach. When, however, McIntyre plotted in a much larger and more representative range of samples from exactly the same area, the results he got were startlingly different."
That is not what I "discovered". In fact, my opinion was the exact opposite as I stated at Climate Audit. It was my opinion (and Briffa has said this today) that he had inherited a subset that had already been selected by the Russians, who stated that they were selecting 200-400 year old trees for use in their own study using "corridor standardization". Briffa used this subset for his own analysis using "RCS standardization", a method which requires a much larger data set and one that is larger than that used in the most recent portion of the Yamal study.
There are real issues with the Briffa study, but it is unreasonable and unfair to go beyond the facts in evidence."
found here http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7244 comment 68
I'm not holding my breath waiting for the usual suspects amongst the PH community to backtrack from their comments.
Here's what McI says about it with regard to James Delingpole's report:
"A couple of points on your blog article. You've conflated two different studies. There are many issues pertaining to the Mann hockey stick, but the Yamal controversy is not one of them. Other than in the sense that "independent" reconstructions using the Yamal series in disputes are said to support the Mann hockey stick.
You say: "This sounds esoteric, but here’s the important bit: what McIntyre discovered was that Professor Briffa had cherry picked his 'tree data sets' in order to reach the conclusion he wanted to reach. When, however, McIntyre plotted in a much larger and more representative range of samples from exactly the same area, the results he got were startlingly different."
That is not what I "discovered". In fact, my opinion was the exact opposite as I stated at Climate Audit. It was my opinion (and Briffa has said this today) that he had inherited a subset that had already been selected by the Russians, who stated that they were selecting 200-400 year old trees for use in their own study using "corridor standardization". Briffa used this subset for his own analysis using "RCS standardization", a method which requires a much larger data set and one that is larger than that used in the most recent portion of the Yamal study.
There are real issues with the Briffa study, but it is unreasonable and unfair to go beyond the facts in evidence."
found here http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7244 comment 68
I'm not holding my breath waiting for the usual suspects amongst the PH community to backtrack from their comments.
So in summary, the hockey stick plot is still wrong but not deliberately fraudulent, just wrong? The data used which happened to produce the eponomous graph is too narrow a subset and when a wider subset is used, the hockey stick is no longer apparent?
I suppose cynics could argue that the author should have been aware of this limitation in his data and indeed that by refusing to give up the data (even now in it's entirety) he was aware, but that's a serious accusation to make of an acedemic and not one I'd be prepared to level.
I suppose cynics could argue that the author should have been aware of this limitation in his data and indeed that by refusing to give up the data (even now in it's entirety) he was aware, but that's a serious accusation to make of an acedemic and not one I'd be prepared to level.
Actually, It's funny that you mentioned the "refuse to give up data" meme, because I had just seen this remark on the RC site:
"Gavin.
Thank you for your response – I hope you know that I have the utmost respect for your work but this chap McIntyre (who seems to me to have an unbelievably large ego) repeatedly cites instances where he cannot get the data or the methodology used. I think we have a really strong argument on Climate Change thanks to all the work you and your colleagues have done so why don’t we give him what he wants and ask him to ‘put up or shut up’?
[Response: I think we just did. But there is a bigger issue here. Take the GISTEMP product for instance. This takes public domain data provided by the Met Services, homogenises it and makes a correction for urban warming based on nearby rural stations. The method was amply described in a number of publications and lots of intermediate data was provided through the web interface. Good right? But the descriptions of the algorithms were not enough, and a number of people complained that the full code wasn't available and how that meant GISTEMP was somehow hiding some secret manipulations. Now the code isn't particularly pretty but it worked and so in response to that pressure, they put the whole thing online. Finally the secrets were going to be exposed! Except that..... people looked over it briefly, there was one formatting error found, there were some half-hearted attempts to look at it.... and nothing. McIntyre et al got bored and went off to find another windmill to tilt at. And people still complain that the data and the code aren't available. This happens because people (in general) are much keener on the political point scoring than they are in doing anything with the data. The reality is not the point. Given that I share your desire for open science and transparency, why do these antics bother me? Because it sends completely the wrong signal. These politically driven demands for more code, more data, more residuals, more notes, more background are basically insatiable and when the people that provide the most, end up being those who are attacked most viciously, it doesn't help the cause people claim to espouse. So when you hear this demands for more openness look at what those people have done with what is already there and judge for yourself whether it is genuine or merely grandstanding. - gavin]"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009... comment 48
"Gavin.
Thank you for your response – I hope you know that I have the utmost respect for your work but this chap McIntyre (who seems to me to have an unbelievably large ego) repeatedly cites instances where he cannot get the data or the methodology used. I think we have a really strong argument on Climate Change thanks to all the work you and your colleagues have done so why don’t we give him what he wants and ask him to ‘put up or shut up’?
[Response: I think we just did. But there is a bigger issue here. Take the GISTEMP product for instance. This takes public domain data provided by the Met Services, homogenises it and makes a correction for urban warming based on nearby rural stations. The method was amply described in a number of publications and lots of intermediate data was provided through the web interface. Good right? But the descriptions of the algorithms were not enough, and a number of people complained that the full code wasn't available and how that meant GISTEMP was somehow hiding some secret manipulations. Now the code isn't particularly pretty but it worked and so in response to that pressure, they put the whole thing online. Finally the secrets were going to be exposed! Except that..... people looked over it briefly, there was one formatting error found, there were some half-hearted attempts to look at it.... and nothing. McIntyre et al got bored and went off to find another windmill to tilt at. And people still complain that the data and the code aren't available. This happens because people (in general) are much keener on the political point scoring than they are in doing anything with the data. The reality is not the point. Given that I share your desire for open science and transparency, why do these antics bother me? Because it sends completely the wrong signal. These politically driven demands for more code, more data, more residuals, more notes, more background are basically insatiable and when the people that provide the most, end up being those who are attacked most viciously, it doesn't help the cause people claim to espouse. So when you hear this demands for more openness look at what those people have done with what is already there and judge for yourself whether it is genuine or merely grandstanding. - gavin]"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009... comment 48
s2art said:
nigelfr said:
Which wider subset are you referring to?
And which "Hockey Stick" plot?
Troll alert!And which "Hockey Stick" plot?
Edited by nigelfr on Friday 2nd October 16:02
Experience has shown that if wriggle room is left then "misunderstandings" arise.
I couldn't resist this comment 35 from the RC link above: "This is one Massive Lie too many. I can’t keep up. I refuse to become righteously indignant over this latest Massive Lie because it would compromise my indignation over the GISS Massive Lie, which itself detracts from my outrage over the SST Massive Lie, which diminishes my lather over the 2nd Law Massive Lie… on and on, until I can’t even work up a decent snit over the MWP conspiracy.
It’s no wonder that the entire world science commuity is involved in the coverup, given the sheer number of Massive Lies that have to be maintained. As a government scientist, I’m holding up my end of the conspiracy, but it’s getting harder as the annual budget shrinks. For FY10, I’m funded to tell Massive Lies only through August, after that it will have to be Small Lies or even The Truth until FY11. The real tragedy is that I don’t have a project number for conspiracy maintenance, so it ends up getting billed as Administrative Overhead."
The guy has a point though hasn't he? How many denier blog scandals have we seen this year which create a lot of noise and confusion and then blow away after a couple of days as they are revealed to be unsubstiated.
It’s no wonder that the entire world science commuity is involved in the coverup, given the sheer number of Massive Lies that have to be maintained. As a government scientist, I’m holding up my end of the conspiracy, but it’s getting harder as the annual budget shrinks. For FY10, I’m funded to tell Massive Lies only through August, after that it will have to be Small Lies or even The Truth until FY11. The real tragedy is that I don’t have a project number for conspiracy maintenance, so it ends up getting billed as Administrative Overhead."
The guy has a point though hasn't he? How many denier blog scandals have we seen this year which create a lot of noise and confusion and then blow away after a couple of days as they are revealed to be unsubstiated.
nigelfr said:
s2art said:
nigelfr said:
Which wider subset are you referring to?
And which "Hockey Stick" plot?
Troll alert!And which "Hockey Stick" plot?
Edited by nigelfr on Friday 2nd October 16:02
Experience has shown that if wriggle room is left then "misunderstandings" arise.
So in summary, the hockey stick plot is still wrong but not deliberately fraudulent, just wrong? The data used which happened to produce the eponomous graph is too narrow a subset and when a wider subset is used, the hockey stick is no longer apparent?
I suppose cynics could argue that the author should have been aware of this limitation in his data and indeed that by refusing to give up the data (even now in it's entirety) he was aware, but that's a serious accusation to make of an acedemic and not one I'd be prepared to level.
I suppose cynics could argue that the author should have been aware of this limitation in his data and indeed that by refusing to give up the data (even now in it's entirety) he was aware, but that's a serious accusation to make of an acedemic and not one I'd be prepared to level.
There's method to my madness. (Cue a "witty" misquote 
)
As I mention above, the deniers/sceptics make smoke on a subject and then let it drop after a couple of days when they move on to the next red herring. By the time there is a coherent refutation of their claim the IYFEOCC thread is tens of pages longer which makes it a PITA to reopen the subject.
I hope that by creating a thread that deals with only one topic, it makes things clearer.
)As I mention above, the deniers/sceptics make smoke on a subject and then let it drop after a couple of days when they move on to the next red herring. By the time there is a coherent refutation of their claim the IYFEOCC thread is tens of pages longer which makes it a PITA to reopen the subject.
I hope that by creating a thread that deals with only one topic, it makes things clearer.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff