He really makes a laughingstock of himself in this feckless piece of disinformation about the Yamal affair. It reeks of desperation. He even manages to use my objections to NCDC using an incomplete, non quality controlled preliminary dataset posted on the web solely to keep volunteers updated of the survey status and for no other purpose, as an “unpublished” work suitable for scientific consumption. NCDC went ahead and used it for a paper anyway, despite my objections. Somehow in the bizarre hockey team entrenched mindset of Gavin, this is comparable to the team’s objections to releasing FOI sought data on Yamal. Note to Gavin – my file was already public!
You’d think a scientist could get this simple fact right.
Gavin writes:
UK FOI legislation (quite sensibly) specifically exempts unpublished work from release provided the results are being prepared for publication. So McIntyre’s appeals have tried to insinuate that no such publication is in progress (which is false) or that the public interest in knowing about a regional tree ring reconstruction from an obscure part of Siberia trumps the obvious interest that academics have in being able to work on projects exclusively prior to publication. This is a hard sell, unless of course one greatly exaggerates the importance of a single proxy record – but who would do that? (Oh yes: YAD06 – the most important tree in the world, The global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie etc.). Note that premature public access to unpublished work is something that many people (including Anthony Watts) feel quite strongly about.
Worse, McIntyre has claimed in his appeal that the length of time since the Briffa et al (2008) paper implies that the regional Yamal reconstruction has been suppressed for nefarious motives. But I find it a little rich that the instigator of a multitude of FOI requests, appeals, inquiries, appeals about inquires, FOIs about appeals, inquiries into FOI appeals etc. is now using the CRU’s lack of productivity as a reason to support more FOI releases. This is actually quite funny.
Furthermore, McIntyre is using the fact that Briffa and colleagues responded online to his last deceptive claims about Yamal, to claim that all Yamal-related info must now be placed in the public domain (including, as mentioned above, unpublished reconstructions being prepared for a paper). How this will encourage scientists to be open to real-time discussions with critics is a little puzzling. Mention some partial analysis online, and be hit immediately with a FOI for the rest…?
Our favorite Yamal tracking historian, Andrew Montford explodes Gavins claims at Bishop Hill.
Montford writes:
Gavin Schmidt has issued the official response to the recent excitement over Yamal. I have to say, even on a brief glance through it is a wild piece of writing.
Briffa, as we know, reprocessed data from Hantemirov and Shiyatov in his 2000 paper on Yamal. He used the same data again in his 2008 paper on regional chronologies. Schmidt says:
McIntyre is accusing Briffa of ‘deception’ in stating that he did not ‘consider’ doing a larger more regional reconstruction at that time. However, it is clear from the 2000 paper that the point was to show hemispheric coherence across multiple tree ring records, not to create regional chronologies. Nothing was being ‘deceptively’ hidden and the Yamal curve is only a small part of the paper in any case.
As McIntyre’s article is quite clear that the Yamal regional chronology dates back only to 2006 it can of course not be relevant to the 2000 paper. This is something that he makes quite clear in his article.
One of the purposes of Briffa (2000) was clearly to demonstrate the effect of RCS methodology on the Hantemirov and Shiyatov 2002 dataset. I have no objection to CRU claiming this “purpose” for Briffa (2000).
But, by 2008, this was no longer their “purpose”. Indeed, one doubts whether the editors of Phil Trans B would have accepted a 2008 paper with such a mundane purpose. The actual “purpose” of Briffa et al 2008 is stated quite clearly and was entirely different: it introduced and discussed “regional” chronologies.
Schmidt is therefore engaging in some serious disinformation. Unfortunately, this is not the only occasion. For example, he points out that McIntyre had long ago received “the data” from the Russians who originally collated it.
Full story here: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/5/11/realclimate-on-yamal.html
Gavin should know by now that he can’t get away with this sort of stuff. I wonder what Phil Jones will do next week.
Gavin, the best thing that ever happened to climate skeptics. As usual. Thanks Gav!
(Aplogies for copying this previous comment.)
Gunga Din says:
May 9, 2012 at 5:35 pm
“Chopping Up Wood on a Snowy Evening”
By Michael Mann
What tree this is, I think I know.
It grew in Yamal some time ago.
Yamal 06 I’m placing here
In hopes a hockey stick will grow.
But McIntyre did think it queer
No tree, the stick did disappear!
Desparate measures I did take
To make the stick reappear.
There were some corings from a lake,
And other data I could bake.
I’ll tweek my model more until
Another hockey stick I’ll make!
I changed a line into a hill!
I can’t say how I was thrilled!
Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.
Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.
AMAZING! 🙂
BTW Heres the emails… http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/05/death-threat-emails
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/05/grossly-graphic-gun-play-in-goulburn
AND here is the self confessed gunman… http://catallaxyfiles.com/2012/05/10/the-dog-ate-my-death-threats-ii/#comment-478546
[REPLY: Nice work, Kimmie, but this is OT for this thread. Please be sure, in the future, that comments are directed to relevant threads. -REP]
Gavin…Gavin…you gotta understand: we are onto you. We are onto Mann; we are onto Briffa. We are not letting go. We do not forget. We are going to keep putting the truth out there in the internet and all the doings at the CRU are going to come to light. (Just imagine what CG3 is going to show!) Why? Because of the evil being perpetrated on humanity as a result of the political and social misdirection that originates there, and which you continue to try to hide.
Railing against McIntyre is not going to change RealClimate’s polecat status. When the court cases come, and they will, you will want to at least offer your friends a character reference in mitigation. You will be in a better position to do so if you break with the clod-squad and start publishing pieces with less truthiness and more truth.
H/T to Steven Colbert (an unrepentant climate alarmist, BTW) for giving us ‘Truthiness’, the perfect word to describe CAGW propaganda. (‘Scienciness’ and ‘believiness’ don’t quite capture the spirit of the intended lies of commission and omission that Gavin uses so eloquently above.)
I read Gavin’s post and this post in full and I have no idea what you actually claim Gavin did that you categorize as “disinformation” or “dumb mistakes.” Can you repeat the specific “disinformation” or “dumb mistake” one at a time and make this clear?
You will know them by their fruit. Gavin is between a rock and a hard place. Either he admits that his entire field values propaganda and activism more that objectivity, or he must continue to dissemble.
Comment would be superfluous.
Just go over to SurrealClimate and hear the breathless adulations of the believers and you will realise what an uphill battle to expose the truth will be.
Remember that SurrealClimate has a near hotline to the IPCC and hence to Government policymakers.
[REPLY: Nice work, Kimmie, but this is OT for this thread. Please be sure, in the future, that comments are directed to relevant threads. -REP] Ack! Sorry
[REPLY: Not a big problem and you do have good skills. Keep it up and be careful where you direct the comments. -REP]
Why the truth matters:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/05/an-inconvenient-lawsuit-teenagers-take-global-warming-to-the-courts/256903/
Good! keep hammering away at this YAMAL story. It will hit mainstream as it’s the ONE most credible item that will bring AGW down because there is now De facto Evidence for deception/fraud. Im sure Mcyntire has probably got much more info up his sleeve which will be released at the appropriate time. BTW if there is one person who needs/deserves support it’s him
It matters not as to how wrong Gavin is about this, since the simple fact is that he wrote it, and therefore will go into the lore of AGW misinformation and will be cited as “fact” the true believers
In 2009, I planted 100 White pine in pots. They were bareroot transplant seedlings, so they were less than a foot tall. Now in 2012, the difference in the size and general growth of the trees is amazing. Some I have re-potted to large pots and those generally are larger. My best trees are about 5 feet tall. Most are 3.5 feet. Some of the trees are still under 2 feet. They were all in pretty much the same spot summer and winter. Water, Genetics, Soil Mixture, Disease, Animals, Bugs, Wind, Ice Storms and Luck all played a role in their growth.
I dissapoint. – gavin.
Gavin: But I find it a little rich that the instigator of a multitude of FOI requests, appeals, inquiries, appeals about inquires, FOIs about appeals, inquiries into FOI appeals etc. is now using the CRU’s lack of productivity as a reason to support more FOI releases. This is actually quite funny.
I am not amused.
Hi there,
is it just me or is it really the first time, that we can read something along the following written be a “real climate scientist”:
Gavin in his reply to comment #1 over at RealClimate:
“[..] whatever judgement calls that Briffa et al make (on the level of coherence necessary, significance levels, magnitude of common signal, statistical method etc.) they will still be accused of fudging it to produce a desired result – because that is so easy for the ‘critics’ to do. Every analysis involves judgement calls – even McIntyre’s. And so if people don’t like the result, they will attack the judgements – regardless of how they actually impact the final result or how justified they are.[..]”
Does that really mean, what I think it means? Judgment calls can influence a result in the dendrology like this?
What then would be needed a full spectrum of reasonable judgment calls and respectively all possible outcomes, before any trust can be placed in these reconstructions!
It seems to me critics like S. McIntyre play a vital role here bringing people like Briffa back to science, especially since there is a track record of bad judgment calls, like over weighting a certain tree or reading data upside down…
All the best,
LoN
Phil C
May 11, 2012 at 8:56 am
I read Gavin’s post and this post in full and I have no idea
###
Of course you don’t. Your Marxist world-view interferes with your perception and with your ability to reason.
Matthew W
May 11, 2012 at 9:26 am
It matters not as to how wrong Gavin is about this, since the simple fact is that he wrote it, and therefore will go into the lore of AGW misinformation and will be cited as “fact” the true believers
###
Exactly!
From CO2 Science:
“Medieval Warm Period Project
Was there a Medieval Warm Period?
YES, according to data published by 1069 individual scientists from 616 research institutions in 45 different countries.” The count continues.
Yamal can go begging. It is statistically insignificant and Gav does not want to admit it.
YAD061 Gavin. Sceptics will never forgive and the Internet will never forget.
Gavin knows by now that he CAN get away with this stuff. The skeptic community is not his intended audience here, it’s the supporters in the media that he moves to soothe. He’s making like Crocodile Dundee to a recalcitrant water buffalo, a little humming, a few cocks of the head and “environmental journalists” quickly go back to sleep.
LawsofNature:
I agree that this was a very revealing comment. This in part is also at the root of Mann’s BCP/PC1 fiasco. It is fair enough that a researcher focuses in on a subset of data but (a) the criteria for selecting the subset need to be explicit and (b) the discarded data has to be shown not to contradict or otherwise compromise the results of the selected data. (That is, you cannot discard outliers without explaining why they are outliers as opposed to valid data points.) The whole process of selecting subsets needs to be transparent and replicable. My read is that was what Steve McIntyre was endeavoring to do wrt Yamal, just as he had done with Mann and his BCPs.
Please correct me if I have misstated anything.
Phil C wrote: “Can you repeat the specific “disinformation” or “dumb mistake” one at a time and make this clear?”
What’s the problem, too much trouble to follow the very clear link to exactly what you’re asking for? Keyword “Regional Chronology”.
but then that’s a 3 syllable word matched a 4 syllable word, so maybe that’s where you get lost. If you can’t handle anything past “eek! eek! Warm bad!!! Me scared!!!” then there’s really nothing anyone here can do to help you.
It is a pity that Dr Schmidt was not around to forty years ago. I am sure that a former US President could have used a similar charge against two young and tenacious reporters. Their efforts certainly reduced the productivity of his administration.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/watergate/
“You’d think a scientist could get this simple fact right.”
Well Andrew, a real scientist probably would get it right, but Gavin Schmidt is not a real scientist he is a climate junk-scientist.