McIntyre finds the Marcott ‘trick’ – How long before Science has to retract Marcott et al?

Steve McIntyre has made what I can only describe as a stunning discovery as to why there is a sharp uptick in the main Marcott et al graph being touted by the media from its publication in Science.

marcott-A-1000[1]

It seems the uptick in the 20th century is not real, being nothing more than an artifact of shoddy procedures where the dates on the proxy samples were changed for some strange reason.

McIntyre writes:

The Marcott-Shakun Dating Service

Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix did not use the published dates for ocean cores, instead substituting their own dates. The validity of Marcott-Shakun re-dating will be discussed below, but first, to show that the re-dating “matters” (TM-climate science), here is a graph showing reconstructions using alkenones (31 of 73 proxies) in Marcott style, comparing the results with published dates (red) to results with Marcott-Shakun dates (black). As you see, there is a persistent decline in the alkenone reconstruction in the 20th century using published dates, but a 20th century increase using Marcott-Shakun dates. (It is taking all my will power not to make an obvious comment at this point.)

alkenone-comparisonFigure 1. Reconstructions from alkenone proxies in Marcott style. Red- using published dates; black- using Marcott-Shakun dates.

In a follow-up post, I’ll examine the validity of Marcott-Shakun redating. If the relevant specialists had been aware of or consulted on the Marcott-Shakun redating, I’m sure that they would have contested it.

Read his entire post here.

This is going to get very interesting very fast.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Marcott et al proxy paper, Paleoclimatology, Proxies and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

253 Responses to McIntyre finds the Marcott ‘trick’ – How long before Science has to retract Marcott et al?

  1. Neo says:

    Yet another example of torture not yielding correct results.
    Even the statisicians at the Tobacco Institue could do better.

  2. Lawrence13 says:

    Does Steve feel this was a pure mistake or something more sinister….lies?

  3. Alex the skeptic says:

    Tick, tick, tick- how long will the new Marcott et al hockey stick survive?

    That was yesterday’s question. Now the answer is here. Marcott’s hockey stick has been murdered by the truth.

  4. GlynnMhor says:

    Here is another case where someone who is a real statistician with a real understanding of these analytical methods finds defects or insufficiencies.

    From the look of the graphs and the vagaries of both lines in the modern era I have to wonder whether the alkenone proxy is at even usable to estimate temperature.

  5. Robert of Ottawa says:

    There are two successful ways to commit fraud, either do it in plain sight so no one will believe it could possibly be so (Madoff); or hide it under layers of subtefuge (Marcott et al.).

    Really, this takes the biscuit.

  6. DirkH says:

    GlynnMhor says:
    March 16, 2013 at 3:56 pm
    “From the look of the graphs and the vagaries of both lines in the modern era I have to wonder whether the alkenone proxy is at even usable to estimate temperature.”

    Well obviously one proxy is not enough to estimate global temperature. Had they cut off their result before the proxy dropoffs the result would have been defensible.

    They couldn’t resist to add a “non-robust” Hockey Stick; temptations of a warmist post doc, what a boring life they must have (had).

  7. cui bono says:

    7 stages of reaction to the death of yet another Hockey Stick:-

    1. SHOCK & DENIAL- No, they couldn’t have done that – could they?
    2. PAIN & GUILT- How could I allow my taxes to be spent on this rubbish? Maybe it’s my fault?
    3. ANGER & BARGAINING- Perhaps this team could be redeployed into auto repairs.
    4. “DEPRESSION”, REFLECTION, LONELINESS- Real science is dying out. Sigh. Sob.
    5. THE UPWARD TURN- Wheeee! Another one bites the dust!
    6. RECONSTRUCTION & WORKING THROUGH- So what were the real temperatures?
    7. ACCEPTANCE & HOPE- Maybe they’ll get the message – ‘don’t mess with McIntyre’!

  8. Hoo-boy. And just in time for the next AR, too.
    :-)

  9. Konrad says:

    Suddenly a heated discussion took place between a client and the management of the Marcott-Shakun dating service….”but the online profile said it was a HUGE up-tick!”

  10. Leonard Lane says:

    Good work, these frauds, deceptions, data corruptions, and “mistakes” must be pointed out and documented in the literature so that one crook after another may not build on the original fraud or “mistake”. If the “mistakes” and hockey sticks went down in the last few decades as often as they went up then you could write them off to ignorance, incompetence, sloppy work, or mistakes. But when all the “mistakes”, frauds, errors, etc. always increase the temperature in the last few decades then you there is a high probability that all upward pointing hockey sticks are frauds.

  11. In Years (BP) time zero is 1950 in Marcott.
    Marcott shows a spike in 1940.
    In the McIntyre Fig. 1, the red curve appears to go to 1980 or 1990. A couple decades later than Marcott.

    Awe, heck. Why didn’t Marcott use a scalpel every 500 years and just do a bet fit on the segment slopes? (Just Kidding!)

  12. John Kenny says:

    Maybe, just maybe this will be the moment when the world realises what is happening, not just us sceptics, and the uncritical acceptance of ‘the science’ will never be the same again.

    Here’s to you McIntyre!

  13. MattS says:

    “It is taking all my will power not to make an obvious comment at this point.”
    Hide the decline!
    http://m4gw.com/no_cap_and_trade_coalation_unveils_hide_the_decline_ii/

  14. Andy Wilkins says:

    I’m afraid I’m going to have to say it out loud:
    They deliberately messed with the figures to fit a pre-conceived agenda.

    It’s depressing to see science abused in such a way. Thankfully we have Steve M to bring some sanity to the chaos.

  15. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Cui Bono,

    Repeat hockey stick and avoid steps 1 to 7.

  16. DirkH says:

    cui bono says:
    March 16, 2013 at 4:12 pm
    “3. ANGER & BARGAINING- Perhaps this team could be redeployed into auto repairs.”

    Are you mad?

  17. Gary Hladik says:

    Alex the skeptic says (March 16, 2013 at 3:50 pm): “Marcott’s hockey stick has been murdered by the truth.”

    Mr. McIntyre, at Climate Audit, with a magnifying glass.

  18. David, UK says:

    To the words of Mull of Kintyre:
    Steve McIntyre
    Old tricks are no contest to him
    His desire
    For justice will lead him
    Oh Steve McIntyre

    Sorry.

  19. Jean Parisot says:

    Why will it get interesting, why would Science(tm) care? At best, someone might get a politely worded note, if the math is obscure enough, on their web site.

  20. Werner Brozek says:

    The final date of the Marcott reconstruction is AD1940 (BP10).

    Could part of the problem be that they are confusing themselves and others with an archaic way of saying which year they are really talking about? If BP means before 1950, what would 2013 be? It would almost be as if an old article was written using the Rankine scale and a modern article refused to convert to C for newer readers. A high positive number on the Rankine scale, such as 200 R would be a large negative number on the scale in degrees C.

  21. LearDog says:

    Ever the gentlemen you two are, describing this as “nothing more than an artifact of shoddy procedures where the dates on the proxy samples were changed for some strange reason”.

    Marcott shifted 2 cores (with negative values) so that they occured just barely outside the closing period, and shifted 3 cores (with positive values) of years 1000, 690 and 510 years later than their published dates to “0 BP”.

    I will say it – this is straight-up academic malfeasence. And just in time for AR5. By a Mann wannabe ?

  22. David, UK says:

    To the TUNE, even.
    D’oh.

  23. I’d say it’s a “sign” problem, but that doesn’t explain the pre-1900 data.

  24. davidmhoffer says:

    This just seems surreal. They could have just made up the data, it would have taken longer to debunk that way. I hate to be a proponent of conspiracy theories, but it just seems like Marcott is the sacrificial lamb to distract attention from something else. CG3?

  25. Ian W says:

    It seems the uptick in the 20th century is not real, being nothing more than an artifact of shoddy procedures where the dates on the proxy samples were changed for some strange reason.

    One wonders how many times these ‘shoddy procedures’ were iterated until for ‘some strange reason’ a hockey stick was obtained.

  26. Iggy Slanter says:

    Why is this surprising? To quote the old movie “you just don’t get it, do you? It’s what he does!”

    Juicing the numbers to heat the planet is the norm for these guys, along with a lot of other stuff that we are all aware.

    It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

  27. Jimbo says:

    Tick, tick, tic, – a commenter yesterday thought 6 weeks, I almost replied less than 2. Whatever the time, this piece of sh!t has to be flushed soon. Even the Guardian and BBC have avoided their usual OTT reporting. BBC none this morning, Guardian 1 an AP feed.

  28. Jimbo says:

    By the way, where are the usual Warmists on WUWT defending this paper???

  29. Jimbo says:

    I would not want to be in Marcott’s shoes. There is no doubt he has not had a good night’s sleep over the last 4 days. You can res assured he has been frantically communicating with his PHD mentors and Michael Trickster Mann. All to no avail. Marcott withdraw your paper by yourself before it is forced upon you. Don’t listen to your ‘advisors’ they are using you as a usefull idiot.

  30. Noblesse Oblige says:

    Anthony, it’s worse than this. Evidently Marcott’s thesis did not have the uptickhttp://climateaudit.org/2013/03/14/no-uptick-in-marcott-thesis/ , so something happened afterward whereby it got in. It is more than possible that it got inserted in the Science review process by hockey stick advocates, which then greased the skids for its publication.

    The victim in all this, besides all of us who have been scammed once again, is Marcott who was just trying to get a PhD. And once again Science magazine has reasserted its status as supermarket tabloid of science.

  31. willybamboo says:

    Alex, The hockey stick is the living dead. It doesn’t matter how many times McIntyre kills it. Nothing can kill this zombie

  32. oldseadog says:

    But will MSM, or indeed anyone else, publish any of this?

  33. Jimbo says:

    Let us remind ourselves about some of the NH heat of the Holocene pre-20th century. It is unprecedented and worse than we thought.

    Abstract
    We therefore conclude that for a priod in the Early Holocene, probably for a millenium or more, the Arctic Ocean was free of sea ice at least for shorter periods in the summer. This may serve as an analogue to the predicted “greenhouse situation” expected to appear within our century.
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP11A0203F

    Abstract
    Arctic sea ice cover was strongly reduced during most of the early Holocene and there appear to have been periods of ice free summers in the central Arctic Ocean. This has important consequences for our understanding of the recent trend of declining sea ice, and calls for further research on causal links between Arctic climate and sea ice.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110003185

    Abstract
    Calcareous nannofossils from approximately the past 7000 yr of the Holocene and from oxygen isotope stage 5 are present at 39 analyzed sites in the central Arctic Ocean. This indicates partly ice-free conditions during at least some summers. The depth of Holocene sediments in the Nansen basin is about 20 cm, or more where influenced by turbidites.
    http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/21/3/227.abstract

    Abstract
    A 10,000-Year Record of Arctic Ocean Sea-Ice Variability—View from the Beach
    We present a sea-ice record from northern Greenland covering the past 10,000 years. Multiyear sea ice reached a minimum between ~8500 and 6000 years ago, when the limit of year-round sea ice at the coast of Greenland was located ~1000 kilometers to the north of its present position. The subsequent increase in multiyear sea ice culminated during the past 2500 years and is linked to an increase in ice export from the western Arctic and higher variability of ice-drift routes
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6043/747.abstract

    Abstract
    …Today’s ice cover (2 to 4 meters thick) over the Arctic Ocean provides a shadow that prevents coccolithophorids (photosynthetic, planktonic algae) from living there. Sparse, low-diversity, but indigenous coccolith assemblages in late Pliocene to mid-Pleistocene (but not Holocene) sediments imply deep penetrating warm currents or an ice-free Arctic Ocean, or both, as those layers were being deposited.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17796050

    Rapid response of treeline vegetation and lakes to past climate warming

    ……………….Here we present palaeoecological evidence for changes in terrestrial vegetation and lake characteristics during an episode of climate warming that occurred between 5,000 and 4,000 years ago at the boreal treeline in central Canada. The initial transformation — from tundra to forest-tundra on land, which coincided with increases in lake productivity, pH and ratio of inflow to evaporation — took only 150 years, which is roughly equivalent to the time period often used in modelling the response of boreal forests to climate warming5,6. The timing of the treeline advance did not coincide with the maximum in high-latitude summer insolation predicted by Milankovitch theory7,…………………
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v361/n6409/abs/361243a0.html

    ……Tree birches (Betula pubescens Ehrh., B. pendula Roth.) reached the present-day shoreline of Barents Sea in Bolshezemelskaya tundra and 72°N in Taimyr between 8000 and 9000 BP……
    http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1552004?uid=2&uid=4&sid=00000000000000

  34. Alan Clark, paid shill for Big Oil says:

    Ohhh. That’s sure to get Steve another of those big cheques from Big Oil that wee-Mann is always yammering about. sarc/

    It’ll surely get him a donation from me (which is actually money from big oil that I got fair and square).

  35. Jimbo says:

    It is as if provenance had brought us McIntyre and FOIA. And of course Watts et. al. As they say the truth will out. You just have to be patient.

  36. durango12 says:

    Anthony, it is worse than this. Evidently the uptick is nowhere to be found in Marcott’s thesis. http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/14/no-uptick-in-marcott-thesis/

    So it is more than possible that somewhere in the review process, the uptick was added on, which greased the skids for its publication in Science. There is definitely something we don’t know here, but we do know that Science has reaffirmed its status as supermarket tabloid of climate science.

  37. Jeef says:

    History repeats:

    1. Amazing new peer reviewed paper published supports CAGW!
    2. Media headlines. “it’s worse than we thought!”
    3. Paper swiftly debunked
    4. Er…
    5. That’s it.

  38. Jeff says:

    Shakun bake? (as in cooking the books….)

  39. Peter Miller says:

    Even Mann would be proud of making this big a Hide the Decline.

  40. Clay Marley says:

    OK so I read the post but I’m not seeing where the hockey stick comes from. As I understand it, Marcott re-dated the core sample proxy data. Since these proxy datasets were created over a 10 year time span, I can see taking the original raw data and re-calibrating the carbon dating for all the proxy sets to the latest standard (using CALIB 6). It would remove one source of variability. Was that the purpose of the re-dating?

    But seems to me this would shift the data points to the left or right in time but not affect the temperature. So how does re-dating turn the red curve into the black curve?

  41. bikermailman says:

    This actually gives me a glimmer of hope. That they have to resort to such (apparent) fakery, that The Usual Suspects were going ball$ to the wall with this so quickly, shows desperation. Then again, a wounded bear cornered in a cave is desperate, but still dangerous. Anthony, Steve, many thanks.

  42. TomE says:

    Living in Oregon one likes to see Oregon people contribute to science and understanding of the earth. After reading the incompetence or fraud that this Marcott paper represents makes me very glad that my engineering degree is not from Oregon State. Last year Oregon State did not renew the contract of an assistant professor apparently because he didn’t agree with AGW, Now lets see how the university deals with incompetence and or fraud. Harshly if they want to maintain a semblance of integrity.

  43. Eric Simpson says:

    At Bishop Hill there’s a discussion of whether this is fraud or not. My comment:
    Its got to rise to the level of fraud or something like that to get the attention of the lib MSM. The thing is that the story of the incontrovertible evidence of unprecedented modern global warming ran night and day it seemed for weeks. That’s all the people are going to know. Insane.

  44. JEM says:

    The real issue is not that Marcott and company fuzzed their data and shifted their dates.

    The real issue is that none of Science’s putative reviewers spotted it and insisted they defend their rather interesting methods.

    They may, in fact, have a defense for what they did. My guess, though, is that it’s worse than, say, using Graybill’s stripbark trees as a temperature proxy.

  45. RossP says:

    I guess this is another nail in the coffin of Dr Mann’s reputation ( is there any room left in the coffin for more nails ?!?! ) as he was one of the first to trumpet / tweet the great significance of the Marcott paper.

  46. Reed Coray says:

    In the movie Hoosiers when the Hickory Huskers were getting trounced early in the championship game, one of the Husker players during a time out said: “This Is Embarrassing.” IMHO the phrase “This Is Embarrassing” should be the official motto of Team cAGW.

  47. Severian says:

    And once again, it won’t matter. The number of people who will find out about this is miniscule compared to those that heard it’s all worse than we thought and we’re all doooomed. That’s how this game is played, science by press release to get media hype and when disproven later that doesn’t get reported.

  48. “It is taking all my will power not to make an obvious comment at this point.” Bloody lying, liars, lied.

  49. RockyRoad says:

    Statistics must never have been a prerequisite for gaining the (dubious) title of “Climate Scientist”. Spending a few years working for crooked casinos probably was, however, cooking the dice, rigging the tables, marking the cards, fudging the slots, and busting the kneecaps of anybody willing to expose these shenanigans. All in a day’s work, of course. You could never accuse “Climate Scientists” of Walking Tall–they’re the guys on the wrong side of that story.

  50. Tad says:

    I think all reputable scientific journals should require every step of data analysis, including data and code used for said analysis, be made available by the authors prior to publication. Perhaps on the journal’s website.

  51. trafamadore says:

    I don’t know if I am in the right thread, but they are alll so similar, I can’t tell them apart. As you know, I am a biologist not an evil climate scientist, who wishes to take over the world in some comic book conspiracy, but I know enuf to read the tea leaves.

    Look. Marcott’s paper is about long ago not the last century. That was added by his coauthors for perspective, it is not the major point of the paper, except to say say that the modern warming is not normal, which of course is what made it a science paper.

    So, let’s say one of you writes to Science to rebut Marcott’s paper. Any of you could, you don’t need a university email address to do that. But, you should know, comments are reviewed, yes, they are. By ignorant people like me. And what would I say to the comment threads (not just this one) so far? I would judge them as interesting but not changing the major point of the paper.

    So, Steve McIntyre, if you are reading this little blog, can you pls make your point: why the ancient record that this paper is about is some how wrong, and worth writing to Science and complaining? Because, so far, you haven’t made your case.

  52. Skiphil says:

    Michael Mann on Marcott et al. (2013)

    Worth keeping in mind as the climate auditor(s) continue to shred the Marcott study that the illustrious Michael Mann had promptly signalled to Revkin that it should be regarded as an “important” paper (real scientists would be very very careful about appending the label “important paper” to a new piece of work, that’s like the much abused journalistic phrase “instant classic”).

    Michael Mann trumpeted Marcott et al. (2013) as an “important paper”

    [emphasis added]

    Michael Mann:

    This is an important paper. The key take-home conclusion is that the rate and magnitude of recent global warmth appears unprecedented for at least the past 4,000 years and the rate at least the past 11,000. We know that there were periods in the past that were warmer than today, for example the early Cretaceous period 100 million years ago. The real issue, from a climate change impacts point of view, is the rate of change –because that’s what challenges our adaptive capacity. And this paper suggests that the current rate has no precedent as far back as we can go with any confidence — 11,000 years arguably, based on this study.

    My only real concern is that their data and approach (e.g. the use of pollen records in the higher northern latitudes) seems to emphasize the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, during the summer season. This is an issue because we know there is a substantial long-term natural cooling trend for high-latitude summers because of Earth orbital effects, but the trend is nearly zero in the global annual average. One gets the sense from looking at their reconstruction that there is a very strong imprint of this orbital cooling trend — stronger than what one would expect for the global annual average.

    The interesting thing about that, is that it suggests that the true conclusions might even be stronger than their already quite strong conclusions, regarding the unprecedented nature of recent warming. That is, it may be that you have to go even further back in time to find warmth comparable — at the global scale — to what we are seeing today. If you look at their tropical stack for example (Figure 2J) [a particular set of data], the modern warmth is unprecedented for the entire time period (i.e, the past 11,000 years). That’s why I said that there results suggests recent warmth unprecedented for at leaat the past 4,000. It’s possible, given the potential seasonality/latitudinal bias, that there is in fact no precedent over the past 11,000 years (and likely longer, since the preceding glacial period was almost certainly globally cooler than the Holocene) for the warmth we are seeing today. In that case, we likely have to go back to the last interglacial, i.e. the Eemian period (125,000 years ago) for warmth potentially rivaling that of today.

    But, again, the take-home conclusion: the rate of warming appears to be unprecedented as far back as the authors are able to go (to the boundary with the last ice age). And the rate of warming appears to have no analog in the past, as far back as the authors are able to go.

    [REVKIN} My followup question for Mann:

    Separate from the potential northern bias, are you confident that jogs similar to the one recorded in the last century (a well-instrumented century) could not be hidden in the “smear” of millenniums of proxy [indirect] temperature data? (This is where my ignorance of the strengths/weaknesses of these statistical tools forces me to rely on expert judgment.)

    Michael Mann:

    Regarding the resolution issue, this was my main concern initially when I looked at the paper. But I’m less concerned now that I have read the paper over more carefully, because I think that Figure 1a and 1b give a pretty good sense of what features of higher resolution reconstructions (specifically, our ’08 global reconstruction which is shown) are potentially captured. Based on that comparison, I’m relatively convinced that they have the resolution to capture a century-long warming trend in the past were there one comparable to the recent trend.

  53. JEM says:

    If I had a few million to spare, frankly I’d start suing these ‘journals’ 24×7.

    They’re getting away with murder, the veil of ‘peer review’ is akin to the plausible deniability afforded to banks and Fannie/Freddie by the ratings applied to CDOs by S&P/Moody’s/Fitch a decade ago, but even more poorly policed.

  54. Theo Goodwin says:

    What I fear is expressed in a post I made at ClimateAudit:

    “[Mindert Eiting] Thanks for bringing up data – as in “facts.” Work with proxies is so far from fact that the crucial issues in the Marcott controversy do not touch upon fact at all. Even the critics, first rate critics such as McIntyre and Telford, agree that the dates can be changed and legitimately. Clearly, then, the entire discussion is over what is “proper” in the relevant statistical methodology. Whenever proxies for temperature are the topic, scientists believe that they are quite justified in failing to tie their inferences to any factual ground at all. In my humble opinion, the lack of empirical science in the study of proxies is exactly why Warmists love them.”

    It looks to me that the best that can come from McIntyre’s criticisms of Marcott is a dispute over the size of the uncertainty bars. Incredible! That gives Warmists free reign to use their new “NSF Hockey Stick” as they please.

    Proxy science is no more science than is Freudian psychology.

  55. observa says:

    “I think all reputable scientific journals should require every step of data analysis, including data and code used for said analysis, be made available by the authors prior to publication. Perhaps on the journal’s website.”

    Unfortunately they’re all doing that now.

    As for the tame Fourth Estate chooks being plumped up on Big Climate’s grain fed diet when will they spot the axe rather than the hockey schtick?

  56. trafamadore says:

    Tad says: “I think all reputable scientific journals should require every step of data analysis, including data and code used for said analysis, be made available by the authors prior to publication. Perhaps on the journal’s website.”

    Grate, no, great way to make people submit to less reputable journals. Because, like really, we have better things to waste our time on. Scientist’s strong point is not accounting and drudgery. That’s more a conservative occupation.

  57. DirkH says:

    Clay Marley says:
    March 16, 2013 at 5:22 pm
    “But seems to me this would shift the data points to the left or right in time but not affect the temperature. So how does re-dating turn the red curve into the black curve?”

    They are using Monte Carlo runs, random walks. The runs must pass through data points in the proxy data but can between the data points “do what they want” within parameters. Each data point has a temporal uncertainty and a value unvertainty attached to it. So it’s more like a square area on the x-over-t-chart that the random walk must pass through. You let it run a thousand times and have a probability distribution of possible pasts you can work with.

    At least that’s how I understood it.

  58. Latitude says:

    JEM says:
    March 16, 2013 at 5:33 pm
    The real issue is not that Marcott and company fuzzed their data and shifted their dates.
    The real issue is that none of Science’s putative reviewers spotted it and insisted they defend their rather interesting methods.
    ======================
    JEM, the blame falls on Marcott……..he cheated and got caught…

    What has me floored is that Marcott is no green kid…..He knew his paper tied into Mann…..he knew the crap Mann has been through…..he knows we’re out here…..he knew he’d get caught

  59. Over on CA, poster mt (Mar 16 at 7:37 AM) notices that the thesis noted it was going to be submitted to the journal “Nature”.

    I would like to know the whole timeline from thesis to paper. The thesis starts out with “To be submitted to Nature”. Presumably, it was rejected by Nature, and underwent a significant amount of change before being accepted by Science:……

  60. Rud Istvan says:

    Best part is, they left an indelible time shifting fingerprint, although it took SteveM to spy its significance. Just compare Science figure 1G to thesis figure 4.3C. In the thesis, 9 proxies survived to 1950. In Science, none did. In the thesis, only about 20 proxies survived to T0 less 100, or 1850. In Science, about 30 did. So at least 9 were redated back, and at least 10 were redated forward. As Steve has shown, at least three alkenones by more than half a millennium each. And nowhere in Science or in its SI is this disclosed. On the contrary, the proxies plus their references are listed just as in the thesis.
    In other words, just manipulate the data until if gives the answer you want. But don’t tell anyone.

  61. Martin says:

    Are you / McIntyre saying we haven’t come out of the little ice age yet. Seems a bit odd.

  62. markx says:

    Absolutely no doubt about intent in this case…

    A hockey stick is just a stick without a bend in it …. and then there is no story at all, is there?

  63. Jenn Oates says:

    Now that’s what I’d call a quick analysis. Fine job!

  64. Rich H says:

    Alex the skeptic says:
    March 16, 2013 at 3:50 pm

    “That was yesterday’s question. Now the answer is here. Marcott’s hockey stick has been murdered by the truth.”

    Seems more like justifiable homicide to me.

  65. D.B. Stealey says:

    trafamadore says:

    “… it is not the major point of the paper, except to say say that the modern warming is not normal, which of course is what made it a science paper.”

    That comment is a perfect example of someone who does not understand the Null Hypothesis. In fact, the Null Hypothesis — which has never been falsified — shows conclusively that the current climate is absolutely normal. Current climate parameters have been routinely exceeded in the past, including the extremely mild 0.8ºC global warming that occurred over the past century and a half as the planet recovers from the LIA.

    Kevin Trenberth complains about the Null Hypothesis because it refutes the alternative AGW conjecture. AGW requires belief, because there are no testable empirical measurements verifying the existence of AGW. And of course, catastrophic AGW is just alarmist nonsense.

  66. markx says:

    Jimbo says: March 16, 2013 at 5:00 pm

    “..Let us remind ourselves about some of the NH heat of the Holocene pre-20th century. It is unprecedented and worse than we thought….

    Great post, Jimbo, thanks! I saved that lot.

  67. A.D. Everard says:

    I’m totally gobsmacked by all this. When are these lying cheating dastards going to get held accountable? Fraud is illegal, right? Obtaining funding by fraudulent means is illegal, right? We have the crook(s), why can’t we press charges? Just because there are so many of them doesn’t mean they should get away with it. If that was so, we may as well just open the prisons now and let everyone out because what’s the point of justice?

    Sounds like if anyone wants to break the law in any way, just tag it CAGW and everyone looks the other way. Have we really come down to this?

  68. Otter says:

    trafamadore~ it is a waste of time to even read past your name. Some of us wish you just wouldn’t bother posting.

  69. lsvalgaard says:

    Marcott’s thesis chapter 4 [which is the basis for the paper] says: “To be submitted to Nature”.
    I wonder if it was, and perhaps rejected, so they tried Science instead and found friendly referees…

  70. Downdraft says:

    Assuming Steve M is correct (I have no reason to think he is not), the Marcott et. al. reconstruction is not simply a mistake. It is an intentional distortion and a lie, fabricated in order to further an agenda. The mistakes are simply too flagrant to be simple errors borne of incompetence. Marcott appears to have fabricated numbers to fit his plan, picking numbers from his data and relocating it on the timeline to get the curve he wanted. Very sad.

    Is it possible someone other than Marcott altered the data? No scientist would do such a thing, whereas a true believer in CAGW would not hesitate when given the chance.

  71. Ben Wilson says:

    This is stunning — another “major scientific paper” taken apart and demolished in just hours at Climate Audit.

    At this point I would suggest that for journals such as “Science” and “Nature”, it would be foolish and incompetent for them if they did not to ask Steve McIntrye to review each and every climate paper that is submitted to them for publication.

  72. Latitude says:

    trafamadore says:
    March 16, 2013 at 5:59 pm
    Look. Marcott’s paper is about long ago not the last century. That was added by his coauthors for perspective, it is not the major point of the paper, except to say say that the modern warming is not normal, which of course is what made it a science paper.
    =========================================
    He said the modern warming was:

    “”Marcott stated that they had “clearly” stated that the 1890-on portion of their reconstruction was “not robust”.”

    …If that’s the part that made it a science paper

  73. Soothsayers will agree that entrails can say whatever needs to be said. It’s all in the reading.

    So if the data don’t show what you need, send them to the statistical Abu Ghraib until they support what you want to say.

  74. lsvalgaard says:

    Just to satisfy my own curiosity I tracked down what BP [Before Present] actually means in Marcott’s paper. In keeping with standard practice it means 1950 AD as can be verified from Figure 4.2 in Marcott’s thesis: http://www.leif.org/research/Marcott-Ch4-Figure2.png

  75. Manfred says:

    DirkH says:
    March 16, 2013 at 4:05 pm
    GlynnMhor says:
    March 16, 2013 at 3:56 pm
    “From the look of the graphs and the vagaries of both lines in the modern era I have to wonder whether the alkenone proxy is at even usable to estimate temperature.”

    Well obviously one proxy is not enough to estimate global temperature. Had they cut off their result before the proxy dropoffs the result would have been defensible.

    They couldn’t resist to add a “non-robust” Hockey Stick; temptations of a warmist post doc, what a boring life they must have (had).
    —————————————————————————

    I think GlynnMhor is right.

    The alkenone “proxies” “show” a temperature during the Dalton minimum (around 1800) at the same level as the maximim of the Medieval Warm Period.

    This is pure rubbish. Similar or worse conclusions can be drawn from the hemipheric temperature plots and this goes well before the uptick of the last 100 years.

  76. trafamadore says:

    D.B. Stealey says: … it is not the major point of the paper, except to say say that the modern warming is not normal, which of course is what made it a science paper.” That comment is a perfect example of someone who does not understand the Null Hypothesis. In fact, the Null Hypothesis — which has never been falsified — ”

    Your comment leaves me speechless….ignorance always does that to me.

  77. Latitude says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    March 16, 2013 at 7:08 pm
    =================
    Thanks!

  78. trafamadore says:

    Latitude says: “He said the modern warming was that they had “clearly” stated that the 1890-on portion of their reconstruction was “not robust”.”

    Actually, I think you have that quote wrong in that you don’t really understand what it means, but that doesn’t really matter here: if you have it right, what is your point? That the author is accurately portraying the data? You make no sense in your critique, it is nonsensical.

  79. NZ Willy says:

    lsvalgaard says: “Marcott’s thesis chapter 4 [which is the basis for the paper] says: “To be submitted to Nature”. I wonder if it was, and perhaps rejected, so they tried Science instead and found friendly referees…”

    My quick take is that the original thesis was too boring for “Nature”. So they sexed it up but couldn’t submit to the same journal, of course — same data, different conclusions?!? So “Science” it was.

  80. trafamadore says:

    Otter says: “trafamadore~ it is a waste of time to even read past your name. Some of us wish you just wouldn’t bother posting.”

    You have eyelids. Close your eyes. It seems you have been doing that for some time, so you should be good at it.

  81. k scott denison says:

    Gary Hladik says:
    March 16, 2013 at 4:34 pm
    Alex the skeptic says (March 16, 2013 at 3:50 pm): “Marcott’s hockey stick has been murdered by the truth.”

    Mr. McIntyre, at Climate Audit, with a magnifying glass.
    —–
    PLEASE, some warning to put down liquids before making this type of remark. Now I have to clean the Zin off my iPad

  82. Ben Wilson says:

    Interesting note from Andrew Revkin’s blog:

    Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit has been dissecting the Marcott et al. paper and corresponding with lead author Shaun Marcott, raising constructive and important questions.

    As a result, I sent a note to Marcott and his co-authors asking for some elaboration on points Marcott made in the exchanges with McIntyre. Peter Clark of Oregon State replied (copying all) on Friday, saying they’re preparing a general list of points about their study:

    “After further discussion, we’ve decided that the best tack to take now is to prepare a FAQ document that will explain, in some detail but at a level that should be understandable by most, how we derived our conclusions. Once we complete this, we will let you know where it can be accessed, and you (and others) can refer to this in any further discussion. We appreciate your taking the time and interest to try to clarify what has happened in our correspondence with McIntyre.”

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/scientists-find-an-abrupt-warm-jog-after-a-very-long-cooling/#more-48664

    Consider what has happened here:

    1. The paper purportedly by Marcott in Science was supposedly taken from Marcott’s thesis — which was overseen by Peter Clark at Oregon State University.
    2. However, what is presented in the paper was not present in the thesis — specifically, a “hockey stick” which mysteriously seems to appear out of nowhere. It’s later shown by Steve McIntyre that the “hockey stick” was created by changing the dates of some of the various proxies.
    3. Steve McIntyre queries Marcott about this via e-mail — and gets the confession from Marcott that the hockey stick is “not robust”; this information, as they say, goes ’round the world’.
    4. Because of this, Andrew Revkin, famous and powerful science editor of perhaps the most prestigious publication in the world, and a committed climate activist sympathetic to publicizing the warmist’s claims, queries Marcott more or less saying. . . “Hey! What’s going on here???”
    5. And notice — Revkin gets a reply — not from Marcott, but from Marcott’s supervisor — Peter Clark, more or less saying “We’re trying to come up with some plausible explanation for this disaster. . . just give us a little bit of time!”

    So — where is Marcott? Why is Clark calling the shots on Marcott’s paper? Can Marcott still function? Do you suppose Clark has yelled at Marcott for answering McIntyre’s e-mail?

    Since he was the lead author on the paper, Marcott should be the one answering the questions.

  83. D.B. Stealey says:

    trafamadore says:

    “Your comment leaves me speechless….ignorance always does that to me.”

    Complete bluster. Pure projection. It is trafamadore who is ignorant of the Null Hypothesis, which he studiously avoids.

    *No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.” ~ Dr Roy Spencer

    Natural variability fully explains the current global climate.

    trafamadore again: “…if you have it right, what is your point?”

    The point is that trafamadore claimed that part of the paper showed real science. But the quote easily refutes that belief.

    I have come to understand that it is typical of climate alarmist lemmings like trafamadore that neither logic nor science is their strong suit. They believe in CAGW based on emotion, which indicates a lack of maturity.

  84. trafamadore says:

    Ben Wilson says: “This is stunning — another “major scientific paper” taken apart and demolished in just hours at Climate Audit…..it would be foolish and incompetent for {major journals} if they did not to ask Steve McIntrye to review each and every climate paper that is submitted to them for publication.”

    So far, McIntrye comments could be easily answered without doing extra work and arguing that that don’t impact the major point of the paper. I am guessing that the Science reviewers asked Marcott to add the data that McIntrye objects to, but who knows except the authors and the reviewers, both evil comic book scientists intent on world domination ****.

    It seems to me, the the major weakness in any paper of this sort is the when and where of the proxies. If I was the author responding to such criticism, I would then just ask what other proxies I should use and include them. This will either leave the reviewers speechless or they will suggest something else that was used. For example, the Watts critique, that the data does not match the ice core data, that could be rescued by including the ice core data in the analysis, as one more location. Of course this isnt ocean data which I thought was the major data source for this paper, but even if it was included, it would have only been one more location data set and not changed the results much.

    So, I am stunned….not.

    **** hee hee hee haa haa haa (echo and reverb, with organ music in the background)

  85. k scott denison says:

    Clay Marley says:
    March 16, 2013 at 5:22 pm
    OK so I read the post but I’m not seeing where the hockey stick comes from.
    —-
    In case no one else has answered, think of it this way.

    I have two proxies.

    Proxy one’s anomalies are: (-2, -2, -2, -2, n/a), the last one because I redacted the proxy and it doesn’t extend to the fifth period.

    Proxy two’s are: (2, 2, 2, 2, 2).

    The average is (0, 0, 0, 0, +2)

    There’s your up tick.

  86. ZootCadillac says:

    @trafamadore. You truly are a perplexing individual. Do you wander through with your fingers in your ears shouting ‘la la la’ whist seeing nothing but rainbows and unicorns?

    There is no defence to be made here. you’d be better off saying nothing rather than continue with your bluster. Stop it, it’s juvenile.

  87. k scott denison says:

    trafamadore says:
    March 16, 2013 at 5:59 pm

    Look. Marcott’s paper is about long ago not the last century.
    ——
    Um, if the time shifting mucked up this century, and Marcott shifted the entire proxy, what does that say about the earlier years of the reconstruction?

  88. jeanparisot says:

    Trafamadore,

    “Grate, no, great way to make people submit to less reputable journals. Because, like really, we have better things to waste our time on. Scientist’s strong point is not accounting and drudgery. That’s more a conservative occupation.”

    What happened to the essence of science being repeatability?

    I would go further, if I were a major journal editor, I would not publish until an independent replication of results was done – by the journal using only the submitted data.

  89. Am I missing something? If the “present” is 1950, where does the spike fit in to what we have as historic modern records As far as I know, the fifties didn’t have a massive spike in warmer temperatures.

    Since Steve McIntyre has shown that Marcott radically changed the dates on some of the proxy temps, it’s all a fraud, right? What other conclusion is there?

    Withdraw?

    Like when my wife says “I think I’m fertile…”?

    Yah, that kind of withdraw. Before things escalate into life changing.

  90. Skiphil says:

    For a bit of entertainment while the Marcott et al. (2013) paper continues to implode….. a few “true believer” comments from the notoriously unreliable “SkepticalScience” tabloid. I don’t usually waste time there but wanted to see if they’s said anything about the Marcott paper…. these are merely comments from users soon after the paper was published, so they don’t have any official status for SkS, but it’s still amusing to see the True Believers in action, and what will they do now!? (first comment is talking about “Mike” Mann hyping the paper on his Facebook page):

    SkS comments on Mann on Marcott
    [emphasis added]

    chriskoz at 19:15 PM on 10 March, 2013

    There is the new study by Marcott et al in Science extending the Hocky Stick to the whole Holecene (11.5ka) that is making quite a stir. MM has put many links to plenty of news on his facebook, for example this one. Certaithenly big news, especially for Mike who is predicting that professional denialist will turn their attention to the new ‘extended’ reconstruction. Perhaps Mike will be taken a little bit off the “denialist stage”, or at least he will now share that “stage” with Shaun Marcott. Personally, I think denialists and political intimidators have lost a lot of momentum behind their lies comparing with early 2000s, but who knows, we will see…

    I don’t have access to the full text of Marcott et al 2013 but Mike is saying the results apear to be robust (i.e. at the same time vulnerable to the political attacks) and their conclusion correct.
    Moderator Response: [JH] The seoond listed article in this News Roundup summarizes the study you refer to.
    CBDunkerson at 22:28 PM on 10 March, 2013

    chriskoz, yes Watts has aready gone into a full scale meltdown about how this Marcott global reconstruction doesn’t match data from a single remote location in Greenland and thus must be false. You’d think his readers would know how stupid that argument is by now, but nope… they remain clueless.

    However, I agree with you on the ‘momentum’. Indeed, if you read the news coverage of the Marcott study in every mainstream source you can see a profound change. I haven’t seen one news outlet quoting Pielke, Monckton, Spencer, or any of the other usual deniers. Instead they are reaching out to people like Gavin Schmidt, Katherine Hayhoe, and Michael Mann. Several describe Mann as ‘an expert in the field’ and bring up the ‘hockey stick controversy’ as an example of unfounded personal attacks on scientists. It seems as if the deniers have lost the mainstream media. They told too many whoppers that proved to be false and finally people are taking notice. I couldn’t pinpoint a single ‘turning point’, but it does seem to me that the tide has definitively turned and anti-science on AGW is rapidly imploding.
    John Hartz at 01:22 AM on 11 March, 2013

    chriskoz & CB Dunkerson:

    I intend to capture many of the high-quality MSM articles about the Marcott study in a special news bulletin. Right now, I have to crank out the Weekly Digest and finish a thrid news bulletin about the Alberta tar sands & the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

    As they say, When it rains, it pours.” (Especially true in a warming climate.)

  91. trafamadore says:

    Ben Wilson says:’ The paper purportedly by Marcott in Science was supposedly taken from Marcott’s thesis — which was overseen by Peter Clark at Oregon State University.”

    Only part of his thesis. And not supposedly. And other data was added by the other authors. Duh.

    “So — where is Marcott? Why is Clark calling the shots on Marcott’s paper?”

    He is the senior author on the paper? It’s his lab? What don’t you understand about this? Marcott is a student, you know that, right?

  92. trafamadore says:

    D.B. Stealey says:”It is trafamadore who is ignorant of the Null Hypothesis, which he studiously avoids…..Natural variability fully explains the current global climate.”

    That was shown to me wrong so long ago that it’s stupid to bring up. What sort of lemming are you?

    and the other quotes of mine on your post…even I dont understand them without context, and I wrote them.

  93. Theo Goodwin says:

    trafamadore says:
    March 16, 2013 at 7:54 pm

    “So far, McIntrye comments could be easily answered without doing extra work and arguing that that don’t impact the major point of the paper.”

    I think it is highly likely that McIntyre will establish beyond the shadow of a doubt that the uncertainty bars on Marcott’s paper must be so wide that the paper is reduced to a triviality.

    However, given that it is a triviality, This NSF Hockey Stick Graph can be used for propaganda purposes especially in the next installment from the IPCC. In effect, gray literature will be promoted to the status of genuine science. Very clever for propagandists, actually.

  94. D.B. Stealey says:

    It is apparent that no one agrees with trafamadore. Thus, we have a consensus!

    And he is still ignorant of the Null Hypothesis, which destroys his assertions.

  95. trafamadore says:

    jeanparisot says:” if I were a major journal editor, I would not publish until an independent replication of results was done – by the journal using only the submitted data.”

    Ha Ha Ha. That would be a great way to put yourself out of business. Let’s see, each article in Nature or Science costs about $500 K to $1 M. Who is going to pay for replication? You and on line blobs?

  96. trafamadore says:

    opps, not blobs. on line blogs.
    Freudian, must be.

  97. Nylo says:

    trafamadore, you keep insisting that what McIntyre’s findings do not affect the major point in the paper. Would you mind to illustrate to us about what the “major point in the paper” is? Because I can certainly tell you what the “Major Point” was in the press releases regarding the paper, from the very headline. Releases that had been authorised by Marcott and included Marcott’s comments.

  98. Theo Goodwin says:

    Ben Wilson says:
    March 16, 2013 at 7:51 pm

    “5. And notice — Revkin gets a reply — not from Marcott, but from Marcott’s supervisor — Peter Clark, more or less saying “We’re trying to come up with some plausible explanation for this disaster. . . just give us a little bit of time!”

    So — where is Marcott? Why is Clark calling the shots on Marcott’s paper? Can Marcott still function? Do you suppose Clark has yelled at Marcott for answering McIntyre’s e-mail?

    Since he was the lead author on the paper, Marcott should be the one answering the questions.”

    This point is extremely important. Marcott’s job prospects just dropped out of sight. Things are bad enough when Daddy takes over. Things are way worse when you are twisting in the wind and Daddy takes over. Why? In the first case, Daddy is concerned about his son. In the second case, Daddy is concerned about Daddy.

  99. trafamadore says:

    Theo Goodwin says: “I think it is highly likely that McIntyre will establish beyond the shadow of a doubt that the uncertainty bars on Marcott’s paper must be so wide that the paper is reduced to a triviality.”

    Well, the hockey stick as survived quite well after McIntyre papers in the 2000’s, and more people have added sticks of their own. So root on for your hero.

  100. Nylo says:

    trafamadore, the main conclussions of a paper can always be found in the abstract, And Marcott’s abstract reads at the end: “Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios“. Both of those sentences would have to change completely if Marcott’s reconstruction had not changed the originally published dates for the proxies. You are lying.

  101. Spinner says:

    As a casual observer, I must say that I am always amazed by the elitism displayed by the ‘real’ scientists in these recurring situations, though I suppose that by now I shouldn’t be. At least Marcott corresponded with McIntyre for a while so I give him a bit of credit for that. If I were them, I would submit my work to McIntyre prior to publishing!

  102. Theo Goodwin says:

    trafamadore says:
    March 16, 2013 at 7:21 pm
    “Latitude says: “He said the modern warming was that they had “clearly” stated that the 1890-on portion of their reconstruction was “not robust”.”

    Actually, I think you have that quote wrong in that you don’t really understand what it means, but that doesn’t really matter here: if you have it right, what is your point? That the author is accurately portraying the data? You make no sense in your critique, it is nonsensical.”

    Great Caesar’s Ghost! If the statistics are not robust then they should not have been published.

  103. D.B. Stealey says:

    trafamadore says:

    “Well, the hockey stick as survived quite well after McIntyre papers in the 2000′s, and more people have added sticks of their own. So root on for your hero.”

    Mann’s Hokey Stick was so thoroughly debunked that Nature was forced to issue an extremely rare Correction. No journal ever wants to issue a Correction, because it is an admission of bad vetting. Mann98/99 and Mann08 all have fatal flaws. Only a deluded lemming would put stock in any of them.

  104. Other_Andy says:

    “Well, the hockey stick as survived quite well after McIntyre papers in the 2000′s, and more people have added sticks of their own. So root on for your hero.”

    I am reminded of the following quote:

    “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
    (Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace)

  105. TomRude says:

    Another Gergis in the making…

  106. trafamadore says:

    Nylo says:”Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios. Both of those sentences would have to change completely if Marcott’s reconstruction had not changed the originally published dates for the proxies. You are lying.”

    Lying? Whew, strong claims. How could this paper affect the 2100 predictions, one way or another?

  107. trafamadore says:

    D.B. Stealey says “Mann’s Hokey Stick was so thoroughly debunked that Nature was forced to issue an extremely rare Correction”

    Nearly a dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions have repeated Mann’s study. So It would appear that Mann was correct.

  108. davidmhoffer says:

    I was starting to make a list of all the things that trafamadore got wrong, but it would have made for a rather long post. I think she made one comment which sums it up nicely:

    So, I am stunned….not.

    Well after claiming that scientists shouldn’t have to keep details of their work, that the claims made in the headlines announcing the paper have nothing to do with the paper, confusing Clarke’s role as adviser with the role played by the author of the paper, trying to justify changing the data from one version of the paper to the next….sorry trafamadore, you need to reconsider your position on this matter too….

    Is trafamadore all the warmists have on this one? Nick Stokes or R. Gates would often take a stab at defending the indefensible, but even they would giggle at trafamadore’s reasoning.

  109. Sam the First says:

    trafamadore has clearly been sent here by the universe to keep us in mind of the pig-headed willful ignorance of the ‘liberal intelligentsia’. They are not interested in the truth, only in winning the game. He shows us what we are up against, over and over again.

  110. trafamadore says:

    k scott denison says:”Traf said: Look. Marcott’s paper is about long ago not the last century.
    ——
    Um, if the time shifting mucked up this century, and Marcott shifted the entire proxy, what does that say about the earlier years of the reconstruction?”

    So his study is about the last 11350 years not the last 11300? Wow, that will make a difference.

  111. RockyRoad says:

    Well, I’ve read all the comments and I’ve come to the considerable opinion that “trafamadore” is one messed up person.

    He lies, he throws ad hominens, and he belittles people. And he knows nothing about science.

    He’s apparently here to run offense for a very bad paper, and bases a lot of that on a prior very bad paper–that by Mann himself. Two mistakes in a row!

    But that’s ok–about 100,000 people a day stop by to read WUWT, and many drop by this thread. If I were “trafamadore”, I’d pull it back before more people saw it as circus, but I’m sure in his state of mind he’ll just keep on going.

    May I goad you further, “trafamadore”? Please–expose all of your sides. Keep entertaining us! Your fake laughter is contagious but success eludes you.

  112. Theo Goodwin says:

    trafamadore says:
    March 16, 2013 at 8:45 pm
    “Theo Goodwin says: “I think it is highly likely that McIntyre will establish beyond the shadow of a doubt that the uncertainty bars on Marcott’s paper must be so wide that the paper is reduced to a triviality.”

    Well, the hockey stick as survived quite well after McIntyre papers in the 2000′s, and more people have added sticks of their own. So root on for your hero.”

    Right. Mann’s work has survived as propaganda but not as science. Marcott’s work will survive as propaganda but not as science.

    When asked about the uptick, Marcott should not have said “It is not robust” but should have said “it is good enough for IPCC work.”

  113. ZootCadillac says:

    One thing to remember. Steve Mcintyre does not find errors, mistakes and poor methodology in papers because he wants the papers to be wrong. He finds those things because they exist.

  114. Day By Day says:

    RossP says: I guess this is another nail in the coffin of Dr Mann’s reputation ( is there any room left in the coffin for more nails ?!?! ) as he was one of the first to trumpet / tweet the great significance of the Marcott paper.

    No, not nails in a coffin. He is laying on a bed of nails, He made his own bed…

  115. Skiphil says:

    Andrew at Bishop Hill has an interesting comment/tweet, referencing another disastrous paper published by “Science” with (arguably) weak review:

    Bishop Hill @aDissentient
    “Is the Marcott train wreck more significant than the arsenic-based life one? Bruce Alberts is having an exciting reign at Science Mag.”

    Per Andrew’s tweet referencing the “Arsenic Life” controversy, another much hyped and splashy paper in “Science” mag. that went down in flames, it will be worth comparing the two episodes as this one unfolds further. In Dec. 2010 “Science” published a paper in microbiology which claimed to discover a new form of life not based upon phosphate but upon arsenic fueling DNA. In that case the authors were making a grand but (it turned out) unfounded claim that seemed unlikely to many in the field, so it did not take long for debunking to be widely accepted.

    In the current case we have a grandiose paper that serves the expectations, preferences, and hopes of many in the field, so it may be more difficult to get the critique heard or widely accepted. Just look at how prolonged the process of dealing with seriously flawed papers by Mann and friends has been.

    Hype and controversy over “Arsenic Life” paper

    “This Paper Should Not Have Been Published”
    Scientists see fatal flaws in the NASA study of arsenic-based life.

    By Carl Zimmer | Posted Tuesday, Dec. 7, 2010

  116. Nylo says:

    trafamadore says:
    March 16, 2013 at 9:25 pm

    Lying? Whew, strong claims. How could this paper affect the 2100 predictions, one way or another?

    The difference between doing the Marcottian date changes or not doing them, is a full 2C degrees in the starting temperature from where to add the simulations (1940), as McIntyre has shown. Many of the model projections produce warming below that ammount. So many simulations would not even claim for 2100 a warming similar to what the Marcottian method claims for 1940, which in addition is already cooler than 25% of the holocene. You are still lying.

  117. CodeTech says:

    How could this paper affect the 2100 predictions, one way or another?

    Hey, look at this! I actually agree with trafalamabama on something!

    Predictions? There ain’t no steenking predictions… THEY’RE ALL PROJECTIONS!
    And they’re just as much “climate porn” now as they were before.

  118. Trafamadore. I assume the Trafamadore Group spelled the name incorrectly and you meant to write “Tralfamadore” OK. I get it.

  119. trafamadore says:

    davidmhoffer says:”Well after claiming that scientists shouldn’t have to keep details of their work, that the claims made in the headlines announcing the paper have nothing to do with the paper, confusing Clarke’s role as adviser with the role played by the author of the paper, trying to justify changing the data from one version of the paper to the next….sorry trafamadore, you need to reconsider your position on this matter too….”

    Actually, I have been the 1st author Nature author…only once… and the 3rd author mentor many times…I really think I know this one. And the data in the thesis is one thing and the data in papers is not the same, once other data is added…are you thinking at all? 3 + 1 = 4, and 3 is not 4.
    And whoever said details of work should not be kept? That is silly.

    So, no, there is no position to reconsider but yours, which is stemmed in ignorance.

  120. Poptech says:

    Where did Mosher go? He was so arrogantly calling all the skeptics are WUWT “savants” for being skeptical about things they have seen before.

  121. trafamadore says:

    Nylo says:”You are still lying”
    okay he says this too:
    “The difference between doing the Marcottian date changes or not doing them, is a full 2C degrees in the starting temperature from where to add the simulations (1940), as McIntyre has shown. Many of the model projections produce warming below that ammount. So many simulations would not even claim for 2100 a warming similar to what the Marcottian method claims for 1940, which in addition is already cooler than 25% of the holocene. You are still lying.”

    Look. The main point of the paper are temp records thousands of years ago. And you are like worrying about the last 0.1 %, which is pretty consistent with the known temperature increase shown in the 1998 Mann paper and in all the papers since.

    So I don’t know what I am lying about, you sound sort of silly if not just plain stupid.

  122. Mike says:

    Climate models on Viagra, limp data in, gargantuan erections out.

  123. sophocles says:

    Maybe Shakun didn’t want to be fired by his employer.
    Isn’t his employer the university which fires academics who express
    non-warmist arguments?

  124. Colin says:

    Trafamadore et al can protest as much as they like; bottom line is that Marcott and co “tweaked” (like the wonderful McIntyre,being polite) the data till it gave them the result they wanted. Or are we really expected to believe the changes they made/mistakes/corrections just somehow completely coinkydinkily made an its-worse-than-we-thought hockey stick? Seriously?

  125. Kevin Hilde says:

    So the speculation is that changes were made to satisfy peer review … in order to be “splashy” enough to get published in Science?

    Man oh Mann ….. I’d sure like to know the reviewers’ identities!

  126. RE: Abstract from Nylo’s comment above:

    And Marcott’s abstract reads at the end: “Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history.

    The PAST DECADE ?? Marcott’s data used Time (BP) (Before Present, Year Zero = 1950) The latest data in Marcott’s paper is the year 1940. Marcott’s data stops at least fifty years short of “the past decade.” There is no data in Marcott’s paper to support any comment about “the past decade” in his abstract.

    Is it possible that “Before Present” was a source of confusion to the reviewers AND the author?

    Or is he simply using Mann’s Past Decade in comparison to his mid Holocene proxies? In which case, he is in fact, splicing the Mann temperature record onto his own. No different than pasting the thermometer record onto his proxy set.

  127. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    I liked this comment on Joe Romm’s blog (in a discussion of Marcott’s paper).

    prokaryotes says:
    March 8, 2013 at 5:08 pm

    “Only experts read this blog (Joe Romm’s). These findings are a good indicator of our assumptions and past predictions.”

  128. ralfellis says:

    Can I reiterate the percieved problem here, because it has not been well explained so far.

    You have three series of data, but one of them has an extra data-point (due, as I understand it, to the ‘modified’ and ‘shifted’ dates shifing one series ‘over the edge’ as it were)

    The data ponts are:

    a. -2, -3, -2, -3, (-)
    b. -3, -2, -3, -2, (-)
    c. (-), +3, +3, +3, +3
    Av -5, -2, -2, -2, +3

    Because series c. has an extra data point at the end of that series, we get a massive positive hockeystick. Childishly simple, really, but it has all the hallmarks of being criminally irresponsible too.

    .

  129. Assuming Steve is right, what the h—?

    Who would think they could get away with that, regardless of whether it was sloppiness or more? Have they not heard of a now-prominent climate website called, er, “Climate Audit”?

  130. Lance Wallace says:

    The effect of the redated proxies can be seen for the last century (since 1850) in the two graphs below.

    Regression of temperature anomaly vs published age:
    http://tinypic.com/r/29gflw4/6
    vs. Marcott age:
    http://tinypic.com/r/2r3lg5f/6

    The data can be found in the Excel file on Dropbox:

    https://dl.dropbox.com/u/75831381/Marcott%20temps%20including%20METADATA.xlsx

  131. Otter says:

    trafamador~ if McIntyre’s points are so easily countered, why are you not over there making your argument and blowing him away?

  132. Otter says:

    Yo, tram(p)~ I double-checked. I can’t find any of your arguments over at CA, destroying Steve’s claims. Can you point them out to us?

  133. Nylo says:

    trafamadore says:
    March 16, 2013 at 11:15 pm

    Look. The main point of the paper are temp records thousands of years ago. And you are like worrying about the last 0.1 %, which is pretty consistent with the known temperature increase shown in the 1998 Mann paper and in all the papers since.

    WRONG. The main point of the paper is the comparison between “the last 0.1%” and the temp records thousands of years ago, as stated in the conclusions, in the abstract, and in all press releases about the paper. So you keep lying, first about McIntyre’s findings not affecting the result (they do), then about the important result being something different that the paper itself claims. I don’t know for how long your falsehoods will keep appearing here, but i do know I will continue to call you a liar every time they do.

  134. Jimbo says:

    Poptech says:
    March 16, 2013 at 11:10 pm

    Where did Mosher go? He was so arrogantly calling all the skeptics are WUWT “savants” for being skeptical about things they have seen before.

    Yeah, where is Mosher? He was all abusive earlier calling people “savants”. You see Mosher, over the last 11 days you have seen why it’s good to be sceptical. Let’s hope have learned something here. What if sceptics accepted the results – bad science would have crept into the literature and subsequently to be cited by others? Would this have been good for science? Next time hold back on your abuse and stop putting words into people’s mouths.

    Here is Mosher’s confident comment:

    Steven Mosher says:
    March 7, 2013 at 8:34 pm

    Weird.

    They just concluded that as much as 20-30% of the holocene may have been warmer than today and every savant here attacks a study they didnt read.

    1. You think it was cooler?
    2. You think it was warmer?

    Which is it? If you think it was warmer.. On what basis? a piece of driftwood?

    Simple: we have evidence to reconstruct past temperatures. That evidence is all we have.
    We have methods for estimating. They are what they are. You take the data. You apply the methods and you get the answer that you do.
    The nice thing about the study is that there are no tree rings.
    The other nice thing is the methods are known.
    So, if you think it was cooler during the holocene, on what basis?
    Warmer? on what basis?
    Show your work………………

    Read your comment Mosher and compare it to what we have learned over the past 11 days. What I want to know also is:
    “1. You think it was cooler?”
    “2. You think it was warmer?”
    “So, if you think it was cooler during the holocene, on what basis?”

    Let this be a lesson to other Warmist faithfull.

  135. jeremyp99 says:

    Gary Hladik says:
    March 16, 2013 at 4:34 pm
    Alex the skeptic says (March 16, 2013 at 3:50 pm): “Marcott’s hockey stick has been murdered by the truth.”

    Mr. McIntyre, at Climate Audit, with a magnifying glass.
    ================================================================

    Very good. Younger readers who do not recognise the provenance of this statement, refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluedo :-)

    And another one bites the dust. All Hail Mr. McIntyre

  136. Jimbo says:

    Correction:
    On my last comment the quote for Mosher should have been “savant” not “savants”

  137. Hot under the collar says:

    Instead of the sharp uptick I think McIntyre has shown that Marcott et al’s graph should result in a bloody great cross.

  138. jeremyp99 says:

    trafamadore says:
    March 16, 2013 at 6:12 pm
    Tad says: “I think all reputable scientific journals should require every step of data analysis, including data and code used for said analysis, be made available by the authors prior to publication. Perhaps on the journal’s website.”

    Grate, no, great way to make people submit to less reputable journals. Because, like really, we have better things to waste our time on. Scientist’s strong point is not accounting and drudgery. That’s more a conservative occupation
    =====================================================================

    If scientific work cannot be accounted for or audited, then it is not scientific work. Is it? And we know know that peer review is broken beyond fixing. The web is now where peer review is taking place, it’s in its infancy and being battered by all of the differing corps of the Climate Jihadis, but it is happening.

  139. Bill_W says:

    trafamadore,

    If the time resolution is 200-300 years, how can the paper address anything about whether the rate of warming over the last 50 years is “unprecedented”? You say you are a scientist. Well, so am I, and from some of your comments it does not seem that you are applying the proper scientific skepticism.

    Since when is it NOT important for people to be able to reproduce someone else’s results? If the paper is mainly about the past, why is it ok to throw in some “not robust” data and make unsubstantiated claims? And if the past is the main subject, why is it being trumpeted as being mainly about the present by Mann and the media? Why is it not ok to put it in proper perspective?

    And to all of you out there saying it is different from his thesis, this is almost always the case. When I wrote my thesis (not climate science), it was long and boring and full of details I thought future students on this problem might need. And my PhD advisor was not all that interested in it being well done as he knew that only the published work matters (even thought, technically the thesis is “published” when it is archived by the university). My first version of the manuscript was better but still boring and lacked a “hook”, (i.e. something to make it interesting). By the time it was resubmitted and accepted a year later, it was shorter, had several boring tables turned into figures, and I had found a few small observations (new data) and conclusions that made it more interesting. However, it would be unusual for positive data points to become negative between the thesis and the publication. But, if the data in the thesis were found to be processed incorrectly or later they added more proxies and processed it in a different way, that would be fine as long as they gave enough details that others could reproduce their analysis. If it turns out that only a few proxies give rise to the spike at the end or that it is an artifact of the data analysis, that shows the work is sloppy and should not be hyped to the extent it is at the very least.

    It would not surprise me (as others have also said) if one of the reviewers asked that the analysis be extended and compared to the present. It is obvious that this is the kind of thing that makes it of general interest and enough impact to make it into Science or Nature. They want flashy and novel. But it needs to be good science.

  140. Peter in NZ says:

    Looks like the Macott HS needs some Viagra.

  141. Claude Harvey says:

    Who could believe that so many errors in so many AGW scientific papers could be “mistakes” when those errors ALWAYS result in skewing recent global temperatures higher and older temperature lower? You really have to put your “truth detector” in storage to believe that one.

  142. Vince Causey says:

    trafamadore says:

    “Well, the hockey stick as survived quite well after McIntyre papers in the 2000′s, and more people have added sticks of their own. So root on for your hero.”

    So, you think that junk science surviving is a good thing? That’s all I need to know.

  143. DirkH says:

    ralfellis says:
    March 17, 2013 at 1:15 am
    “Because series c. has an extra data point at the end of that series, we get a massive positive hockeystick. Childishly simple, really, but it has all the hallmarks of being criminally irresponsible too.”

    Coming from filtering and signal processing, I say it invalidates the conclusions, obviously. If commenters are right the shifting of the proxies has not been disclosed. Maybe Marcott and Shakun didn’t notice the logical consequences of the proxy re-dating; this renders them and the reviewers and mentors incompetent.
    Or maybe they did notice it but decided to keep quiet about the shifting. This renders their behaviour scientific malfeasance.

    I notice a trend towards Monte Carlo runs amongst the climatists who examine proxies; Rahmstorff also uses them a lot. Maybe it’s easier to cheat with them because the public has never heard of Monte Carlo simulations.

  144. DirkH says:

    Joe Romm has some fun with Marcott and Shakun and extrapolates the spurious uptick.

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/08/1691411/bombshell-recent-warming-is-amazing-and-atypical-and-poised-to-destroy-stable-climate-that-made-civilization-possible/?mobile=nc

    I scanned the article and comments for “Monte Carlo”. No hits.
    None of them understands what they are talking about.

  145. NikFromNYC says:

    Christoph Dollis asked:

    “Who would think they could get away with that, regardless of whether it was sloppiness or more? Have they not heard of a now-prominent climate website called, er, “Climate Audit”?”

    A professionally produced documentary called “Fishhead” offers a possible clue, namely that business, politics and now science are being infiltrated by highly functioning psychopaths who don’t feel such fear.

  146. David L says:

    Otter says:
    March 17, 2013 at 1:46 am
    trafamador~ if McIntyre’s points are so easily countered, why are you not over there making your argument and blowing him away?”

    Because trafamador is a biologist. Math is not taught to these guys. He’d be ripped to shreds and he knows it. He’s never even heard of the null hypothesis. Why? It’s not needed when all you’re doing is listing and classifying species according to phenotype.

  147. David, UK says:

    Noblesse Oblige says:
    March 16, 2013 at 4:52 pm

    The victim in all this, besides all of us who have been scammed once again, is Marcott who was just trying to get a PhD. And once again Science magazine has reasserted its status as supermarket tabloid of science.

    Yeah, my heart’s certainly bleeding for the poor lamb.

  148. Bob Layson says:

    There’s a whole lot of going-on in Shakun (et pal).

  149. LearDog says:

    Trafamadore –

    Your comments are alarming and revealing all at the same time.

    At March 16, 2013 at 5:59 pm you stated you couldn’t see what all of the fuss was about. While Marcotts PhD was about the long term signal, the Science paper is being trumpeted (Mann et al) about the ‘uptick’, which was arrived at ‘hiding’ adverse results and concocting NEW dates (10th century becomes 1950) for ‘favorable’ results.

    As to your other comment on March 16, 2013 at 6:12 pm in response to a call for procedures, code and data, I find your argument an amazing insight into what is wrong today in science. You suggested that the reason to NOT do this is that these onerous burdens would “make people submit to less reputable journals” because “we have better things to waste our time on”? Am I getting this right?

    Because we’re only talking about reshaping the global economy by eco-campaigners, right? From my point of view, it is an entirely reasonable thing to expect that scientists reveal every step of their analysis, all along the way to ensure that others can reproduce their work. Think of it as asking to see the modern day equivalent to a Lab Book….?

    But I agree with your last point: if a “scientist’s strong point is not accounting and drudgery” – he shouldn’t be foisting mediocrity upon the rest of us as if it IS his strong point.

  150. klem says:

    You know, I work in the science world. It makes me wonder why we fight with each other so much about our data and the validity of the conclusions we make based on the data. All we really need to do is substitue our own fabricated data whenever we feel like it, like they did in the above peer reviewed paper. It would be so much more pleasent around here. Life would be easy.

    Oh I know why, because if someone found out we’d all lose our jobs, the company would go bankrupt, senior executives would go to jail, shareholders would sue and the only winners will be the forensic accountants and corporate lawyers. Yea that’s all.

  151. garymount says:

    @ralfellis, You show a sum, not an average, shouldn’t your last row be as follows:
    Av -2.5 -0.66 -0.66 1.0
    Note, I’m using a calculator to do this instead of pen and paper, so I may have made some small errors :-)
    Your general idea still seems to hold though.

  152. garymount says:

    Correction
    -2.5 -0.66 -0.66 3.0

  153. D.B. Stealy says:

    *No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.” ~ Dr Roy Spencer

    Natural variability fully explains the current global climate.

    That is true, in a sense, but false in another.
    There is no accepted quantitative theory of natural variability. If there were, there would not be any argument about things like whether the MWP was real, or how warm it was; we would simply apply our theory and back-calculate the temperatures, just as we would use Kepler’s law to back-calculate the position of Venus on Christmas eve 1414.
    It is this lack of a quantitatve theory that motivated the invention of the hockey stick. If there is no natural variability on the time scale of centuries, it becomes plausible to assign all observed changes to human influence, even without a precise understanding of very long term natural variation. As it is, however, we simply have no basis to distinguish between natural and potential man-made changes in global temperatures.

  154. garymount says:

    Oops, forgot 1 column. Told ya not using pen and paper introduces error, and I’m a computer scientist. I recently spent 2,000 hours studying calculus though, and 99% of the time I used pen and paper.
    -2.5 -0.66 -0.66 -0.66 1.0

  155. snaparooni says:

    trafamadore says:

    “Well, the hockey stick as survived quite well after McIntyre papers in the 2000′s, and more people have added sticks of their own. So root on for your hero.”

    The hockey stick exists only in proxy series. Actual thermometer data shows a flat series for almost the past two decades.

  156. garymount says:

    Umm, I pasted in my original copy from my calculator calculations instead of my corrected version, correct final version follows:
    -2.5 -0.66 -0.66 -0.66 3.0

    Doing this on my little tiny tablet screen (BlackBerry PlayBook) when I have a 4 monitor desktop rig handy… It’s well past my bedtime.

  157. DirkH says:

    NikFromNYC says:
    March 17, 2013 at 4:40 am
    “A professionally produced documentary called “Fishhead” offers a possible clue, namely that business, politics and now science are being infiltrated by highly functioning psychopaths who don’t feel such fear.”

    I was able to stand it for 5 minutes. Now obviously they’re interested in shooting at “corporate” leaders, ignoring the fact that the current POTUS has as a “community organizer” fought lawsuits to force banks to lend to people who can’t afford it etc. etc.

    I see that “documentary” as one element in the current main propaganda thrust to try to blame “capitalism” for what the community organizers et. al. have created. Create a crisis, then exploit it.

    So sorry, no takers here, but nice to see where the propaganda thrust is going next.

  158. Mark Bofill says:

    Look. Marcott’s paper is about long ago not the last century. That was added by his coauthors for perspective, it is not the major point of the paper, except to say say that the modern warming is not normal, which of course is what made it a science paper.
    ———————
    Trafamadore,

    Your argument is disingenuous at best.

    It is disingenuous at best, because if this paper were really ‘about long ago not in the last century’, it would not be in mainstream news headlines such as Seth Borenstein’s AP article titled “Recent heat spike unlike anything in 11,000 years”. The significance and interest in the paper lies in both it’s claim about the past and the recent uptick it reports, without either the importance of the paper evaporates. Since the recent uptick is shown to be a statistical artifact, the significance of the paper is invalid. I said disingenuous at best, because if you’re not attempting to deliberately mislead here, the only other alternative I can think of is that you lack the basic intellectual capacity to realize this.

  159. Mark Bofill says:

    trafamadore says:
    March 16, 2013 at 5:59 pm


    Look. Marcott’s paper is about long ago not the last century. That was added by his coauthors for perspective, it is not the major point of the paper, except to say say that the modern warming is not normal, which of course is what made it a science paper.

    ————
    Trafamadore,

    Your argument is disingenuous at best.

    It is disingenuous at best, because if this paper were really ‘about long ago not in the last century‘, it would not be in mainstream news headlines such as Seth Borenstein’s AP article titled “Recent heat spike unlike anything in 11,000 years”. The significance and interest in the paper lies in both it’s claim about the past and the recent uptick it reports. Since the recent uptick is shown to be a statistical artifact, the significance of the paper is invalid. I said disingenuous at best, because if you’re not attempting to deliberately mislead here, the only other alternative I can think of is that you lack the basic intellectual capacity to realize this.

  160. Mark Bofill says:

    jeremyp99 says:
    March 17, 2013 at 2:47 am

    trafamadore says:
    March 16, 2013 at 6:12 pm

    Because, like really, we have better things to waste our time on. Scientist’s strong point is not accounting and drudgery. That’s more a conservative occupation
    =====================================================================

    If scientific work cannot be accounted for or audited, then it is not scientific work. Is it?
    ———
    Absolutely Jeremy you are correct. I’m always amazed by arguments like these. Scientists are not artists. There is methodology to science and following it is important, and darn straight that includes making sure your documentation is in order and your results are reproduceable.

  161. MattN says:

    It has not been a good week for those guys in general…

  162. Paul Coppin says:

    David L says:
    March 17, 2013 at 5:27 am

    Otter says:
    March 17, 2013 at 1:46 am
    trafamador~ if McIntyre’s points are so easily countered, why are you not over there making your argument and blowing him away?”

    Because trafamador is a biologist. Math is not taught to these guys. He’d be ripped to shreds and he knows it. He’s never even heard of the null hypothesis. Why? It’s not needed when all you’re doing is listing and classifying species according to phenotype.

    Easy, dude. I too, am a biologist, and I’ll be the first to admit “math is hard”, but Traf is an embarrassment to all biologists. I will also suggest to you that most areas of study by biologists are chaotic systems. Show me an easy way to do the research where you can get meaningful results on global scales.. The physicists with their irrelevant proxies have fun, but when the proxies are biological or ecological, they’re usually meaningless.at the level physicists employ them. This is why the Steve McIntyres are so important. – to blow holes in the childlike simplicity with which physicists approach biological proxies. My read of the climate wars through my 40 year lens as a practicing biologist is that “climate scientists” are intellectual buffoons. I understand that’s unfair to some truly serious students of climate, but, oh well. To be sure, Biology has its share of dimwits like Traf, but no more so than the physical sciences. The true Intellectual study of science died in 1975 at the end of the first modern green revolution, to be replaced by the science of politics and profit, when the baby-boomer cohort was released into the marketplace. Trafamadore, you need to just STFU. You’re an embarrassment to the discipline.

  163. DirkH says:

    trafamadore says:
    March 16, 2013 at 5:59 pm
    “Look. Marcott’s paper is about long ago not the last century. That was added by his coauthors for perspective, it is not the major point of the paper, except to say say that the modern warming is not normal, which of course is what made it a science paper.”

    In this video interview with Revkin, co author Shakun makes a big deal out of their hockey stick.
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/scientists-find-an-abrupt-warm-jog-after-a-very-long-cooling/#more-48664

    So you warmists are now reduced to on the one hand declaring your hockey sticks not robust, not the major point of your papers, yet at the same time you explain to Revkin that this is soooo off the charts as if it proved something? You can’t have it both ways, or maybe, given the perseverence of modern NYT journalism you actually can.

    But please stop calling that behaviour scientific; it’s a declaration of moral and intellectual bankruptcy; as close to fascism as science can get. (as in colluding with power interests)

    Furthermore, let’s ask why Marcott and Shakun are experts in re-dating proxies by up to 1,000 years; as in this 2012 article
    http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/16/the-marcott-shakun-dating-service/#comment-405373
    “An article was published in Nature in April 2012 called “Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation”. The authors where Shakun, Clark, Marcott, Mix and others.”

    Why up to 1,000 years? I think this is intentional; as we have seen in the past in less corrupt studies, CO2 follows temperature with 800 years delay, so if you are a history rewriting warmist Winston Smith like Shakun and Marcott, you want to shift the dates enough to overcome that 800 year delay.

  164. george e. smith says:

    Well I personally, don’t have time to look at all of these papers/cores/constructions/detrenditions/anomalies/whatever, but when I used to do actual experiments a long time ago, we simply reported the numbers we read off the instruments; as in that being what we actually observed.
    How is it even possible to switch the dates on data that apparently has already been recorded and reported.

    Back when I was actually a lab technician, in a school physics lab, we had booby trapped apparati to catch students who thought it was ok to cheat.
    For example, a setup to measure the coefficient of linear expansion (of a metal) had a jacketed rod through which water could be flowed, and the Temperature measured at several spots along the rod(each end and middle). The metal rod, protruded at each end, and a travelling microscope was used to locate marks on the protruding ends to measure change in length, when you went from ice water to some hotter water flow.

    The protruding ends clearly showed that the rods were copper, which has a fairly high expansion coefficient. Woe betide the student, who reported the coefficient for copper, on some of those serial numbered apparati. At least a couple of them had Invar rods inside, with copper studs on the ends..

    Whatever happened to reporting the results you get, instead of making up results you wished you had seen.
    This whole bunch of crap, just sickens me.

  165. “If I was the author responding to such criticism, I would then just ask what other proxies I should use and include them.”

    Trafamadore, which I believe correctly anyway should be Tralfamadore from Vonnegut, your grammar is just as bad as your logic. Back to school for you.

  166. MattN says:

    IMO, this is a hotter story right now than CG3.

  167. snaparooni says:

    @Paul Coppin on March 17, 2013 at 7:01 am

    “Easy dude…”

    My apologies to you and good scientists in every discipline. You are correct and I didn’t mean to generalize that every biologist is as bad as Trafmadore. I studied biology in college and loved it. Switched to chemistry in my last year and now many days I wish I hadn’t.

  168. snaparooni says:

    trafamadore says:
    March 16, 2013 at 6:12 pm

    Because, like really, we have better things to waste our time on. Scientist’s strong point is not accounting and drudgery. That’s more a conservative occupation

    WOW! Traf, stay far away from Pharma with an attitude like that. Do you have any idea how much we scientists have to account for everything in Pharma research? A signed paper trail that can stand up to the scrutiny of agency audits is an absolute requirement for every single piece of data. But hey, Pharma products impact the lives of people that use them so we should be very diligent.

    One simple solution is to have climate scientists operate under cGMP rules. Instead of publishing pal reviewed papers they should have to submit their research in an NDA to the FDA. Then we’ll witness real crying when they ask for the raw data and code.

  169. Do any of Marcott’s proxies include New Zealand ones that show a much warmer Holocene?

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/warmer-holocene-confirmed-in-new-zealand/

  170. And what about Lonnie Thompson’s [findings] that the Quelccaya Glacier in Peru was warmer in 3000 BC than today?

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/peru-was-warmer-in-the-holocene-and-mwp/

  171. JackT says:

    For everyone’s benefit, trafamodore is a total idiot. Does he work for Media Matters for his full-time job?

    As for Marcott’s paper, if this was not a total bumblehead mistake, which it wasn’t, shouldn’t the results actually qualify as criminal fraud? When you consider all of the environmental funding and policiy decisions that hang in the balance, this is beyond the level of friendly argument. This is a total violation of good science and therefore manufactured fraud. Lawyers get disbarred, but what happens to climate scientists when they wander off the reservation???

  172. RockyRoad says:

    Michael Palmer says:
    March 17, 2013 at 6:01 am
    As it is, however, we simply have no basis to distinguish between natural and potential man-made changes in global temperatures.

    Exactly, but anomalous behavior is the key metric. Were past climate changes in temperature more pronounced than what we’re seeing now, and knowing the Earth self-regulates its temperature, it matters not whether current changes are natural or man-made; the benefits that accrue because of man-made warming are less significant but welcome nonetheless.

    For example, you’d think “biologists” like this “trafamadore” character would recognize how much the additional CO2 in the biosphere benefits the overall environment, but I believe he’s either been paid to think otherwise, brainwashed, or doesn’t appreciate the carbon cycle. That’s why he’s neither scientist nor honest.

  173. ralfellis says:

    garymount says: March 17, 2013 at 6:15 am
    Umm, I pasted in my original copy from my calculator calculations instead of my corrected version, correct final version follows:
    -2.5 -0.66 -0.66 -0.66 3.0
    _________________________________

    At the fourth time of posting —- I think you are prbably right (I gave a sum instead of an average).

    The average will be as you gave, but you can still see the latitude for fraudulently creating a hockey-stick through shifting the time-line kf one of the data sets. And the fact that the chronology of the data-sets is missing is highly suspicious. This is so far removed from a simple error, it is not even in the same ball-park.

    This is deliberate deceit, prure and simple. And if Marcott wants to plead otherwise, then let him come here and explain his position.

    .

  174. BC says:

    For those of you attempting to have a coherent argument with “trafamadore”, you’re wasting your time, WUWT server space and precious electrons. He’s/She’s been a ParroTroll around the ‘Net for years. No amount of factual data or cogent argumentation will ever sway him/her.

    Here’s a little snippet from back in 2009. You’ll note that he/she continues to use the very same Leftist/Warmista duck ‘n roll troll tactics to avoid addressing specific questions that would completely destroy his/her “argument”, such as it is. He/She is here simply to take the spotlight off of the topic at hand and throw the discussion off onto a different tangent.

    http://comments.realclearpolitics.com/report.php?1,523759

    As the old saying goes: Arguing with Leftists is like trying to perform DIY brain surgery with a bowling ball. It accomplishes nothing and will just give you an even bigger headache”. (IOW’s, don’t feed the trolls.) ;-)

    As to the subject at hand, I’m betting on Steve McIntyre in the Statistical Smackdown. Are hockey sticks on the Endangered Species List yet? :-D

  175. Bill Illis says:

    In climate science, people are not rewarded for presenting objective information.

    The rewards come from doing the opposite.

  176. davidmhoffer says:

    tramafadore;
    Scientist’s strong point is not accounting and drudgery.

    followed by:

    tramafadore;
    And whoever said details of work should not be kept? That is silly.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You are right. You’re being silly. Please try to aim for a higher standard. BTW, the Mann reconstruction you keep touting was demonstrated before a congressional inquiry to have been produced by an algorithm that drew the same graph regardless of the data. That anyone continues to cite that study is silly. Again, aim for a higher standard.

  177. ferd berple says:

    trafamadore says:
    March 16, 2013 at 7:13 pm
    Your comment leaves me speechless….ignorance always does that to me.
    ==============
    clearly it is ignorance, not the comments that are the problem.

  178. Luther Wu says:

    NikFromNYC says:
    March 17, 2013 at 4:40 am

    “Fishhead”
    __________________
    Thank you for that link.

  179. Reed Coray says:

    In response to a comment by Nylo (March 16, 2013 at 10:19 pm), trafamadore wrote (March 16, 2013 at 11:15 pm)

    Look. The main point of the paper are temp records thousands of years ago. And you are like worrying about the last 0.1 %, which is pretty consistent with the known temperature increase shown in the 1998 Mann paper and in all the papers since“.

    Trafamadore please extend some charity to Nylo. I’m sure that like myself he and other commenters on this thread simply forgot the hundreds of other scientific papers (a) whose main point was the “temp records thousands of years ago”, and (b) were gleefully trumpeted by multiple press releases. It takes a rare kind of mind (thank goodness) to believe the main point of Marcott ‘s Science paper was the “temp records thousands of years ago;” but then trafamadore’s comments demonstrate he is blessed with just such a mind.

  180. DirkH says: March 17, 2013 at 6:22 am
    NikFromNYC says: March 17, 2013 at 4:40 am
    “A professionally produced documentary called “Fishhead” offers a possible clue, namely that business, politics and now science are being infiltrated by highly functioning psychopaths who don’t feel such fear.”

    I was able to stand it for 5 minutes. Now obviously they’re interested in shooting at “corporate” leaders, ignoring the fact that the current POTUS has as a “community organizer” fought lawsuits to force banks to lend to people who can’t afford it etc. etc.

    .
    Well, DirkH, you made the right decision.

    I watched the whole thing. (I’m retired). It starts out describing psychopaths, and how they unemotionally manipulate others. I was annoyed that they tossed snapshots of George W and Dick Cheney in among those of Hitler and Stalin, but that’s typical Hollywood. What I found remarkable is that every darn point they made perfectly fit President Obama.

    They continued on to painstakingly (or rather ‘painfully’) develop a theory of what could be done to counter the evil of our psychopathic leaders. I listened carefully, and it turned out to be a secular restatement of 2000 year old Christian philosophy.

    “Do unto others …” now has academic, peer-reviewed confirmation.

  181. markx says:

    Trafamadore is certainly adept at “playing cute”, and completely immune to feeling any need to counter questions of science and statistics scientifically.

    Pretending this is only about temperatures of thousands of years ago and the “hockey stick” uptick is irrelevant, whilst Mann, SKS and plenty of MSM are talking about nothing else other than “new hockey sticks is really a bit of a nose thumbing.

    Stating it (the uptick) is simply a “bit of unimportant extra information added by co-authors” completely ignores the question of why they may have considered that a necessary, correct or interesting thing to do.

    His type of approach appears to me as some sort of childish ‘religious’ extremism: the beliefs are in place, fates have been decided, the preachers are infallible, critics must be wrong, fingers in ears, tralalalalalalalalala ‘can’t hear a thing, sorry’ …..

    But, we should be ignoring nitpicking nitwits like Trafamadore, as the other message of this paper, cleverly being obscured by this hockey stick debate, is that it openly states that 25% of the Holocene was warmer than today, and it is only their future modeled forecasts/projections/predictions/visions which (they foresee) may exceed that.

  182. mogamboguru says:

    I am an editor on motor-magazines by profession.

    We also have a system like “peer-review”, to avoid errors in the articles we are about to publish.

    But, sadly, we have two kinds of “peers”, doing pre-publication reviews, too:

    The first kind of reviewer takes their task very seriously and puts every claim and figure you make or give in your article in doubt, until proven correct.

    The second kind of reviewer, on the other hand, is lazy and just checks the claims and figures you make and give for “implausibilities”.

    But experience has proven time and again, that those reviewers, who only check articles for implausibilities only, in fact check them for NOTHING!

    Therefore I know from personal experience that sometimes, it’s not so much the author, but the reviewer, who is to blame for the shoddy content of an article. Because reviewers are like firewalls: They are there to protect raging errors in articles from spreading.

    But if they don’t work properly, you are screwed.

  183. T.C. says:

    What’s the problem? This is a acceptable analytical technique and has been demonstrated in the literature.
    It’s called “Upside down Mann.”
    Sheesh.

  184. Taphonomic says:

    Werner Brozek says:
    “The final date of the Marcott reconstruction is AD1940 (BP10).
    Could part of the problem be that they are confusing themselves and others with an archaic way of saying which year they are really talking about? If BP means before 1950, what would 2013 be?”

    This isn’t really an archaic way of describing the year. It is based on radiocarbon dating with 1950 being BP0. 1950 was pretty much the year that Libby discovered radiocarbon dating and has been accepted as the standard 0 for a dating baseline (it wouldn’t be efficient to move it every year). Additionally, after 1950 radiocarbon dating does not work due to the increase in atmospheric C-14 due to thermonuclear tests.

  185. Holger Danske says:

    Commenter ‘ZT’ at Bishop Hill has the quote of the week:
    ‘The half-life of papers purporting to show recent warmth based on proxies is declining. In the good old days you could siphon off a few grants, go to a conference in Bali, and collect a Nobel, before anyone noticed that you had the numbers backwards…’

  186. jeremyp99 says:

    trafamadore says:
    March 16, 2013 at 9:32 pm
    D.B. Stealey says “Mann’s Hokey Stick was so thoroughly debunked that Nature was forced to issue an extremely rare Correction”

    Nearly a dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions have repeated Mann’s study. So It would appear that Mann was correct.
    ===========================================================

    Shame then that REAL WORLD DATA shows it to be bollocks, eh, Traffy?

  187. D.B. Stealey says:

    trafamadore says:

    “Nearly a dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions have repeated Mann’s study. So It would appear that Mann was correct.”

    Mann was wrong. Post those ‘model-based and proxy-based reconstructions’, and we will debunk every one of them, just like we did when they were first posted here by the anti-science crowd.

    Empirical evidence trumps ‘model-based and proxy-based reconstructions’ every time, and the real world evidence and observations clearly disprove Mann’s Hokey Stick — which the UN/IPCC can no longer publish. Why? Because Mann’s hokey stick has been thoroughly debunked.

    Is that clear enough for you? Post your “model-based and proxy-based reconstructions”, and we will deconstruct them using empirical evidence.

  188. NikFromNYC says:

    Mike McMillan wrote of the documentary:

    “I watched the whole thing. (I’m retired). It starts out describing psychopaths, and how they unemotionally manipulate others. I was annoyed that they tossed snapshots of George W and Dick Cheney in among those of Hitler and Stalin, but that’s typical Hollywood. What I found remarkable is that every darn point they made perfectly fit President Obama.”

    Exactly! Turning this sort of existing activist philosophy back onto its own lefty support system is the next and in fact only next step available now that conservatives are already on board. But the idea that recent Republicans are saints is just silly as well as a very bad PR move for skeptics to express, for under Bush Jr. both the crony banking housing bubble and the light bulb ban were allowed without any public protest, and the sciences of stem cells, evolution and Drug War era neuroscience are so proudly attacked by same. Understanding rather than mocking those you next need to convince is merely the proper art of influence. Divided is conquered.

  189. Rick J. says:

    Meanwhile… a mini ice age is about to start and Obama wants to make gas more expensive *sigh* US is headed for an apocalypse, I fear… all these warmists like Marcott, Mann, etc. must really hate humanity. They are trying to reverse human progress. Why? What for?

  190. Gary Pearse says:

    Man if this work ends up with a retraction, the fear of a McIntyre review will automatically result in a major improvement in the quality and honesty of the climate science papers. Any climate science paper author should be asking for McIntyre to be a referee, now that it is clear the “science” is not going to be able to tailor-make data and conclusions to support their favorite causes.

  191. Oscar Bajner says:

    You have to feel terribly sorry for the poor innocent data.

    “We perturb the data ten thousand times using clips from Herbie-goes-to-Monte-Carlo. While the data are recovering we teleport them upside down to a previous era, using a time machine
    built from a Delorean and an electric toothbrush. Actually, the science is really simple”

    Even God himself only threatens with eternal damnation.

  192. Dave says:

    Never, ever, ever, try to fool Steve McIntyre!!! You haven’t got chance.

  193. davidmhoffer says:

    Theo Goodwin says:
    March 16, 2013 at 8:42 pm
    Ben Wilson says:
    March 16, 2013 at 7:51 pm
    “5. And notice — Revkin gets a reply — not from Marcott, but from Marcott’s supervisor — Peter Clark, more or less saying “We’re trying to come up with some plausible explanation for this disaster. . . just give us a little bit of time!”

    So — where is Marcott? Why is Clark calling the shots on Marcott’s paper? Can Marcott still function? Do you suppose Clark has yelled at Marcott for answering McIntyre’s e-mail?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I think you nailed it. My understanding is that Clark was already shooting his mouth off about this paper being in AR5. Clark is a lead author of AR5. And Marcott’s thesis adviser. The logical leap that Clark may have pressured Marcott into a paper in Science that would serve his (Clark’s) purposes as lead author of an AR5 chapter isn’t a big one. He can be none too happy that Marcott has already admitted to McIntyre that the uptick is not robust. I’m betting that Clark has told Marcott to STFU and let him (Clark) handle things.

    If Marcott wants to escape with ANY credibility at all, he’s do well to throw his adviser under the bus, distance himself from the Science article and simply defend his original thesis. Let Clark take the fall for the version that was published in Science. He seems pretty eager to do so, and Marcott should let him.

  194. Sweet Old Bob says:

    urm.. do0es Marcott suffer from Shakon baby syndrome?

  195. DirkH says:

    NikFromNYC says:
    March 17, 2013 at 9:53 am
    “But the idea that recent Republicans are saints is just silly as well as a very bad PR move for skeptics to express”

    Be assured that we are objectivists.
    Overdose: The Next Financial Crisis
    12:00 G W Bush, “Downpayment fund”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ECi6WJpbzE

  196. Derek says:

    This from Science Editor-in-Chief Bruce Alberts at a March 5 Capitol Hill event on scientific integrity and transparency. http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2013/0311_alberts.shtml

    Alberts then addressed concerns related to scientific integrity. Like others at the hearing, he cited 2011 correspondence in Nature by Florian Prinz and colleagues that questioned the reliability of published data on potential drug targets. “My conclusion,” Alberts said, “is that the standards are lower in some subfields of science than others, and we need to work on setting higher standards.” He also urged individual scientists to more critically assess their own work. “It’s easy to get a result that looks right when it’s really wrong. One can easily be fooled. Every scientist must be trained to be highly suspicious about his or her results.”

    But wait, what if the result looks wrong and actually is wrong? How would you handle that situation Mr Alberts?

  197. I am astounded the authors themselves did not withdraw the paper as soon as the first problems appeared (or at least temporarily suspend it).

    Did not Gergis do that with hers quite early on?

  198. Billy Liar says:

    trafamadore says:
    March 16, 2013 at 7:54 pm

    This will either leave the reviewers speechless or they will suggest something else that was used. For example, the Watts critique, that the data does not match the ice core data, that could be rescued by including the ice core data in the analysis, as one more location. Of course this isnt ocean data which I thought was the major data source for this paper, but even if it was included, it would have only been one more location data set and not changed the results much.

    You need to raise your game.

    Five ice cores are included in the analysis: Dome C, Dome F, Vostok, EDML and Aggassiz.

    No wonder Otter ignores what you have to say.

  199. Gerald Machnee says:

    ***trafamadore says:

    “Nearly a dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions have repeated Mann’s study. So It would appear that Mann was correct.”

    Mann was wrong. Post those ‘model-based and proxy-based reconstructions’, and we will debunk every one of them, just like we did when they were first posted here by the anti-science crowd.***
    McIntyre has already debunked those so-called dozen “reconstructions”. They all use one of four faulty proxies which had an overemphasized bias. All trafamadore needs is to have someone read her the past CA posts.

  200. NikFromNYC says: March 17, 2013 at 9:53 am
    … for under Bush Jr. both the crony banking housing bubble and the light bulb ban were allowed without any public protest, …

    Granted the light bulb, but Bush submitted Community Reinvestment Act reform legislation three times to Demo-controlled Congress and was rebuffed. Shoulda’ tried harder.

  201. rogerknights says:

    trafamadore says:
    March 16, 2013 at 9:32 pm
    D.B. Stealey says “Mann’s Hokey Stick was so thoroughly debunked that Nature was forced to issue an extremely rare Correction”

    Nearly a dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions have repeated Mann’s study. So It would appear that Mann was correct.

    Those supposed replications either used Mann’s invalid proxies, or his invalid statistical acrobatics, or both. There have been lengthy comments here on WUWT, on CA, and elsewhere elucidating those points at length. Mann’s claque has just “kept digging.”

  202. Berényi Péter says:

    Are there still honest people who want to publish in Science magazine? Time for a full scale boycott, let crap sink.

  203. Jeff Morton says:

    Don’t the peer-reviewers get an “honorable” mention for their role in this?

  204. ra149287 says:

    Don’t we get to know who peer reviewed Marcott’s paper?

  205. Jimbo says:

    If Marcott wrote a similar paper for baby medicine and was caught out like above he would end up in jail. In fact most climate scientists would be in high detention prisons for the sake of humanity. :)

  206. Gary Pearse says:

    RE: Trafa… this guy is wasting the valuable time and insights of smart, thoughtful people. I’m sure he gets paid for each time he is cited. Ignore him. He has no game.

  207. Latitude says:

    trafamadore says:
    March 16, 2013 at 11:15 pm
    Look. The main point of the paper are temp records thousands of years ago.
    ===================
    “In 100 years, we’ve gone from the cold end of the spectrum to the warm end of the spectrum,” Marcott said. “We’ve never seen something this rapid. Even in the ice age the global temperature never changed this quickly.

  208. Boston12GS says:

    Merely observing the frantic frequency with which trafamadore has posted in this thread tells you everything you need to know about how severely this Marcotte episode has wounded them. I’ve been hunting, I know what it looks like when a wounded animal is bleeding out, and that wounded animal is the warmist theology and the parasites that have been feeding off that blood-rich carcass. Rage, rage, against the darkness of the light, trafamadore!

    Or, as my Brooklyn bar-owning uncle used to say to the customers at closing time: “You don’t have to go home . . . but you can’t f’ing stay here.”

  209. Mr. Africa says:

    boy trafamadore sure seems to have disappeared.

  210. Eliza says:

    This paper needs to be reported here
    http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/ or least advise the person running the site

  211. Skiphil says:

    Eliza, yup, I did so yesterday:

    http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/about/#comment-51416

    They may need to start a special section at RW for climate propaganda…. Mann and friends, Gergis, Lewandowsky, now Marcott, Shakun (2012)….. ofc these people avoid all correction, never mind retraction, if humanly possible, so who knows?

  212. rk says:

    No comment yet from RC. Just this note w/in a comment on 8 Mar:

    I’m surprised to see no mention of Marcott et al in March 8, 2013 Science “A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years”. Comments? [coming soon... -mike]

  213. observa says:

    The Fourth Estate are beginning to crack –
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html
    We may be pleasantly surprised at how quickly the MSM turn on Big Climate and the Team, once journos realize they’ve been fed like domesticated chooks and don’t want to be the last out of the chook pen.

  214. DirkH says:

    observa says:
    March 17, 2013 at 3:55 pm
    “The Fourth Estate are beginning to crack -”

    Daily Mail had quite a few sceptical reports on CO2AGW in the past including mention of the solar minimum.
    What’s more telling is the silence at Guardian, BBC, Der Spiegel. When they jump ship, they do it silently; not an about-face, just hopping on the next bandwagon.

  215. D.B. Stealey says:

    Latitude quotes Marcott:

    “In 100 years, we’ve gone from the cold end of the spectrum to the warm end of the spectrum,” Marcott said. “We’ve never seen something this rapid. Even in the ice age the global temperature never changed this quickly.”

    That is flat wrong. Past global temperatures have abruptly changed by tens of degrees on short, decadal time scales, and during a time when CO2 was very low.

    Surely Marcott knows this. It appears that he is lying, no?

    We are currently in a cooler part of the Holocene. Nothing unusual or unprecedented is occurring; in fact, we have been blessed with a “Goldilocks” climate for the past century and a half.

    The planet has been up to ten degrees warmer in the past, with no ill effects. During those warm episodes the biosphere teemed with life. Yet Marcott falsely states that “we have never seen something this rapid”.

    They are reduced to outright lying. No wonder they won’t debate, or allow themselves to be questioned live and face to face. Despicable, no?

  216. Eliza says:

    If the paper is not withdrawn, I suggest not buying or subscribing to SCIENCE and terminating any membership associated with this organization. Its the only language they will understand unfortunately.

  217. Theo Goodwin says:

    Boston12GS says:
    March 17, 2013 at 2:48 pm
    “Merely observing the frantic frequency with which trafamadore has posted in this thread tells you everything you need to know about how severely this Marcotte episode has wounded them.”

    I humbly submit (down on my knees begging) that trafamadore be banned. Knowledgeable and teachable trolls can be tolerated. Trafamadore is ignorant of most of the thorough discussion of issues that has taken place on WUWT since Climategate. His trollship contributes nothing to this site.

  218. observa says:

    Agree with your media observations DirkH but I haven’t seen such a direct smack in the kisser to Big Climate and The Team in one succinct MSM article before. There’s no doubt where the author is coming from now and it throws down the gauntlet to other MSM journos to do likewise and devil take the hindmost.

    That article would be unheard of even a year or two ago and the climatology club would be quaking in their grants over it right now. Their mighty pal reviewed edifice is crumbling all about them and all they have left is to trot out their Comical Ali mantra. Their is a certain grim inevitability about them all now.

  219. Gary Hladik says:

    Theo Goodwin says (March 17, 2013 at 4:42 pm): “I humbly submit (down on my knees begging) that trafamadore be banned.”

    Let him rave on, that men will know him mad. — Yul Brynner as Rameses in “The Ten Commandments”, 1956.

    Besides, the guy’s a real hoot. :-)

  220. Kevin says:

    McIntyre is amazing. I want to have his babies. Sadly, I’m a guy and not gay :(.

  221. Boston12GS says:

    Good God, NO! Are we afraid to meet these ethics-barren and deeply unscientific prevaricators and economic parasites in the intellectual field of combat? Nay, nay I say.

    Are not their hockey sticks already splintering in their hands? Are not their grant applications becoming ever more pathetic? Their press coverage ever more tiredly sycophantic and self-exposing?

    We, my friends, are the modern-day cavalry of the scientific method. With our self-professed intellectual enemies crumbling before us, now is not the time to withdraw from the conflict. To the contrary, this is the very time to charge, ride them down, and end the contest.

    Granted, too many of them will successfully retreat to multi-million dollar mansions and pensions. But cavalry can only do so much.

    In the meantime, we’ll have saved the world. For REAL. Not like THEY mean it.

    :-)

  222. DirkH says:

    observa says:
    March 17, 2013 at 5:16 pm
    “That article would be unheard of even a year or two ago and the climatology club would be quaking in their grants over it right now. Their mighty pal reviewed edifice is crumbling all about them and all they have left is to trot out their Comical Ali mantra. ”

    Is Daily Mail Murdoch? Murdoch is a member of the CFR. So when he’s shooting directly at the Team that just means Warmism is no longer strategic for Bilderberger’s and CFR.

    That means Open Season. As I said, the “more respectable” core outfits BBC, Guardian, Spiegel will not step look back to the mess they’ve made but set their sights on the next Grand Goal. So Murdoch can have fun with it.

  223. Coldish says:

    trafamadore says:
    March 16, 2013 at 6:12 pm

    ‘Tad says: “I think all reputable scientific journals should require every step of data analysis, including data and code used for said analysis, be made available by the authors prior to publication. Perhaps on the journal’s website.”

    Grate, no, great way to make people submit to less reputable journals….’ (end of quote from traf.)

    I think trafamadore may have a point there. Journals (such as perhaps Science) that don’t bother to insist on public archiving of data and code simultaneous with publication may tend over time to become less reputable as they will continue to attract dodgy papers from scientists who have somthing to hide.

  224. phlogiston says:

    D.B. Stealey says:
    March 17, 2013 at 4:32 pm
    Latitude quotes Marcott:

    “In 100 years, we’ve gone from the cold end of the spectrum to the warm end of the spectrum,” Marcott said. “We’ve never seen something this rapid. Even in the ice age the global temperature never changed this quickly.”

    That is flat wrong. Past global temperatures have abruptly changed by tens of degrees on short, decadal time scales, and during a time when CO2 was very low.

    Surely Marcott knows this. It appears that he is lying, no?

    I second that – it is indeed a frequent and remarkable feature of glacial periods that they are unstable, and punctuated by these “micro-interglacials” in which temperatures spike up by as much as 10 degrees, but for a duration measured in decades only or a century or two.

    For example, Dansgaard et al 1993 find the exact opposite of what Marcott claims, namely that the most recent glacial period is characterised by frequent “violent delta-18-O shifts” indicating very rapid warm excursions, while the Holocene is, in striking contrast, “remarkably stable”.

    Again climate authors with an AGW agenda are simply spouting opinions from the top of their heads with no research to back them up, and no-one in review is picking this up. Shameful dysfunction of the Science journal.

  225. Jimbo says:

    trafamadore says:
    March 16, 2013 at 11:15 pm
    Look. The main point of the paper are temp records thousands of years ago.

    You are a liar and trying to deceive. If the main point of the paper was about “temp records thousands of years ago” then it would not be unique research. The “main point of the paper” is the fabricated uptick.

  226. Elizabeth says:

    Re Trafa guy leave him/her on.WUWT These types our the BEST allies of the skeptics and D******rs. So far the ranting s of Trafa, Mann, Romm, Ramsdorf, Lewanski etc have been responsible for shifting thoughts of millions people from believers to skeptics. In fact in may turn out the the absolute killer of the whole AGW team will be this paper (Marcott)

  227. Jim from Maine says:

    The only reason Traf (and most others like him/her) post here is for personal edification…to see how many responses they can get to their comment…so a troll, but a special kind of troll. Definitely needs the attention, which many readily provide.

    Just sayin.

    Jim

  228. aaron says:

    I don’t understand why anyone would do this. Evidense of the medieval warm period is quite strong and getting stronger. Methods that wash it away simply show that the method and/or data is shit.

  229. aaron says:

    The researchers should ask themselves, “where’s the medieval warm period?”, “why isn’t it showing at least as warm as now”, “we can’t publish this, we need to find out what went wrong.”

  230. NikFromNYC says:

    Instapundit this morning linked to this story for hundreds of thousands of readers:

    “CLIMATEGATE 3.0 UPDATE: The Hockey Stick, Broken Again.

    Posted at 7:21 am by Glenn Reynolds”

    His link: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/03/the-hockey-stick-broken-again.php

    “If this is not flat-out fraud–which, sadly, has come to typify the climate alarmism movement–then what is the justification for Marcott’s wholesale re-dating of samples?”

  231. Bill Illis says:

    Here are some charts of the Marcott proxies – all the proxies versus Marcott’s Global temperature stack , and then the same for the three regional stacks.

    Individually, they are all quite strange in my opinion.

    http://s11.postimage.org/6m5wcjavn/Marcott2013_All_Proxies.png

    http://s8.postimage.org/63alcnobp/Marcott2013_NHX_Proxies.png

    http://s24.postimage.org/bfmr455bp/Marcott2013_SHX_Proxies.png

    http://s15.postimage.org/s2x6aua6z/Marcott2013_Tropics_Proxies.png

  232. RACookPE1978 says:

    Hmmmmn.

    Northern hemisphere took a BIG “bounce” (from way low near -12,000 years, then up above 0.0, then right back down again to very low at -8000 years, then back up to the “usual” curve shown in the Southern hemisphere proxies and sea proxies.

    Ice Age results at -10,000 years? Very cold, warm, very cold, back to the Holocene “warm” point and gradually declining since the -6000 year point?

    Now, WHY did the original writer NOT point that out as his dissertation and his findings?

  233. Bill Illis says:

    Bill Illis says:
    March 18, 2013 at 6:10 am
    RACookPE1978 says:
    March 18, 2013 at 6:24 am
    —————————–

    Sorry, the NH 30N-90N chart looked strange enough that I had another look and I guess I copied the wrong column.

    Here is the fixed NH 30N-90N chart.

    http://s23.postimage.org/kn2mp9zjf/Marcott2013_NHX_Proxies.png

  234. jeremyp99 says:

    Sweet Old Bob says:
    March 17, 2013 at 11:52 am
    urm.. do0es Marcott suffer from Shakon baby syndrome?
    =========================================================================
    Maybe – but he’s certainly become a marcott man…

  235. jeremyp99 says:

    D.B. Stealey says: March 17, 2013 at 4:32 pm
    Latitude quotes Marcott:

    “In 100 years, we’ve gone from the cold end of the spectrum to the warm end of the spectrum,” Marcott said. “We’ve never seen something this rapid. Even in the ice age the global temperature never changed this quickly.”

    That is flat wrong. Past global temperatures have abruptly changed by tens of degrees on short, decadal time scales, and during a time when CO2 was very low.
    ====================================================================
    I’m in no sense of the word ANY sort of scientist; I am, regardless, trying to educate myself, on the fly as it were, regarding climate science. Much reading here and at associated blogs, a coupld of Lamb’s tomes and some sceptical tomes (Bishop Hill’s excellent books, for example)

    Yet I knew that the past had included rapid and dramatic temperature changes on decadal time scales.

    How on earth did the peer reviewers of this “paper” let Marcott’s quote above get published? It really DOES seem that the propaganda message now far outweighs evidence and truth for the warmist community (cult?)

  236. Jon says:

    But there has been a sudden increase in temperature since the mid 1990`s at least in Eastern Canada … just look at the environment Canada stats … this increase also happened in the UK.. I can`t see how people can deny this … unless they don`t spend much time in the outdoors! The only question is what caused it?

  237. Lars P. says:

    Clay Marley says:
    March 16, 2013 at 5:22 pm
    OK so I read the post but I’m not seeing where the hockey stick comes from.
    Clay, you have many proxies, some go up some go down. In the average there are only limited variations, each proxy by iteself may have higher variation then the group but most do compensate each other, they do not run synchron. If you take them “as is” you get to the red curve – most of them go down at the end.
    But if you shift them around so that all – or a majority – go up at the same time, you suddenly have an annomalous warming at that point where the phases are synchronised.
    The way how these proxies were synchronised was to achieve the black curve instead of the red one.
    The data shows the same small variation as obtained by other scientists. Here the data worked by Hank who independently tried to find what’s wrong:
    http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/image207.png
    It looks very much like the result of Ljungqvist. That is an honest work-out of the proxies:
    http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/ljungqvist-2010.jpg
    Hank said that the end is not robust – too few proxies to give a result.
    What we see in Marcott et al is fiting these few proxies to give at the end a hockey stick, doesn’t matter that the rest is screwed-up. Incredible.
    Let me give you a simple example. You can have a statistics with the number of birth in any american city. Some days may have bigger numbers some less. Now if you make a statistic and move all those which have the bigger number at the same date you get suddenly the terrible “birth day” when suddenly you have tripled the number of birth. But it is no real day, it is just a statistic artifact. If you fit that day as the last day of your graph you can then cry wolf: american population in danger to double in 10 years with this trend. Simple isn’t it?

  238. RHL says:

    Prof Peter Clark of Oregon State has been very successful in obtaining NSF grants which total $700K over a four year period. Here are the grants with links to NSF at the amounts:
    Grant 2008 195,098
    Grant 2010 219,783
    Grant 2011 198,468
    Conference 2010 98,700

  239. SkepticGoneWild says:

    Paul Dennis, scientist at the University of East Anglia, published the following blog comment today at Bishop Hill (“OMG” thread) regarding <Marcott et al 2013:

    I’ve refrained from making any comment on the recent Marcott et al paper for the simple reason I hadn’t read it. I’ve now had a chance to read it. It is an unremarkable compilation of various palaeoclimate proxies that span the Holocene. Most of these are marine with limited temporal resolution, averaging 120 years, but some with 500 year resolution. Most of the proxy records have limited age control and as a result the age models are poorly constrained. The upshot is, that despite the use of standard and non-standard statistical techniques, the records are necessarily low pass filters that effectively restrict reconstruction to multi-centennialto millenial scale variations in average temperature. The cut off period is on the order of several hundred years. Below this there is considerable attenuation of any signal.

    Thus the paper is an unremarkable Holocene record that loses definition on time scales of less than three to five hundred years. As such it would not be considered by Nature or Science for publication. If it’s not publishged in Nature or Science then it doesn’t impact on the public perception and the climate change debate.

    The game is given away in the opening paragraph where the authors discuss the fact that it hasn’t yet been demonstrated wether recent warming is anomalous compared to the Holocene record. Unfortunately there is nothing in the properties of the proxy records, nor in the statistical compilation of these that will allow this question to be answered. The uptick in the Marcott et al record is purely an artefact (end effects, manipulation of core end dates thus severely distorting the age models and estimates of sedimentation rate) and contains no information about modern temperatures.

    Where we do have high resolution records of climate change (noting that there are problems with many of the transfer functions between the proxy and temperature) that also have excellent dating control we invariably find evidence of rapid and high amplitude fluctuations in the Holocene. One only has to look at some of the speleothem and Greenland ice core records.

    I am surprised by the implicit support and promotion this paper has received from scientists who should know better. I call on colleagues to be open and honest about the limitations of some of these proxy studies and to give honest assessments both in professional circles, but also in press briefings and other public domains such as blogs etc. After all it’s not rocket science!

    Unfortunately, this paper and the way it has been publicly received is symptomatic of virtually every paper and research proposal that comes across my desk these days for review. They all have a variation on the the same opening sentence that seeks to place the work in the context of ‘current CO2 induced warming’. A few years ago I even had a paper to review on gas diffusion in butyl rubber that started out with a statement to the effect that given the onset of anthropogenic global warming it was necessary to investigate the diffusion of greenhouse gases through butyl rubber septa that are used in gas sampling systems!

    In one sense I see such statements as a form of confirmation bias. This is a very serious issue in modern science that is being driven by government policy, funding organisations etc. If ones views run counter to the prevailing orthodoxy then chances of funding, tenure, career development etc. are all affected. We have to move away from such a stance and try to re-establish the scientific method. Developing hypotheses and experiments or measurements of nature that attempt to refute these hypotheses. We mustn’t torture data to fit an apparent paradigm. One can only guess at what Marcott et al were attempting to do when they made gross adjustments to core top dates. It is one thing to run a new, for example 14-C calibration, that will make small adjustments to age models but a completely different issue to redetermine core top dates by such gross margins.

    So we are left with a study that is unremarkable in that it shows the broad millenial decrease in global temperatures from the Holocene climatic optimum. It has nothing to say about centennial and decadal variations in temperature, temperature maxima and minima or rates of change, nor does it have anything to say about the modern era. Attempts to picture it any other way are an egregious example of confirmation bias.

    Mar 18, 2013 at 9:20 AM | Unregistered Commenter Paul Dennis

    Paul Dennis, if you remember, is one of the UEA scientists questioned by Norfolk police regarding the Climategate email leak.

  240. Freddy Loncie says:

    [snip . . OT . . mod]

  241. sam says:

    The paper is under revision?

    From Jeremy Shakun’s page,

    Marcott, S. A., Shakun, J. D., Clark, P. U., and Mix, A. C. A reconstruction of global and regional temperature for the last 11,300 years. Science, in revision.

    http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~shakun/

  242. sam says:

    Followup to my previous comment,
    I posted the same comment in Climate Audit. SteveM found that Jeremy Shakun’s page has not [been] updated for a while. So the ‘in revision’ must predate the current controversy

  243. BA says:

    D.B. Stealey says:
    “That is flat wrong. Past global temperatures have abruptly changed by tens of degrees on short, decadal time scales, and during a time when CO2 was very low.

    Surely Marcott knows this. It appears that he is lying, no?”

    No, you are confused. The graph you link shows central Greenland temperatures, not global. It makes sense that rapid change can occur in a regional climate, as may have happened in Greenland. If winds or currents shift the warmth goes somewhere else. It seems hard to imagine a cause short of large asteroid impact which could make global temperatures change by tens of degrees on short, decadal time scales.

  244. D.B. Stealey says:

    BA,

    I am not confused. Here, let me help you to understand, using facts rather than emotion.

    Both hemispheres correlate extremely well with past temperatures during the Holocene and before.

    Antarctica, Greenland, and the Arctic all warm and cool simultaneously. You can observe more evidence here.

    Warmth is not ‘going elsewhere’ as you claim. The planet has warmed and cooled in both hemispheres at the same time. Marcott is simply being deceptive.

    If you accept the large body of empirical evidence showing the abrupt warming/cooling on decadal time scales, then you will understand the propaganda war being waged for control of your mind. But if you refuse to accept those empirical observations, then your mind is made up, and you have become an acolyte of a religious cult.

    The choice is yours.

  245. BA says:

    D.B., you’re piling up the accusations. But can you find any evidence for declaring global temperature changed by tens of degrees on decadal time scales?

  246. Skiphil says:

    sam says:
    March 19, 2013 at 10:11 am
    The paper is under revision?
    From Jeremy Shakun’s page,

    Sam, I think he simply had not updated the CV yet. It does raise the interesting question of whether the status of the paper as listed on his CV could go from “under revision” to “withdrawn” or “retracted” without ever being listed as “published”??

    He’d better hurry up now and update that CV…..

  247. D.B. Stealey says:

    BA says:

    “…can you find any evidence for declaring global temperature changed by tens of degrees on decadal time scales?”

    BA, wake up. I already posted an R.B. Alley reference that provided empirical evidence showing abrupt temperature change. I then posted verifiable references showing that global temperatures change in unison in both hemispheres. Apparently you want to argue about something else now, since you don’t have a leg to stand on scientifically in your first assertion.

    People like you are unable to accept scientific facts. You are a typical wild-eyed alarmist, rejecting real world evidence simply because it doesn’t fit your catastrophic AGW belief system. That is why your side is losing the debate.

  248. RACookPE1978 says:

    DB!!

    Are you not forgetting that “all” the temperature changes we have actually measured since 1800 (now 210 years) amount to “only” 9/10 of ONE degree?

    The entire rise since 1950 through today is 2/10 of ONE degree.

    Thus, although it is possible that the Medieval Warm Period was 1 to 1.2 degrees warmer than the coldest part of the Little Ice Age valley at 1650, that too, would NOT be “tens of degrees in a decade”! Why let him get away with exaggerations and self-serving screams of fear?

  249. Phil. says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    March 17, 2013 at 8:16 am
    tramafadore;
    Scientist’s strong point is not accounting and drudgery.

    followed by:

    tramafadore;
    And whoever said details of work should not be kept? That is silly.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You are right. You’re being silly. Please try to aim for a higher standard. BTW, the Mann reconstruction you keep touting was demonstrated before a congressional inquiry to have been produced by an algorithm that drew the same graph regardless of the data. That anyone continues to cite that study is silly. Again, aim for a higher standard.

    Indeed you should, rather than touting the work of a serial plagiarist misrepresenting data obtained by others which didn’t draw “the same graph regardless of the data”, what they showed was that if 10,000 runs were made then 12 of the results looked the same!

  250. ferd berple says:

    RACookPE1978 says:
    March 19, 2013 at 6:37 pm
    would NOT be “tens of degrees in a decade”!
    ========
    Agreed. The proxies show about 11C in natural variability over the past 600 million years, with the average varying between 11C and 22C. Most of the time it was 22C, and the next most likely was 11C. Our current temperature of 14.5C is unstable looking at the paleo records, so it should be no surprise that natural variability is quite high at our current temperature.

    This range has been maintained during times of both very high CO2 (much higher than if we burned all the fossil fuel reserves on earth) and during times of very low CO2. This is strong evidence that CO2 plays little or no role in determining climate. This is confirmed by the ice cores that show that CO2 lags temperate. Thus temperature forces CO2 and the climate models have the relationship backwards. Which explains why the models have gone off the rails over the past 15+ years. They have cause and effect backwards.

  251. ferd berple says:

    Jon says:
    March 18, 2013 at 12:21 pm
    The only question is what caused it?
    ========
    what caused the minoan warming, roman warming, medieval warming? what caused the cooling in the dark ages and the LIA? no one knows. all we can say for sure is that real climate change has happened in the past and no amount of human sacrifices at the time, carried out by the high priests of the day, did anything to prevent climate change – but it sure did cause a lot of extra suffering for the common people. until the temples were torn down and the priests put to the sword, and then conditions generally improved. the climate didn’t – but at least the human sacrifices stopped for awhile. the french revolution was most likely a product of climate change (let them eat cake) as the LIA caused widespread famine and eventually revolt.

  252. Lars P. says:

    SkepticGoneWild says:
    March 18, 2013 at 5:18 pm
    Paul Dennis, scientist at the University of East Anglia, published the following blog comment today at Bishop Hill (“OMG” thread) regarding <Marcott et al 2013:

    Thanks for the repost SkepticGoneWild, it is truly a remarkable statement, balanced, well thought through and sad summary of the (not only but most)-climate science nowadays. A very short and concise summary of the paper:
    “We have to move away from such a stance and try to re-establish the scientific method. Developing hypotheses and experiments or measurements of nature that attempt to refute these hypotheses. We mustn’t torture data to fit an apparent paradigm. One can only guess at what Marcott et al were attempting to do when they made gross adjustments to core top dates. It is one thing to run a new, for example 14-C calibration, that will make small adjustments to age models but a completely different issue to redetermine core top dates by such gross margins.

  253. Lars P. says:

    ferd berple says:
    March 20, 2013 at 12:45 am

    Jon says:
    March 18, 2013 at 12:21 pm
    The only question is what caused it?
    ========
    what caused the minoan warming, roman warming, medieval warming? what caused the cooling in the dark ages and the LIA?
    ferd I am many times shocked at the ignorance of the warmista, they imagine the temperature has been stable for milenia and have no understanding at all of the past climate and keep on posting their “but we are all doomed” post
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/3/19/josh-13.html

Comments are closed.