Many people have been wondering what sort of response would be coming now that Steve has conclusively shown that the Marcott et al “hockey stick” is nothing more than an artifact of what appears to be the worst case of cherry picking ever.
His latest post reveals how to ‘Hide the Decline’, Marcott style:
By blanking out the three most recent values of their proxy #23, the earliest dated value was 10.93 BP (1939.07 AD). As a result, the MD01-2421+KNR02-06 alkenone series was excluded from the 1940 population. I am unable to locate any documented methodology that would lead to the blanking out of the last three values of this dataset. Nor am I presently aware of any rational basis for excluding the three most recent values.
Since this series was strongly negative in the 20th century, its removal (together with the related removal of OCE326-GGC30 and the importation of medieval data) led to the closing uptick.
Here’s the response from Real Climate Scientists™
(h/t to commenter Richard Mason on the Powerline blog)
From the YouTube description:
Stars in the background are artificial, as is the passing airplane.
Seems like a perfect response.
Read McIntyre’s latest here
Related articles
- McIntyre finds the Marcott ‘trick’ – How long before Science has to retract Marcott et al? (wattsupwiththat.com)
- The Marcott-Shakun Dating Service (climateaudit.org)
- Hiding the Decline: MD01-2421 (climateaudit.org)
- The Hockey Stick, Broken Again (powerlineblog.com)
- How Marcottian Upticks Arise (climateaudit.org)
- Marcott’s hockey stick uptick mystery – it didn’t used to be there (wattsupwiththat.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Get’s funnier & funnier…
Or sadder & sadder, depending on your viewpoint.
Kurt in Switzerland
Surprises me –
I expected their response to sound more like crickets chirping.
🙂
I’m betting that the eventual response will be.
a) “McIntyre’s analysis has already been debunked.”
2) “There have been 12 other studies which replicated Marcott’s results.”
(h/t in advance to trafamodore)
Anyone want to bet against me?
Wolves howling, owls hooting plus crickets chirping, just about says it all. But when will this delusional nonsense be thrown in the rubbish bin?
Neville, clinically it does not resemble a delusion so much as obsessionality. The entire CAGW line of action is truly isomorphic to the symptomatology of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Ideation fixated upon trying to guarrantee certaintainty of future events through ritualised preoccupation with current gestures irrespective of their disabling consequences.
RC – we knew about this all along – our own checks found this error first and He Who Must Not Be Named didn’t find it at all – Honest!!! /sarc
@ur momisugly H.R. 5.40 am My guess will be “It has been peer reviewed by 3 different IPCC leads”.
How about tumbleweed and cricket noises ….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIIuR-HjFho
Minor point, but I think ‘Response’ rather than ‘Responds’ would be more accurate in the title. Responds implies action, whereas total silence is an accurate description of their response, to date.
REPLY: Sure, why not.- Anthony
[snip – let’s not go there, let it shake out first – Anthony]
A while back we were trying to win an Olympic Games bid and there was considerably and noisy opposition from an organization called “Bread Not Circuses” which was a front for Socialists led by a dork named Jack Layton. His comment to the leader of the bid was “we are a very powerful political force and we will kill this bid.”
And they did – Atlanta used this as propaganda to show how the population didn’t support the bid. And we didnt’ get a billion in construction and 5,000 low income homes and better transit.
My point? The alarmists are a very power political organization – and they will win – and they don’t care if everyone else suffers. They will have their bank roll and their retirement homes etc.
No real reply huh. Or the wolf howl was as close as they could get to crying into their beer.
H.R:
I suspect their eventual response will be :
The “blade” was described in the text as being unreliable and not a valid measurement. Its a bit absurd to focus on something the authors themselves don’t regard as significant.
Mcintyre has implied very strongly that re-dating was performed in order to hide a decline in reconstructed temperatures (in the period which the authors say there is no valid measurement)
The re-dating was made because of X, Y, Z where X,Y and Z are arguments the non-specialist can’t really judge, in the same way that they can’t judge the validity of Steve Mcintyre’s argument. Instead they make an appeal to authority – something which is apparently fine for Mcintyre (a clever man but not infallible) but which is not fine for someone on the other side.
Its difficult to see that this is going anywhere.
That said, a very serious charge (poor ethics) has been levelled against the authors. Those of us who don’t understand the fine details of proxy-dating ought really to shut up until an answer is forthcoming. If we’re lucky it will be very convincing or utterly unconvincing (even to the non-specialist).
My my, what an adult, rational, reasoned and mature response. Time for bed little ones.
Willis has some fascinating charts towards the end of the March 16th comment section in Climate Audit.
If I was Marcott et al, or the ‘Real Science’ ‘scientists’, I would run a mile at being exposed for this total abuse of data – the chart for the last 500 years would make a cheating schoolboy blush.
Robert says:
March 18, 2013 at 6:12 am
“Its difficult to see that this is going anywhere. ”
Marcott, Shakun and the NYT are on the record trying to make hay out of the uptick. Oh, and Joe Romm.
And BTW, if the uptick isn’t thoroughly refuted before IPCC AR5 it will become the worldwide icon of warmism no matter how flakey.
Wamron says:
March 18, 2013 at 5:52 am
—
That explanation hurt my brain.
Robert says:
March 18, 2013 at 6:12 am
—
If as you claim, the authors themselves don’t trust the blade portion of the graph, why are they making such a big deal of their claim that current temperatures are warmer than at any time in the last 4000 years, or that the rate of temperature increase is totally unprecedented?
Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”
Is the dog playing dead?
Their response fit in with the general level of professionalism exhibited by many of the mainstream CAGW “scientists”.
BTW – it was 8 F here in New Hampshire this morning, and a big snow storm is headed our way tomorrow – in the middle of March. Happy Global Warming(tm) spring!
This is as good of a PR breakthrough for skeptics as was the nonsense article Sokal spoof of the postmodern journal “Social Text” since it exposed Mann himself on Facebook, the journal “Science” too, and the media like Rachel Maddow who celebrated it with Mann’s strong support, yet it’s a *full* debunking that can easily be bluntly comprehended by any layperson who views Willis’ plot of the input data.
Their cult has been lead off a cliff.
Note this twitter exchange:
Eileen Kinley @EileenOttawa
@MichaelEMann Is there a rebuttal to McIntyre’s innuendo re “dating service”?
Michael E. Mann @MichaelEMann
@EileenOttawa For the time being, the disturbingly bad track record & documented past misbehavior should suffice: http://deepclimate.org/?s=McIntyre
We can take that as a “no” then. Nor is there any rebuttal to McIntyre’s explanation of how the spurious Marcott upticks arise.
I posted McIntyre’s original article on this whole think on Mann’s Facebook page in a comment, less then one minute later It was deleted and I was blocked.
https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist
Just saying.
P.S. Marcott Style? Or has that whole thing jumped the shark. Is Marcott a person? If so does he have a picture?
thing
I enjoy a good joke as much as anyone, but implying that the RealClimate scientists are howling mad undermines the exemplary work of Steve McIntyre on this topic, IMHO. It also somewhat poisons the atmosphere for what I anticipate will be an eventual response from Marcott, et. al., which is what I thought I was going to see when I followed this link.
Anthony I love your site, but I think you gave into temptation here.
What? No tumbleweed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumbleweed