by Ryan O’Donnell via Climate Audit
For those who are not mathematically inclined and did not entirely follow the discussion about Eric’s reconstruction in the previous post, well, a picture is worth a thousand words.
This is what happens to Eric’s reconstruction when you:
Top row: Add the designated trends to the Peninsula stations
Second row: Remove the designated trends from the Peninsula stations
Third row: Treat Byrd as a single station, and add the designated trends to Byrd and Russkaya
Fourth row: Treat Byrd as a single station, and remove the designated trends to Byrd and Russkaya
Please note how Eric’s reconstruction responds quite well to changes in the Peninsula . . . except it teleconnects them to the Ross Ice Shelf and the south pole.
Please also note how Eric’s reconstruction does not respond at all to changes in the only two West Antarctic land stations they used: Russkaya and Byrd.
Anything that he “got right” . . . as I said before . . . was by accident.
I am quite tired of people who are willing to spend tens of pages during a review making claims without bothering to check. I am quite tired of people who are willing to spend a couple of hours writing posts about how they “got it right” and I “got it wrong” without bothering to check.
Eric . . . feel free to confirm this for yourself. I assume you have your own code handy.
UPDATE: Bishop Hill takes this essay and further reduces it in the crucible of truth. His end paragraph really sums it up well.
James Delingpole also sums it up nicely here
Read Steve M’s comment here http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/in-moderation-at-rc-yes-no-whatever/comment-page-3/#comment-68633
Yes Steig admits to being reviewer A. Straight out, in email. Game, set and match.
Leave the blogs for a couple of days and all hell breaks loose! Thanks for the links from posters so I could catch up.
I guess the best last line is……”And he votes”.
If Steig is engaging in a cover-up, then the initial fraud that is being covered-up needs to be the focus of a legal inquiry, separate from the academic, scientific, and ethical inquiries. Fraudulent use of federal grants is a civil and criminal legal matter.
Don’t let the fog of war envelop the discussion. The goal of a fraudster, when caught, is to confuse the issue, to change the subject.
If, indeed, there was fraudulent science committed in the 2009 research published by Steig, then that fraud is the legal issue.
Steig has received multiple millions of dollars in Federal support for his research.
If those dollars were used to commit fraud, then the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is interested in reclaiming those dollars for the U.S. government’s treasury.
The DOJ has a program, designed to encourage whistleblowers to brave the professional and personal firestorm they face when they come forward, that rewards whistleblowers with a percentage of funds recovered from fraudulent grant recipients.
A lawyer who specializes in reclaiming fraudulent grant funds has indicated interest in speaking with, and ultimately representing, for free, anyone who has knowledge of fraudulent grant receipients. I’d be happy to refer potential whistleblowers to this lawyer.
It would appear that Eric Steig received grants from the National Science Foundation’s Antarctic and Arctic Programs in the following amounts, since about 1998 (looks like about $4 million):
$552,114.00
$376,672.00
$349,484.00
$317,853.00
$256,891.00
$458,965.00
$414,994.00
$296,857.00
$35,842.00
$301,568.00
$88,721.00
$118,773.00
$43,520.00
Here’s a link to the full information on his NSF grants:
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/afSearch.do?SearchType=afSearch&page=4&QueryText=&PIFirstName=Eric&PILastName=Steig&PIInstitution=&PIState=&PIZip=&PICountry=&ProgOrganization=OPP&ProgOfficer=&ProgEleCode=&BooleanElement=true&ProgRefCode=&BooleanRef=true&ProgProgram=&ProgFoaCode=&OriginalAwardDateOperator=&OriginalAwardDateFrom=&OriginalAwardDateTo=&StartDateOperator=&StartDateFrom=&StartDateTo=&ExpDateOperator=&ExpDateFrom=&ExpDateTo=&AwardNumberOperator=&AwardNumberFrom=&AwardNumberTo=&AwardAmount=&AwardInstrument=&Restriction=0&Search=Search#results
Kent Clizbe
kent@kentclizbe.com
Admitting wrong will make the entire house of cards called Anthropogenic Climate Change collapse. We can’t have that, can we.
Apparently, more to come soon…
[snip . . ad hom but amusing]
Does it appear that CAGW scientists are always trying to find ways to spread the warmth. In Antarctica, in teleconnected trees (Finnish trees do not respond to Finnish temperature if they happen to correlate with Swedish temperature) in “one tree to rule them all”, in GISS 1200 k anomaly spreading. What have I missed?
I can almost hear them speaking of the missing heat saying, “don’t hide it, divide it” Oh wait, no, that was a conversation from the 60s.
[snip . . ad hom but amusing]
Yes Steig is trying self depreciating humour… let’s see what he will lay next… LOL
I should have posted the link so the moderator would have seen it was Eric’s own posting: http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=5967#comment-200051
EOM
Well, Eric now has a comment out on RC about “Odonellgate”:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/odonnellgate/
O’Donell should apologise immediately for his post:
From Steig:
“It’s perhaps also worth pointing out that the *main* criticism I had of O’Donnell’s paper was never addressed. If you’re interested in this detail, it has to do with the choice of the parameter ‘k_gnd’, which I wrote about in my last post. In my very first review, I pointed out that as shown in their Table S3, using k_gnd = 7,
“results in estimates of the missing data in West Antarctica stations that is further from climatology (which would result, for example, from an artificial negative trend) than using lower values of k_gnd.”
Mysteriously, this table is now absent in the final paper (which I was not given a chance to review).”
So WHO censored the paper? Names please.
“Some months ago, O’Donnell cordially (though quite inappropriately) asked me if I was one of the reviewers, and also promised not to reveal it publicly if I didn’t want him to. I told him I was, but that I would prefer this not be public since the ‘opportunity for abuse’ was simply too great. Talk about prescience!”
So the guy set up Steig in this sting. WHO backed him in ths sting?
“Perhaps there is a silver lining here. Perhaps the utter silliness of the shrill accusations that O’Donnell made against me — based on a version of the facts, in his head, that are demonstrably and unequivocally false, coupled with the fact that he then retracted them (or at least has promised to do so), will help more people see what the steadily growing list of other scientists who’ve been accused by McIntyre and his associates of plagiarism, dishonesty, data manipulation, fraud, deceit, and duplicity have been telling me for years: these people are willing to say anything, regardless of the cost to others’ reputations and to the progress of legitimate science, to advance their paranoid worldview.”
ie this means the numbskulls that populate WUWT…not that you’ll understand this…
ianash says:
February 9, 2011 at 7:10 pm
yes, I guess the WUWT readers are numbskulls since they allow stupidity like yours to be published without resorting to boreholes. It seems that only stupid people really want to pursue the truth in science, and the smart ones want to supress it.
Jose Suro says:
February 8, 2011 at 4:53 pm
“On a personal note though, I don’t take any research results +/- one degree F seriously – on either side. ”
I agree one hundred degrees, ahem, percent.
But; I remember one year ago, there was a huge PR campain in my company, where a total meltdown of Antarctica with pictures of a barren stone landscape was the centerfold.
These campains, who set them in motions, and why? I wonder.
Just one degree is all it takes. Warmer, that is.