NOTE: since this is clearly an important finding with far reaching implications, this will be a “top post” at WUWT for the next couple of days. I urge other bloggers to spread the word. – Anthony
================================================================
Just when you think the bottom of the Hockey Stick rabbit hole has been reached, Steve McIntyre finds yet more evidence of misconduct by the Team.
The research was from Briffa and Osborn (1999) published in Science magazine and purported to show the consistency of the reconstruction of past climate using tree rings with other reconstructions including the Mann Hockey Stick. But the trick was exposed in the Climategate dossier, which also included code segments and datasets.
In the next picture, Steve shows what Briffa and Osborn did – not only did they truncate their reconstruction to hide a steep decline in the late 20th Century but also a substantial early segment from 1402-1550:
As I’ve written elsewhere, this sort of truncation can be characterized as research misconduct – specifically falsification. But where are the academic cops? Any comment from Science magazine?
Steve also discusses the code underlying the plot and you can see how the truncation is a clear deliberate choice – not something that falls out of poorly understood analysis or poor programming.
In the comments, Kip Hansen posts the following:
In reference to Mann’s Trick….obliquely, yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling on Zicam (a homeopathic nasal spray) ruled in part:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/23/health/23bizcourt.html?_r=1&hpw
The Supreme Court has said that companies may be sued under the securities law for making statements that omit material information, and it has defined material information as the sort of thing that reasonable investors would believe significantly alters the ‘total mix’ of available information.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the court on Tuesday, roundly rejected Matrixx’s proposal that information can be material only if it meets standards of statistical significance.
‘Given that medical professionals and regulators act on the basis of evidence of causation that is not statistically significant,’ she wrote, ‘it stands to reason that in certain cases reasonable investors would as well.’
Thus, hiding or omitting information, even if one feels it is ‘erroneous’ or ‘outlying’ (or whatever they claim) is still possibly fraudulent ( or in this case, scientifically improper) if it would ‘add to the total mix of available information’. Statistical significance is not to be the deciding factor.
In the case of Briffa and Osborn, no statistical fig leaf was applied that justified the truncation of data, so far as I can see.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I wasn’t aware that you had refuted Theo’s mis-statements before they had been made, very clever of you.
Reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0C59pI_ypQ
Theo Goodwin: talking about perspective, I would say that these people have a horrible problem. They cannot go back, so either they have to remain silent or begin a legal fight like Mann recently did. It is still unknown who fabricated Piltdown Man, but it is possible that it started as a practical joke. The hockey stick story certainly wasn’t. This is just incredibly bad research serving the greatest hoax of the century, that humans are heating up the planet. My goodness, what would you do if you were Briffa? Perhaps I would adopt a new identity and became a farmer at the Falkland Islands.
OT but these people may have nailed climate
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/03/geophysicist-explains-how-sun-controls.html
refer to video by Courtillot.
I would like to see Svalgaards views
“My goodness, what would you do if you were Briffa? ”
Withdraw my papers voluntarily, and carry on with a committment to good science.
Vince Causey says:
Look, you can go to intelligent design / creationist websites and find lists of scientists who reject evolution and support intelligent design / creationism. (Here’s but one of them: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html ) You can rent the movie “Expelled…” and see how such scientists have supposedly been systematically discriminated against by the larger scientific community.
I am sorry, but your argument just amounts to more of the same kind of argument that Smokey was making. Am I saying that there is exactly the same amount of quantitative certainty in climate science as there is in evolutionary science? No.
What I am saying is that both cases are examples where you can have people like Smokey saying things about a scientific theory being debunked that bear absolutely no resemblance to what the scientific community thinks, as expressed through nearly all of the major scientific societies. And, I am pointing out that statements such as Smokey’s are essentially meaningless because they can always be made…and are made…by people who don’t want to believe the scientific consensus on a subject because of their strong ideological beliefs. They say much more about Smokey’s world view than anything meaningful about the actual science of climate change.
[snip – inappropriate language]
JPeden says:
March 27, 2011 at 12:14 pm
Extremely well said. My belief is that they become completely unhinged from the semantics of language and direct all their attention to uses of language that are deceitful and useful for manipulating others. Their emotional range is either at the pole of unbridled aggression or the pole of rank self-pity. Institutions follow suit. The New York Times is the my favorite example. The Democratic Party, the Left, the Left Blogosphere are right behind. What a sad state of affairs.
mindert eiting says:
March 27, 2011 at 2:27 pm
“My goodness, what would you do if you were Briffa? Perhaps I would adopt a new identity and became a farmer at the Falkland Islands.”
My guess is that he is in permanent exile somewhere in academic never-never land.
Stephan says:
March 27, 2011 at 3:57 pm
OT but these people may have nailed climate
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/03/geophysicist-explains-how-sun-controls.html
refer to video by Courtillot.
I would like to see Svalgaards views
He wasn’t too complimentary about one of Courtillot’s earlier papers.
Posted Dec 22, 2007 at 6:06 PM | Permalink | Reply
29 (Steve): Yes, I know. My post was just triggered by my reaction to the Courtillot paper. I know the authors and Le Mouel is a good and respected scientist in his field. It was immediately obvious that he (and co-authors) had strayed, and the sooner the [geomagnetic] community forgets that miserable paper, the better. I was just venting that feeling. My point [at it was] was that commenting on Courtillot et al. is a waste of time as the paper deserves to be quietly forgotten, unless you want to use the comments as a means to another end.
Vince Causey,
Joel Shore likes to take digs at me because he is incapable of refuting my scientifically skeptical position on the absence of global “damage” caused by CO2. Joel doesn’t know enough about climate dynamics to make accurate predictions. He is simply engaging in the fallacy of the argumentum ad ignorantium: “Since I can’t think of anything else that could cause these cycles, then it must be CO2!”
As a matter of fact, there is zero evidence of any CO2-caused damage, so Joel falls back on his standard “consensus” argument which is, of course, pseudo-science.
As I’ve pointed out many times, the CO2=CAGW conjecture has been repeatedly falsified, not least by planet earth itself. Who should we believe, Joel Shore, or our lyin’ eyes?☺
Joel just can’t face the fact that CAGW has been debunked by the scientific method – an alien concept to the true believers in runaway global warming and science by “consensus.”
Theo Goodwin says:
March 27, 2011 at 5:52 pm
mindert eiting says:
March 27, 2011 at 2:27 pm
“My goodness, what would you do if you were Briffa? Perhaps I would adopt a new identity and became a farmer at the Falkland Islands.”
My guess is that he is in permanent exile somewhere in academic never-never land.
Last I heard he was suffering from a severe kidney ailment which I believe required surgery.
This paper written by Super Steve give a nice history of the deception and is required background.
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/ohioshort.pdf
Most interesting is the Starbucks Hypothesis. He casually asked Mann for the data and Mann said I forgot where I put it, maybe I can find it. Steve said can I just go and reproduce the proxy data myself? Oh no says Mann, that would require heavy equipment. Go to page 16 to see the heavy equipment used to gather this data. Then go to page 18 and see the cross sections of the kind of trees they use to gather this very rigorous data.
Phil.,
If that’s true he has my condolences. Keith Briffa never seemed to me to fit in with Mann’s clique. I hope he recovers.
JPeden says:
March 27, 2011 at 12:14 pm
“””One very old tactic I first learned about in 1964 while majoring in pre-postmodern Philosophy: the Left unhinges words from their usual meanings, then uses them as though they still carry their old meanings, my point being that eventually the words actually have no meaning – then they are really only noises, appearances, etc.; while they still sound and look like they have meaning to people who don’t realize that this tactic is being employed and who perhaps also trust the speakers/authors to be making sense and to be trying to help them and, of course, to “save the world”; . . . “””
= = = = = = =
Jpeden & Theo Goodwin,
Tracing back the source of the reasoning of intellects and scientists to the source philosopher (s) is crucial in understanding their choice of arguments to support their conclusions. Thus premises can be assigned and motivations studied.
I have a question for you both, given the dominance in current European and American academia (Humanities Departments) of Kant and his post modern philosophic descendants.
Did Kant (published Critique of Pure Reason in ~1781 AD) observe a problem with the then dominant philosophic and associated scientific trends resulting from the renaissance (aka enlightenment) that he (Kant) wanted to counter in a fundamental way?
John
Joel,
Respectfully, comparing AGW skeptics to evolution skeptics looks like a tacit confirmation that you are losing the argument here. Clearly, there are, hands down, much more legitimate reasons for being skeptical of the climate consensus than the evolutionary one.
I submit that the *only* reasonable conclusion one can draw about trees as temperature proxies is that they are not good ones. Further, one should not have to rely on an outsider to point out the sort of flaws with them. A competent scientist should IMO have mentioned the flaws with tree proxies EVERY time they discuss the so-called reconstructions that used them.
For whatever reason, however, we cannot rely on mainstream climate scientists to make the rest of the public aware of these problems. As such, we have no choice but to adjust their credibility accordingly.
Frankly, who knows what other flaws with climate science might be lying around in the background that, for some reason, are not being widely disseminated?
Cheers, 🙂
Jimmy Haigh begs plaintively: “Please Sir? Can we use the “f-word” now Sir?”
REPLY: shout them into your monitor but don’t write them, yet. The day may be coming though – A
How about:
WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT ???
“Latitude says:
March 24, 2011 at 9:42 am
Ever get the feeling that they would have gotten the same results using rocks…………”
kinda, I do
I posted earlier on how Mann was miffed that people said he was to blame for the decline when all he did was manipulate data to get a hockey stick. And that the tell all book would be coming this winter. Might be sooner than that as…Mann is suing Tim Ball.
Mann is suing Tim Ball? I wonder if Mann will have to give up all his research records? I wonder if Mann will have to answer on the witness stand? I wonder if Mann will have to give up all his research finance records…and perhaps after an audit there might be more than one discrepancy? It’s not hard to make it appear that someone is dishonest. I wonder if the web postings and other public statements will come into play. Are there no decent lawyers willing to do pro bono work to help a guy out against the left wing socialistas? Strange…are there no statutes of limitations? Also, I have to wonder about the intelligence of a law firm representing a US citizen suing a Canadian with an all Canadian jury…
Joel Shore,
“What I am saying is that both cases are examples where you can have people like Smokey saying things about a scientific theory being debunked that bear absolutely no resemblance to what the scientific community thinks,”
Seems like the same reasoning would apply to those who say that climate sceptic’s arguments have been debunked.
Smokey says:
No…Using science to inform public policy is not pseudoscience; it is what prevents the use of pseudoscience. And, the only logical and practical way that we have found to have science inform public policy is through having respected scientific institutions like the National Academy of Sciences weigh in on what the current state of the scientific understanding is, not by having Smokey decide what the current state of the scientific understanding is.
The alternative to this is to have politicians use scientists like lawyers, each trotting out their own “pet scientists” to endorse their ideologically-driven views. And, that is a recipe sure to lead to the embrace of pseudoscientific nonsense. That is why so many of us who are actually scientists are reacting in such horror when this sort of approach seems to be embraced by those who are losing the scientific debate, whether it occurs in debates over climate science or debates over human origins.
Vince Causey says:
No. There are ways that we have developed to give the public and policymakers guidance on what the state of the science is in a field where it has bearing on public policy. The scientific community has spoken through these respected institutions with a very unified voice on this issue.
Besides which, those of us who are scientists know that a lot of climate skeptic arguments are utter nonsense, falsehoods, half-truths, and distortions that can only survive outside the realm in which science is conducted. Some arguments are less outlandish and these have found their way into the normal scientific discourse where they are being responded to (and most often shown to be without very much foundation either).
I have no problem with scientists like Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer continuing to try to influence scientific opinion by publishing in the scientific journals. What is more objectionable is when people try to short-circuit the normal scientific process in favor of processes that are antithetical to the nature of science.
Joel Shore says:
[Regarding “consensus”]: “Using science to inform public policy is not pseudoscience; it is what prevents the use of pseudoscience.”
Using “consensus” to buttress an evidence-free runaway global warming conjecture is pseudo-science; anti-science. It is the antithesis of the scientific method. As Albert Einstein wrote in response to the one hundred scientists who signed a letter attacking the teaching of Relativity, 100 scientists [the “consensus” of the day] were not necessary; just one fact would suffice.
Joel Shore wouldn’t know the scientific method if it bit him on the ankle. The scientific method requires transparency and following up on every possibility that a hypothesis is wrong. None of that is done in climate pseudo-science, no matter how much its misguided spokesperson posts here. Climate scientology as passed off by the Mannian clique is total anti-science; a scam based on an evidence-free continuing fraud against the taxpaying public.
Instead of his projection-based whiny appeals to authority, Joel Shore needs to either produce verifiable, empirical, testable and reproducible evidence showing convincingly that CO2, specifically, is causing global damage, or he needs to accept the fact that mainstream climatology is based on speculation. So far, it is all evidence-free conjecture.
Little needs to be added to Smokey’s reply to Joel Shore, but Mr. Shore should notice that he has acknowledged only two alternatives ways in which science can affect policy:
1. Let the august and respected scientific bodies decide what policy makers should accept as evidentially confirmed scientific theories.
2. Let individual scientists push and pull policy makers around for political, rather, than evidentiary reasons.
There is, however, a third alternative and any scientist should acknowledge and accept as the best of the three:
3. Let individual scientists present evidence for and against whichever theory, model, hypothesis or prediction is relevant to policy of the day and let them explain this evidence to policy makers in the forum. Let the refutations and rebuttals bring the evidence forth in full.
It should go without saying that alternative 3 is the only one which gives primacy to evidence and lets evidence drive policy rather than letting consensus drive it. It should also go without saying that alternative 1 is fraught with the very tendencies to succumb to political bias that worry Mr. Shore and drive him to seek shelter in alternative 1, and that hashing out the evidence in the light of day in the political forum is the only way to neutralize these biases. Of course, some testimony in the forum will be tainted by bias. Also of course, the open examination of the evidence will reveal this bias. And of course, opting for alternative 1 instead of 3 will too frequently keep these biases hidden until policy has already long been made.
Mr. Shore’s view is based on the uncanny premise that an open examination of scientific evidence in the forum will be hamstrung by political biases whereas yielding to the pronouncements of scientific authorities will not. I suspect that this mistake is owing to Mr. Shore’s profound respect for many of these bodies and reverence for their role in science, and this respect is not misplaced. However, it should be dwarfed by his respect for the scientific method, for open dispute over evidence, and for facts and empirical data. That he thinks the denial of AGW is similar in evidentiary status to creationism shows that, sadly, this is not the case.
– – – – – – –
Joel Shore,
I think you assume too much about scientia.
Adding to scientific knowledge is not constrained to publishing in existing scientific journals, nor (in specifically the climate science case) in being selected as the so-called consensus science by the IPCC assessment process.
There is no necessity about the venues of scientific journals and the IPCC. Those venues are arbitrary conventions of the existing socio-econo-politico situation that are merely made up by existing human conventions.
To add to scientific knowledge in any venue only requires expanding the human knowledge base on nature openly and transparently (supplying data, methodology, code and other docs); providing new insights into nature with all natural observations. Rational and objective thinking occurs in other places besides in academia, research institutes and politically appointed gov’t bodies like the IPCC. It is the science that matters, not the venue.
Is it intellectual myopia to think there are just the quasi-authoritative realms of journals and the IPCC?
John
Joel Shore,
“No. There are ways that we have developed to give the public and policymakers guidance on what the state of the science is in a field where it has bearing on public policy. The scientific community has spoken through these respected institutions with a very unified voice on this issue.”
Rather than admit the possibility that the AGW proponents may be wrong, you invoke an appeal to authority to substantiate their claims. How many times does it need to be said that science is not about views of ‘august bodies’ or whatever other consensus you want to invoke. Still, if you are determined to take that line, then I guess no amount of argument will make you change your mind.
Smokey says:
But, I don’t think Albert Einstein would say that the best way for scientific evidence to be evaluated is by random ideologues commenting on blogs. He would say it should be evaluated by his fellow scientists.
Jim Ryan says:
I am all for scientists doing their best to explain the evidence and rationale behind their scientific conclusions to policymakers. However, I think it would take a lot of hubris for policymakers to believe that they are actually the best qualified to evaluate the scientific evidence and make scientific conclusions about it. As Sherwood Boehlert, a pro-science Republican who was Chair of the House Science Committee put it a few years ago, “to have Congress put its thumbs on the scales of a scientific debate… is at best foolhardy; when it comes to scientific debates, Congress is ‘all thumbs.'” ( http://sciencepoliticsclimatechange.blogspot.com/2006/09/speech-by-boehlert.html ) It is unfortunate that Boehlert’s non-partisan approach to science policy issues seems not to be very popular amongst the current group of Republicans in Congress.
I am all for open discussion of the evidence. However, that debate will most productively be carried out amongst the scientists actively involved in that field. I am not saying that other people aren’t welcome to debate it, but it would be rather foolhardy to believe that people who have not invested the considerable amount of time and energy it takes to become an expert in a field will be the most qualified to judge the scientific evidence in that field.
I am not saying that discussions elsewhere are of no value, but I think the evidence gathered from specific cases (such as evolution) show that the value is usually quite limited. Often outside of those venues, the signal-to-noise ratio is very low and the attenuation of scientific nonsense does not seem to occur. Scientific journals and societies may be the product of human conventions; however, we do come up with conventions for good reasons.