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.
Joel Shore says:
“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.” And then Joel launches into a rant about politics, Republicans, etc. If it weren’t for psychological projection, Joel wouldn’t have much to say.
And:
“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.”
Insufferable. Joel attempts to self-designate as the gatekeeper of who has the value to add to the conversation. He’s been consistently wrong in his beliefs about runaway global warming being right around the corner, but he craves the job of keeping the hoi polloi silenced.
See, Joel is special. In his own mind he is The Authority. Unfortunately, the Authority has once again been humbled, this time by O H Dahlsveen in the “Visualizing the Greenhouse Effect” thread. Feet of clay, Joel. And I’m still waiting for that putative evidence [soon to be ginned up and fabricated, I’m sure], showing global damage due to CO2… which is really the basic question, isn’t it?
Because if CO2 is harmless [we already know it’s beneficial – CO2 is the red line], then the U.S. government should promptly stop any further expenditures on ‘climate studies’. After >$80 billion wasted so far, with totally inconclusive and contradictory non-results; hidden data, fabricated data, endless vacations in Hawaii, Copenhagen, Bali, etc., enough is enough. There are worthwhile things to spend that money on. Demonizing CO2 isn’t one of them, neither is coddling a small group of alarmists with piles of grant money. We need to stop throwing good money after bad.
If scientists cannot demonstrate the veracity of their claims in the general public forum and to the satisfaction of any reasonable elected representative, then elected representatives should not create policy on the basis of those claims. To deny this is to accept the following propositions:
(a.) Scientific evidence, insofar as it is relevant to public policy, is too difficult to explain to educated non-scientists and therefore…
(b.) Non-scientist policy makers should simply accept the pronouncements of scientific authorities and make policy based upon those pronouncements.
But (a.) is obviously false and (b.) is clearly foolish and dangerous. In addition, that scientists can demonstrate and refute one another to the satisfaction of reasonable and educated policy makers is obvious. There is no need to appeal to authority.
Jim Ryan says:
I am not saying that it is too difficult for them to understand the basic gist of it. However, I don’t think it is realistic to expect them to be able to do an overarching evaluation of the weight of the evidence in a particular field. That requires a very good knowledge of the field. Why do you think organizations like the National Academy of Sciences were created? It is in their charter to provide the sort of scientific advice and evaluation that the government needs.
I am not saying that they should accept them blindly, without asking the scientists for questions, clarifications, what uncertainties are involved, and to explain what evidence the conclusions are based on. However, if we just have the policymakers decide where the science stands based on their own analysis, then what will happen is they will decide more often than not that the science miraculously aligns with their ideological preconceptions!
By the way, how does your very optimistic view of how scientists can convince the general public on the truth of their claims align with these poll results: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publib.htm ?