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.
Dave Springer says:
March 24, 2011 at 11:22 am
Phillip-Morris scientists could learn a thing or two from these guys.
Thank you for smoking.
=====================================
That’s not tobacco they’re smoking.
[…] Gefunden bei Whats Up With That? […]
Noelle says:
March 24, 2011 at 11:54 am
“………. This paper is 12 years old and it takes until now to report this?….”
================================================
No Noelle, it took them 12 years to uncover it. You may not have noticed, but Steve Mc, has been busy uncovering other things, writing papers, breaking hockey sticks, etc….. Of course, you’re the only one that it has escaped the fact that it shouldn’t have to be uncovered or revealed. It should have been plainly discussed.
@UnfrozenCavemanMD
I agree with you absolutely, unfortunately western governments have seen the extra tax take from carbon. They believe it will dig them out of their current financial hole.
Yesterday I remarked about the vernacularization of science language and discipline.
Today it is worse. Science as a word is going to end up in the thesaurus with words like:
abracadabra, alchemy, astrology, augury, bewitchment, black art, conjuration, conjuring, conjury, devilry, diabolism, divination, enchantment, exorcism, fascination, foreboding, fortune-telling, hocuspocus, horoscopy, illusion, incantation, legerdemain, magnetism, necromancy, occultism, power, prediction, presage, prophecy, rune, science, sleight of hand, soothsaying, sorcery, sortilege, spell, superstition, thaumaturgy, trickery, voodoo, voodooism, witchcraft, wizardry
Look it is already there!!
See what they have done?
The “f-word” for these people: fools.
More great Sherlocking, Dr M.
To those who suggest the long, long detedting road to disclosure is obsessive; ‘dogged’ seems accurate to me, ‘obsessive’ is derogatory of Dr M.
Hide the Incline!!
Mark T says:
March 24, 2011 at 9:56 am
“…Uh, they do use rocks (sediment deposits) in some reconstructions…”
And, if I remember correctly, the researchers who collected that data complained that their dataset had been inverted before it’s inclusion in this … Frankenstein’s monster of proof. (an arm here, a toe there, a couple of pieces scrounged out of a refuse bin at a local restaurant, etc.)
—
And overheard on the radio today, in the background while rummaging the garage… ‘this winter wasn’t so cold after all, in fact, it was quite warm as winters go.’
*sigh…
I see the problem !!!
The pink line needs to be inverted !!
Team problem solved.
McIntyre could ask Black Debbath for help;
I’m not surprised:
“I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”
– James Lovelock, TheGuardian, March ’10
The other activist ‘scientist’ who said they need to get rid of the medieval warm period also comes to mind.
Hang on a minute … that’s not a hockey stick, it’s a boomerang!
What Jorge says is true. Dendrochronology is well established, whereas using trees as proxies for temperature is fraught with so much difficulty that it is at best pseudoscience, even when the charts aren’t being fudged.
I was fortunate enough to have J. C. McGregor, one of the inventors of dendrochronology, as one of my professors back in the day. He was nearing the end of his career at the time and, indeed, retired and was granted emeritus status while I was in school. He maintained an office after retirement and made himself available to graduate students for some womnderfully informative conversations. He was a fine and gracious gentleman, well loved by his students, and a great contributor to his field. So no allegations of pseudoscience, please.
jorgekafkazar says:
March 24, 2011 at 12:49 pm
RayG says: “As I suggested on CA, the paleodendochronologists (aka pseudo-science, IMO) should switch from bristlecones…”
Ray, dendrochronology has been valid, established science since the early 20th Century and is quite accurate. The problem is with dendroclimatology, or tree-mometry, which, as you state, is largely pseudoscience, as currently practiced. Tree growth is a function of soil, temperature, humidity, surrounding terrain, clouds, rain, CO2, animal activity, shade, microclimate, subsurface water, ambient albedo, and elevation. Thinking they can pick a reliable temperature signal out of all that is utter lunacy.
“Whom the gods would destroy they first drive mad.”
When I look at the data this seems more than reasonable. Tree ring data is a “proxy.” They are not actual thermometers. So, it’s a bit like a detective game where you’re trying to piece together a wide range of information and which clues are valuable and which are not in your quest to locate the actual temperature.
In this one diagram you can see that there are three data sets that are in agreement and one that is anomalous. Does it add value to leave in the anomalous information?
No, it does not.
Analogy: Four friends tell you through a game of Chinese whispers that they want to meet you at a movie theater to see a show next week. One piece on information says, Sat 1:20pm. A second says, Sat 1:30pm. A third says, Sat 2:00pm. A fourth says, Fri 9:00am.
What do you do with with fourth bit of information? Are you going to mark Fri 9:00am on your calendar because it is information that “should be seen by others?” Seems a bit silly, don’t you think?
ShrNfr says:
March 24, 2011 at 1:35 pm
The “f-word” for these people: fools.
We can’t use “fraud” yet?
Are we getting close?
Rob Honeycutt says:
March 24, 2011 at 2:31 pm
When I look at the data this seems more than reasonable. …information that “should be seen by others?” Seems a bit silly, don’t you think?
Rob:
You have got it — I really think that you have got it.
Well done old man…. except — that all the data says it’s anything but 1:30PM for the movie…
Aw shucks — back to the ol’ drawing board…
Steve McIntyre does such a beautiful deadpan expression job on (bad) data assassination that he needs a slapstick comedian to side with him and deliver the other half to his deadpan punch lines. Maybe the person who said the following needs another job as a vaudeville comedian.
In this one diagram you can see that there are three data sets that are in agreement and one that is anomalous. Does it add value to leave in the anomalous information?
It would certainly add value to the three way comedy act.
Steve McIntyre really is the superstar of the climate realist movement. Would we be anywhere near where we are now in terms of solid criticism if not for his untiring efforts? Truly admirable. I hope he stays in good health to recieve his well deserved Nobel Prize in 20 years time, when the fraudulent madness has finally been exposed and made clear to the larger society and genuine science vindicated.
Ian says:
March 24, 2011 at 12:46 pm
I fully agree that the MSM is ignoring the issue, but why would the obsessive behaviour of Steve McIntyre be unfortunate? I applaud him for his tireless efforts at exposing these charlatans. Notice he is ever polite, ever rigorous, and almost always right. What could be better than that? If there was a warmist with half of his dedication and honesty, I would listen to them just as much as I do Steve, as we all should.
If there are any real cops around, are they all asleep in the global warmth?
They had their chance to come clean when focus was at the 1960 end of the reconstruction.
Why, oh why didn’t they admit, to doing the same thing at the other end too. Had they done that, after the intial outrage, they may have eventually regained some level of public (scientific) trust but not now.
Now their actions have confirmed that they will continue to intentionally hide problems with the science.
Rob Honeycutt
The better analogy would be this. You have 3 clocks. One is stopped and the other two are running well. Plotting the time you discover that the broken clock matches the other two exactly twice a day and is wildly out of sync the rest of the time. Can you use the two matching data points from the broken clock to bolster the time data from the other clocks?
The tree ring data is like the broken clock.
Anthony,
I have post a link to the story at NC Media Watch. I agree with John A, Steve needs more recognition for his excellent investigation and analysis of sloppy climate science.
Rob Honeycutt writes : “What do you do with with fourth bit of information? Are you going to mark Fri 9:00am on your calendar because it is information that “should be seen by others?” Seems a bit silly, don’t you think?”
And what happens when you actually turn up at the theatre at 1:30pm on Saturday only to find the real time your friends went along was Thursday at 4pm. Should you be surprised given the data you were working with?