The pre-Climategate issue that is the issue

UPDATE: After some late night insomnia, and re-reading Steve’s essay again, I have decided to make this introduction to his essay a “top post” for a couple of days. New stories will appear below this one.

Readers, I urge you to read and digest this story, because it forms the seminal basis for everything that is wrong with Team paleoclimate science: the hard earned field work of Russian field researchers whose inconvenient data was excluded, warnings from colleagues ignored, tribalism exposed, testimony self-contradicted, whitewashes performed, and in a hat-tip to Leibig’s Law, even a “reindeer crap theory”. As one CA commenter, Peter Ward, put it:

My 13-year-old daughter asked me what I was reading. I explained at a high level and showed her figure 4. She grasped it immediately. How can we get this figure publicised widely?

I urge every climate blog to pick this utterly damning story of forensic investigation up and make it as widely known as possible. – Anthony

Yamal and Hide-the-Decline

YAD061 - via Jo Nova

By Steve McIntyre

In The Climate Files, Fred Pearce wrote:

When I phoned Jones on the day the emails were published online and asked him what he thought was behind it, he said” It’s about Yamal, I think”.

Pearce continued (p 53):

The word turns up in 100 separate emails, more than ‘hockey stick’ or any other totem of the climate wars. The emails began with it back in 1996 and they ended with it.

Despite Jones’ premonition and its importance both in the Climategate dossier and the controversies immediately preceding Climategate, Yamal and Polar Urals received negligible attention from the “inquiries”, neither site even being mentioned by Kerry Emanuel and his fellow Oxburgh panellists.

I recently submitted an FOI request for a regional chronology combining Yamal, Polar Urals and “other shorter” chronologies referred to in an April 2006 email – a chronology that Kerry Emanuel and the “inquiries” failed to examine. The University of East Anglia, which seems to have been emboldened by the Climategate experience, not only refused to provide the chronology, but refused even to provide a list of the sites that they used to construct the regional chronology.

This refusal prompted me to re-appraise Yamal and its role in the Climategate dossier.

Read the full story here: Yamal and Hide-the-Decline

============================================================

It appears the cardinals of deadwood at UEA and CRU have learned absolutely nothing.

Note to the person who’s running the BOT to keep posting one star like you did the last top post where over 1000 “1” star votes were logged (a new record). I have your IP address from the widget. If you keep it up, I’ll register a complaint with your ISP. In the meantime, “grow up”.

– Anthony

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
kim

The conscience that released the emails was remarkably current with the guilty consciences of the scientists involved.
Just sayin’.
========

Mr McIntyre shredded my previously strongly held convictions about global warming with his various articles on the Yamal Chronology. His work pulled me out of ignorance and into the light of truth. It was a link to an article at WUWT, posted in a comment at Climate Audit that brought me here. I will never be able to thank him enough.

william gray

One tree and constantly disturbed lake sediments, two of the most unreliable proxies. A dishonest rewrite of the last 1000yrs of global temperatures.
What exactly is being taught in classrooms regards the global past temperatures?
Don’t these ‘beings’ responsible care about the doom and gloom being preached in our classrooms!

Jack

Do these people have a conscience? When Mann’s hockey stick was criticised for wiping out the MWP, they thought up the absurd excuse that the MWP was only a regional phenomenon. Then they had to disguise it int their own data.
The worst thing is that there as thick as brick Senators in Australia that believe and quote it.

McIntyre is single handedly taking apart the team. It is now clear (to even the British Press Council) just how disgraceful, FOI-breaching, email-deleting, and scientific-method abusing their behavior has been. There was a time when RealClimate tried to rebut the revelations. However, it is noticeable of late that Gavin et al have ceased even trying to spin the facts in their favor.

rbateman

If you had to think up a viral plan to take down Western Civilization by planting an idea, the AGW conundrum would be hard to beat. They took too long. Natural Climate cycles kicked the Earth into reverse, and the emperor’s clothes did the rest.

Mike Bromley

I’m amazed at how shabby all of this is. These guys are a club of self-congratulating fools…wrapped up in their own mythical beliefs.

Theo Goodwin

Mr. McIntyre’s work deserves a Nobel Prize in Science and another in Letters. The world is greatly indebted to Mr. McIntyre.

Bill Johnson

One tree to rule them all…

Noblesse Oblige

A continued defense of the stick is not a bad thing. The boys have taken their scientific posture as infallible. I have not seen a single case in which a member of the clique has said, “Yes, this result is probably inaccurate (or exaggerated, or whatever). Odd isn’t it? Only Pope Benedict is infallible and then only on matters of faith, as I understand it. So the more the boys defend the undefendable, the more credibility is lost, and the more isolated they become. So sue me.

Rhoda R

I don’t think the CRU people, or our own warminists, are particularily worried about the science – or lack of it – any more. They’ve got the politicians and the media on their side and they don’t need anything or anyone else. THey’re producing propaganda at this point.

Ecclesiastical Uncle

As a matter of routine, I hereby confess that I am an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
I do not understand anything of the case Mr McIntyre has presented so ask that readers just accept that I accept it in its entirety.
But I am sorry I find the indignation expressed above by bloggers naive.
So the UEA crew cherry picked data and used inappropriate methods to make a case. By so doing they were evidently doing what they were told to do, whether implicitly or explicitly, by the organizations in which they worked. Very possibly they made a substantial contribution towards the continuation of the organisation’s funding, thereby ensuring continuity of employment and ability to feed their families.
It seems to have been the same with the enquiry teams, Russell and Oxburgh: (1) They were themselves chosen by people who believed they would produce the required whitewash and duly came up with the goods, so improving their reputation for reliability and future employment prospects. (2) They may have taken the UEA crew’s duties to the university into consideration and felt it right to let them off.
And the polemicists, eg Bob Ward and Dr Pidgeon, do what their employers want.
All these people were merely doing their jobs – more or less well according to their abilities, the difficulties of the tasks and personal enthusiasm for the work.
Some elasticity in behaviour has been required, and, if my reading of contributions to this thread is correct, deplored as personal failures. But the way people have behaved is the consequence of the institutional arrangements. What the Climategate episode, and for that matter the whole CAGW scam, reveals is a failure, not even of individual institutional arrangements, but of the way the institutions have to work together. If blame has to be placed somewhere, I suppose it should be with Government.
I have no doubt that some who post to this blog will feel affronted by these views. I take their point – that scientists have an almost religious duty to search for the truth, and that the UEA crew departed from that path in order to establish a particular truth and achieve some other end. But, in the absence of so much data, climate science is bound to be somewhat political, and the characters behaved in more or less the same way as politicians, and nobody, I take it, would believe one of them without reservations. We live in a complicated world!
The attacks on the work must continue, but do try and lay off the people!

@Ecclesiastical Uncle
Contrary to your opinion that bloggers’ indignation is naive, informed sceptics are utterly disgusted at the hypocrisy of the scientists, who, on one hand, decry their lofty position as scientists as being ‘above’ such things, but on the other have utterly embraced the cause of their funding masters. I say that because they have gone to the extent of abusing the scientific method (‘hide the decline‘) and subverting the peer review process (as revealed by the ‘Climategate emails’).
Many here (myself included) have gone though their own process of transformation from ‘warmist’ to ‘sceptic’ as a result of self study (of ‘both sides’). The devil is in the detail, particularly on Yamal and the other tree-ring issues. It takes time to do such reading, but it is recommended.
So, should we lay off the people – or more precisely their behaviour? They may not enjoy the limelight that their success and leading position in climate science has brought, however that they enjoy their career success is not in doubt. That success has come through the duplicity of portraying themselves as being above the base motivations of which many accuse sceptics (funding from industry to push one side of a debate), while being drawn into that very position themselves. While the aim is to avoid ad hominem comments, certain people’s behaviour has led to the elevation of AGW to its present position and their behaviour has produced the work that needs to be challenged.

Jimmy Haigh

To Rhoda R above: the only thing the warmanists (I prefer warmongers) have to fear is Mother Nature herself. She will have the last word.
I remember the Yamal story breaking and getting taken over by Climategate. I wonder if the whistleblower will ever reveal him/herself? And if you are reading this, do you have any more info to release?!

The cost of fuel, as well as energy, has smashed through the roof thanks to the eco-loon policies brought about by insane climate “science” and criminally inept politicians. Ordinary people, who are growing increasingly aware of the AGW scam, are becoming very angry as well as much poorer. Fortunately, tumbrils don’t require petrol and since they are a “green” method of transport we’ll get nice fat subsidies to build as many as it takes…
/sarc

Mike Bromley says: April 9, 2011 at 8:13 pm
I’m amazed at how shabby all of this is. These guys are a club of self-congratulating fools…wrapped up in their own mythical beliefs.
A third rate bunch of people, in a new subject sprung out of “ecology” allowed to dumb down their ethics to “make the line fit” their preconceived notions, etc. A surprise?
That’s not what is amazing. Science isn’t some kind of police state, so there aren’t Gestapo style rule enforcers swooping down on rogue subjects to force them back into line. It usually works by peer (I mean science peer not climategate type peer) pressure to adhere to the scientific principle or suffer the disdain of the rest of science.
But when it goes wrong, when you get a rogue subject that just refuses to adhere to proper science and basically holds two fingers up to scientific ethics, what is amazing is that the “scientific” elite could possibly have condoned their activities.
It wasn’t the burglary that created watergate, but the attempted coverup. Likewise, it is not the third rate “science” at UEA that made climategate, but the attempted coverup by the “inquiries”.

Ecclesiastical Uncle

As a matter of routine, I hereby confess that I am an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
I do not understand anything of the case Mr McIntyre has presented so ask that readers just accept that I accept it in its entirety.
But I am sorry I find indignation and disapproval expressed above by some bloggers somewhat disingenuous.
So the UEA crew cherry picked data and used inappropriate methods to make a case. But making the case was evidently what they were told to do, whether implicitly or explicitly, by the organizations in which they worked. Very possibly they made a substantial contribution towards the continuation of the organisation’s funding, thereby ensuring continuity of employment and ability to feed their families.
It seems to have been the same with the enquiry teams, Russell and Oxburgh: (1) They were themselves chosen by people who believed they would produce the required whitewash and duly came up with the goods, so improving their reputation for reliability and future employment prospects. (2) They may have taken the UEA crew’s duties to the university into consideration and felt it right to let them off.
And the polemicists, eg Bob Ward and Dr Pidgeon, do what they do.
All these people were merely doing their jobs – more or less well according to their abilities, the difficulties of the tasks and personal enthusiasm for the work.
Some elasticity in behaviour has been required, and, if my reading of some contributions to this thread is correct, deplored as personal failures. But the way people have behaved is the consequence of the institutional arrangements. What the Climategate episode, and for that matter the whole CAGW scam, reveals is a failure, not even of individual institutional arrangements, but of the way these the institutions have to work together. If blame has to be placed somewhere, I suppose it should be with Government.
I have no doubt that some who post to this blog will feel affronted by these views. I take their point – scientists have a duty to search for the truth, and that the UEA crew departed from that path in order to establish a particular truth and achieve some other end. But, in the absence of so much data, climate science is bound to be somewhat political, and the characters behaved in more or less the same way as politicians do, and nobody, I take it, would believe one of them without reservations. We live in a complicated world!
And might not many of the failures to provide data in response to FOI requests and the like have been because they simply lost it and when found, after searching through all sorts of discarded rubbish, they found that it was so in so much of a bxxxer’s muddle it could not be sent off, at least until a lot of cleaning up had been completed? Instances of sloppy work and archiving rather than deliberate obfuscation.
The attacks on the work must continue, but do try and lay off the people!

Jimbo

“It appears the cardinals of deadwood at UEA and CRU have learned absolutely nothing.”

The problem with refusals and hiding is that it makes people think there is seomething worth finding out about. Something along the lines of: “There’s no smoke without fire.”

Richard S Courtney

Ecclesiastical Uncle:
At April 9, 2011 at 10:12 pm you say of the UEA conspirators and those who have whitewashed their activities;
“All these people were merely doing their jobs – more or less well according to their abilities, the difficulties of the tasks and personal enthusiasm for the work.”
Sorry, but No!
Acting under orders is NOT – and must always be prevented from being – a valid defence for any nefarious activity. Google Nuremburg Trials if you want to know why.
Richard

Joe Lalonde

Anthony,
It always amazed me that the focus of climate science is on to the last 150 years out of 4.5 billion years.
This missed a great deal of evidence on how the atmosphere’s changed and the planet evolved. There are so many mistakes made that is is mind boggling.

Latitude

Did anyone really think you could get temperature reconstructions from trees?
….and that was all you could get?

David L

ZT says:
April 9, 2011 at 6:32 pm
“…However, it is noticeable of late that Gavin et al have ceased even trying to spin the facts in their favor.”
And that’s too bad. We want them to stick their feet in their mouths as much as possible. We want them to constantly discredit themselves with their goofy logic and spin tactics and abusive behavior.

Viv Evans

It is true that the Hockey Stick and then climate gate and the e-mails have given us much horrifying insight into the workings of The Team.
The shenanigans of pal review were equally horrifying.
But I agree with Jimmy Haigh above: the saga of the Yamal Tree was what got me drawn into CA, even though it was a bit above my pay grade then.
After a steep learning curve, I am glad that Steve McIntyre is revisiting this. It is indeed an icon of both his audit and of the stupidity of the AGW defenders.
How can any scientist – climate or otherwise – justify this?

Big Dave

There is no way to minimize the impact of the CO2 Saga.

Ecclesiastical Uncle:
“Very possibly they made a substantial contribution towards the continuation of the organisation’s funding, thereby ensuring continuity of employment and ability to feed their families.”
6 billion people manage to feed their families without resorting to falsifying scientific data. I’m sure they could have found some honest work to earn a living like most of the rest of us.
I just watched a documentary on the capture of Adolf Eichmann in 1960. One defense he offered at his trial was of only following orders. He was sentenced to death.

Joe Lalonde says:
“It always amazed me that the focus of climate science is on to the last 150 years out of 4.5 billion years.”
The important period is the 450 million years of continuous life on this planet without the climate tipping into extremes despite widely varying levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Alexandre

Not all paleoclimate reconstruction include Yamal tree rings. I wonder if anyone bothered to check.

Curiousgeorge

The entire CAGW edifice is designed to eliminate modern energy production and the benefits that brings. What I find incomprehensible is that so many people are willing, even eager, to stake our energy supply and our civilization on something as unpredictable as the weather!

Ecclesiastical Uncle, these individuals you defend as “only doing their jobs” have been quite willing to promote themselves and their falsehoods at the expense of real people. Because of this Mother of all Scams, real people have lost property, lives savings, and loved ones.
Some peripheral employees might have truly been “only doing their jobs,” but the core group (Hansen, Mann, Jones, Trenberth, etc.) were wretchedly lying, while lapping up taxpayers’ dollars on a large scale.
I resigned from a large national US bank because I didn’t like what they were doing. Individuals are NOT hostage to their employers. Even the “little guys” that are not directly involved in the wrong-doing, but are knowledgeable about it, have a moral responsibility.

Jimbo

Viv Evans says:
April 10, 2011 at 5:29 am
…………….
How can any scientist – climate or otherwise – justify this?

REPLY: – Money and fame.
2011 USA government funding of climate science – $2.48 billion
http://climatequotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/cc2011.png
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/rdreport2011/
The Nobel Peace Prize 2007
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , Al Gore
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/
[They should be stripped of the prize immediately].

Pamela Gray

What is far more interesting to me is this: With all the data that could be used (thanks to the revealing work at Climate Audit), combined with the penchant for meta-data re-hash so prevalent (and cheaper to do) in today’s research endeavors, why the deafening silence from other groups of climate researchers on this? Why hasn’t proxy and chronology experts chimed in with, “I don’t think so” submissions to the same journals Briffa can be found in? I find this silence compelling evidence for something much larger than “one tree grove” critiques. It is the back story, and the extent of that back story into the machinations of all climate research groups, that speaks volumes.
Could the back story be one of these?
1. We have a bunch of sissy climate capable researchers scared to disagree with each other.
2. We have a much larger bunch of researchers who have agreed to present a weak case purporting climate warming, or to stay silent when a weak one is presented, in order to save humanity from an unknown risk, or worse, in order to continue to grease the money machine.
3. Research in general has become lax in its response to minimally decent research because it is easier to do research at a lower standard.
The worst of it is, it could be all three, which is why it has become so difficult to turn this train away from the crumbling bridge ahead.

Big Dave

McIntyre’s detailed exorcism of Briffa’s Dendro-narrow tree ring fairies removes the Massive Yamal Post from its central location deep within the Temple of CO2 Warming.
Astonished Priests, [noting that their sacred constructions, (although now entirely unsupported), remained visibly erect], immediately huddled together in concensus building thankfulness for that which must certainly disprove the Law of Gravity!
Cheers
Big Dave  

Ecclesiastical Uncle says:
April 10, 2011 at 2:03 am
Very possibly they made a substantial contribution towards the continuation of the organisation’s funding, thereby ensuring continuity of employment and ability to feed their families.
The attacks on the work must continue, but do try and lay off the people!

It depends on the person. For example, suppose someone homeless stole some food to feed his family. He is still a thief, but you have sympathy for him. Now suppose a rich millionaire stole some food to feed his family. Would you still have sympathy for him? Taking that one step further, suppose that same millionaire stole the only meal from a poor person, would you have sympathy for him then?
In each example, each person did something wrong. But only in the first do you avoid attacking the person. This shows that you cannot make a blanket statement saying to not attack the person. It depends on the situation. The scientists and lead activists are usually already rich. They are stealing food out of mouths because their work has made energy prices increase and food prices increase. Meanwhile they, like a person without a conscience, continue to push the idea so that they can live a rich lifestyle.
Extending my example to the story at hand, the two researchers, Stepan and Rashit, who did the grunt work and get no thanks in return, I’m not willing to attack. The ones on top, the millionaires, I am. The ones at the top aren’t just trying to feed their family, they are fair game.

Ecclesiastical Uncle

As a matter of routine, I hereby confess that I am an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
As the management of this blog will know, I had considerable difficulty in posting off my contribution and, in fact, sent off three versions, two of which have not appeared. (My internet connection has been very slow today.) In the last I altered ‘naïve’ to ‘disingenuous’. I also added the following paragraph:
And might not many of the failures to provide data in response to FOI requests and the like have been because they simply lost it? And because they eventually got round to looking for it amongst all sorts of discarded rubbish only to find it was in so much of a bxxxer’s muddle it could not be sent off, at least until it had been recreated or extensively cleaned up. Sloppy work and archiving rather than deliberate obfuscation?
Re: Verity Jones, April 10, 2011, 2:57 am
I agree that the devil was, indeed, in the detail and suppose that the fudges there got forgotten in the on-going work (and hubris) of creating the greater CAGW picture. There must have been moments when the chickens were coming home to roost when the UEA crew bewailed the fact that so much was being shown to hang on these trivialities.
Also, without surprise, I note the righteousness of Mr Jones’ indignation, which it seems is shared with many others. But nobody should be surprised to learn that I have difficulty in castigating the UEA crew as villains, worms, or whatever. They did what they did because of the institutional framework in which the Government had ensnared them. I expect all but a few of us here would have behaved in much the same way in the same circumstances. This is a somewhat uncomfortable realisation.
And as a purely practical matter, I doubt that those who voice righteous indignation will find themselves promoted to the rank of general in the CAGW war. Few friends will be made in the corridors of power by drawing attention to malfeasances that are the inevitable consequence of the institutional structures created there. And this war will be won by making friends and influencing people in these corridors.
Nevertheless, the steady pressure of a bunch of baying Rottweilers may help to force the required U-turn there in due course.
Re Richard S Courtney, April 10, 2011, 4:57 am
I am sorry q do not think I can agree with ‘Sorry, but No’. That seems to me to be plain wrong.
However, the Nuremberg trial comparison has made me think. What you are getting at is, I think, that, although only doing their job, the UEA crew were still acting improperly and have to be hauled over the coals. Mmm. They would defend themselves by claiming that they were only bending the truth a little and that such behaviour is commonplace amongst the politicians for whom they work. So, I suppose, if you shoot the crew, you shoot the lot. Well, now, that’s an idea …..
And ‘Why’ is not the question: more important is ‘How is such perfection to be achieved?’.

Steve Keohane

This is what drew me into the fray, if you will. I started reading about paleontology and the accompanying climate reconstructions about 1960 and have continued the interest through today, still subscribing to two archaeology magazines. Ten minutes into AIT, my wife brought it home, and I had not heard of it, my wife turned it off, being unable to bear my loud criticism of the truncated and invented data being displayed. Somehow I came upon CA and WUWT and found I wasn’t alone in my aversion to the nonsense being passed off as science. The light of day being shown on the criminal activity of the AGW Prop Team is invaluable. Thank you, Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, and all who contribute in your venues.

Ed Caryl
ferdberple

“they thought up the absurd excuse that the MWP was only a regional phenomenon”
Global warming is a regional phenomenon, as it is mostly happening in the arctic.

R. Gates

With or without tree-ring data (throw it out – all of it!) and we still get the 20th century warming…i.e. the Hockey Stick shape. Despite the skeptical rhetoric that the entire hockey stick is based on carefully selected (or unselected tree-ring data), that simply is not the case.
I would direct the open-minded skeptic to this story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8236797.stm
The Arctic, which is long be held to be the first and most sensitive area that will display global warming, had been undergoing a cooling for many thousands of years (likely following more Milankovitch cycles that created the Holocene optimum), until the 20th century, when the sudden uptick in temperatures occurred…Yamal tree-ring data or not.
See this graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
The large spike in the 20th century is indicated across many paleo-reconstructions. Now, as to the question of whether or not it is caused by human activity…that is entirely a different matter.

Mark T

Alexandre: Steve is not claiming all recons use Yamal. Did you bother to check?
Hypocrite.
Mark

Ecclesiastical Uncle says:
April 10, 2011 at 2:03 am

I do not understand anything of the case Mr McIntyre has presented so ask that readers just accept that I accept it in its entirety. But I am sorry I find the indignation expressed above by bloggers naive.

[emphasis mine]
With all due respect sir, and I mean that sincerely, it is incumbent on you to make the effort to understand the subject at issue before accusing anyone other than yourself of being disingenuous and naive.
Forgive my strong words but I find your comment incredible.

Robert Christopher

Ecclesiastical Uncle at 10:12 pm on April 9, 2011
“If blame has to be placed somewhere, I suppose it should be with Government.”
Government is empowered by the people, not the other way around, and ‘responsibility’ is a better word than ‘blame’, so I therefore don’t agree with your conclusion.
You have described what has happened in these tainted establishments well, but it is not sustainable; eventually, even the grants and subsidies will run out. It is a dysfunctional bureaucratic world; not the real world of science and engineering or of the Arts, where our awareness of the here and now is heightened by clever contrasts of fantasy and reality, where the audience can see the distinction between the two and are not left in confusion. A well functioning bureaucracy wouldn’t do what you have described either!
I have just been listening to “The Unbelievable Truth” (Series 7, Episode 1) on BBC Radio 4 today, a vaguely funny panel game, where the chairman confirms whether the information read out by contestants is true or false.
The chairman, David Mitchell confirmed (at 3:50 into the BBC clip, if you in the UK) that Aristotle stated that flies have four legs and such was Aristotle’s standing, that, for over 1000 years, no one else bothered to count.
Isn’t this what science is all about? Each of us needs to take responsibility. Some may actually count the legs on a fly; others may offer these ‘fly leg counters’ support, finance, and advice, access to the public or open discussion.
What is shameful is that some people: (academics at the UEA and elsewhere), the media (policy makers and presenters in the BBC and elsewhere) and governments and their advisors (all of them?) have done the opposite, using public money, and have up to now, been supported by their organisations and resisted open discussion.
Scientists do search for the truth, led by the evidence, not an agenda to “achieve some other end”. If a scientist misleads himself or others, then the design of the next related experiment will be poorer; useless even! This is why so many scientists are angry at what has been happening within Climate ‘Science’.
In research, there may be confusion before the revelation, but there are not several “particular truths”. If there is a difference of opinion, it means a lack of understanding, so open discussion needs to be encouraged, not closed down in a nasty way, as has been happening. If the aim is not for better understanding, then it is to mislead, which can lead on to condoning malpractice and assisting fraudsters. It has already wasted public funds.
There is no “absence of data”, so there should be no reason for it to be ‘political’, rather than scientific. The data exists; it is just that it cannot be released without the truth being revealed.
“We live in a complicated world!”
We do, but the world is complicated enough without this sort of activity being condoned; one version of reality is enough.
“The attacks on the work must continue, but do try and lay off the people!”
Ad hominem attacks ARE discouraged; they are not effective and waste resources. However, an academic paper’s authors need to be called to account. They will have written a paper to change the world’s perception, so the world needs to be able to question their ideas and expects answers that move the discussion forward, without the need to issue FOIA requests. This is even more true when the conclusions support the spending of $250 billion, in Europe alone, in Climate Change policies.
I agree with Richard S Courtney at 4:57 am on April 10, 2011:
“Acting under orders is NOT – and must always be prevented from being – a valid defence for any nefarious activity. Google Nuremburg Trials if you want to know why.”
Though, I think that there is evidence that they have been cooperating as well.

R. Gates

ferd berple says:
April 10, 2011 at 7:11 am
“they thought up the absurd excuse that the MWP was only a regional phenomenon”
Global warming is a regional phenomenon, as it is mostly happening in the arctic.
_____
And in skeptic’s minds it is just purely a coincidence that the Arctic has long been shown in GCM’s to be the area of the planet that will warm first when the effects and feedbacks of the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700’s is taken into account, right?
See, the problem is, if you accept that the Arctic is warming, and is the warmest in at least 2,000 years, as shown in these completely independent non-tree ring related studies:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8236797.stm
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/01/arctic-waters-warmest-2000-years/1
Then you’d have to find a mechanism to explain this warming. Search as you might (and climate scientists have searched and continue to search everyday), it’s tough to find one that doesn’t include the forcing (and related feedbacks) brought about by the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700’s.

The guy’s name is spelled
Liebig

Mark T

R gates… rather myopic. Few argue an uptick in the 20th century. The tree rings, or other flawed proxies, are required to change the past to your liking, not the present. We have an actual temperature record for the present.
Mark

martin brumby

@ecclesiastical uncle
You need to consider the impact of the activist climate “scientists” on the poor. Not only the third world poor denied (in many cases) access to affordable and efficient energy but even the poor in developed countries. How many little old ladies froze to death in the UK in December 2010 because they were scared to run up their electricity bill even higher?
I’m sorry. There is no conceivable excuse for hyping up a warming of certainly less than the alleged 0.7 degrees in the C.20th into a potential “tipping point” catastrophe just to preserve their comfortable jobs and index-linked pensions.
The likes of Mann & Jones are just despicable.
If you want to explore the background to Yamal and all the rest, “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by Monfort is easy to follow and extremely well written.

Ecclesiastical Uncle (April 10, 2011 at 2:03 am),
It sounds as though the concepts of personal responsibility and individual integrity are entirely alien to you. But, in my experience, this is a common trait among “bureaucrats” (retired or otherwise).
I’m not a fan of ad hominem attacks. But, I absolutely believe in holding individuals accountable for their misdeeds.
It is my personal opinion that the entire world has been quantifiably defrauded by these schmucks and they should pay for their crimes. If you want to assign a dollar figure, start with the nearly $1 TRILLION (and counting) utterly wasted by the Kyoto Protocol:
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20100103072326/http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.html
And, proceed from there:
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2010/11/climate-money.html

eadler

The protests over Yamal are unfounded, and immaterial as far as the validity of the Stick graph is concerned.
The science of interpretation of tree rings requires a selection of trees which have rings which are temperature limited. Ignoring this scientific fact, as McIntyre has done, and picking trees at random is wrong.
Finally the Yamal chronology is not essential to show that global temperature is displaying a Hockey Stick.

Alexandre

Mark T
I wonder if moderation rules here allow this kind of “argument” you used.
He’s not saying that, nor did I claim that he said that. However, he implied that the Yamal proxy data is a game-changer in the existing paleodata. Has anyone here bothered to compare reconstructions with and without those “suspicious” data?

Alarmist Myth (propagated by R. Gates, April 10, 2011 at 7:14 am):
“The Arctic… had been undergoing a cooling for many thousands of years…until the 20th century, when the sudden uptick in temperatures occurred…Yamal tree-ring data or not.”
Scientific Fact (substantiated by directly cited peer reviewed science):
Both the Arctic AND the Antarctic are experiencing an on-going, uninterrupted 10,000 year cooling trend wherein the latest warming is demonstrated to be not even close to being outside the bounds of natural variation.
The citation links and more details are found below:
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2009/10/recent-hysteria-arctic-now-warmest-in.html
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2000/01/temperatures-over-time.html

Tenuc

More proof, it it was needed, that like some trees the ‘science’ of climatology is rotten to the core. Instead of being a mighty oak it nothing more than a withering dandelion, dying in the cold.

eadler

Pamela Gray says:
April 10, 2011 at 6:50 am
What is far more interesting to me is this: With all the data that could be used (thanks to the revealing work at Climate Audit), combined with the penchant for meta-data re-hash so prevalent (and cheaper to do) in today’s research endeavors, why the deafening silence from other groups of climate researchers on this? Why hasn’t proxy and chronology experts chimed in with, “I don’t think so” submissions to the same journals Briffa can be found in? I find this silence compelling evidence for something much larger than “one tree grove” critiques. It is the back story, and the extent of that back story into the machinations of all climate research groups, that speaks volumes.
Could the back story be one of these?
1. We have a bunch of sissy climate capable researchers scared to disagree with each other.
2. We have a much larger bunch of researchers who have agreed to present a weak case purporting climate warming, or to stay silent when a weak one is presented, in order to save humanity from an unknown risk, or worse, in order to continue to grease the money machine.
3. Research in general has become lax in its response to minimally decent research because it is easier to do research at a lower standard.
The worst of it is, it could be all three, which is why it has become so difficult to turn this train away from the crumbling bridge ahead.

The real answer is that McIntyre’s work is wrong, and he doesn’t know what he is talking about. This is an alternative hypothesis that you don’t entertain at all. This does not seem very scientific to me.
McIntyre’s work has been found wanting by scientists in a number of areas. His claim that the Principal Components Method used by the original Mann et. al. Hockey Stick paper created the Hockey Stick, was definitively shown to be faulty because McIntyre used an incorrect selection criterion. When the analysis proposed by McIntyre was carried out correctly, the Hockey Stick created out of noise disappeared. He has no background in tree ring analysis, and is not really qualified to criticize what was done by Briffa.
REPLY: Mr Adler. If your “everybody but me is wrong” mindset leads you to think Mr. McIntyre is “wrong” and “doesn’t know what he is talking about” then please have the courage to post it on on his blog and let him respond. I have admin privileges there, so I can assure you your comment will get posted. Post it just like you did here.
Until you do, I won’t have you making the arguments here. I’d point out that you have no background in “anything” climate , so by your criteria, you aren’t qualified to comment here on anything. James Hansen had no background in anything climate when he started, Mike Mann had no background in anything climate, their degrees lie in other fields…thus, your argument is absolutely ridiculous.
Go take your argument to Mr. McIntyre. Do it now. We’ll all be watching. Here’s the URL
http://www.climateaudit.org Comment system works the same way, but there is no moderation unless you use banned words, too many links, or excessive bloviation all of which will trigger the spam filter.
Even if that happens, I guarantee your comment will be approved there, because I will go fish it out for you.
If you don’t wish to, then don’t make any more comments here about Mr. McIntyre. – Anthony Watts