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
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yamal ?
Wasn’t there a film about that ? Oh yeah, here it is, with talk of Briffa’s precious Yamal tree ring data being the reason for “the rant” that it inspires. 😉
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTGLpqFGyYM&w=640&h=390%5D
“It’s not the size of the sample but the results which count …”
🙂
regarDS
Oh what the heck…
Dear Alexander et al,
IMO (which probably counts for less here than it does in my own house) the assertion of rising temperatures in this century is irrelevant. The point is that the MWP was disappeared from the paleoclimate record through the shenanegans of these yahoo’s fiddling with the Yamal and Polar Urals data sets (as SM’s post clearly shows). see below for the time frame in question:
Maybe you recall climategate email 1136918726.txt :
“Keith,
Thanx for this. Interesting. However, I do not think your response is very good. Further, there are grammatical and text errors, and (shocking!!) you have spelled McKitrick wrong. This is a sure way to piss them off.
They claim that three cores do not cross-date for TRW. They also say (without results) that the same applies to MXD (these results may be in their Supp. Mat. — I presume you checked this).
So, all you need say is …
(1) TRW was not the only data used for cross-dating.
(2) When MXD is used there are clear t-value peaks, contrary to their claim. You can show your Fig. 4 to prove this.
(3) The 3-core-composite cross-dates with other (well-dated) chronologies (Yamal and Polurula), confirming the MXD-based dating. You can show your Fig. 5 to prove this.
You could say all this in very few words — not many more than I have used above. As it is, your verbosity will leave any reader lost.
There are some problems still. I note that 1032 is not cold in Yamal. Seems odd. Is it cold in *all* of the three chronologies at issue? Or did a reindeer crap next to one of the trees?
Also, there seems to be a one-year offset in the 1020s in your Fig. 6.
I hope this is useful. I really think you have to do (and can do) a better job in combatting the two Ms. If this stuff gets into Nature, you still have a chance to improve it. Personally, I think it would be good for it to appear since, with an improved response, you can make MM look like ignorant idiots.
Tom”
See guys, nobody is talking about any CURRENT rise in temps (except you, and currently it’s flat with a slight hint of a decline), no one is arguing about it. The issue is around the year 1000, or so (see above) again.
SM does excellent work at ferreting out the truth, and I agree 100% with Anthony when he comments at CA, ” A working title might be: A forensic paleoclimatological investigation into goodness of fit of reindeer crap enhanced tree ring series with CRUTEM3 surface data.” He (SM) unlike many others, is doing a very meticulous deconstruction of how this got started technically.
In closing I want to add that I stand opposed to likening these guys (Jones, Mann, Briffa, et al) to Nazis, ok? Unwarrented IMO, HOWEVER, I also stand opposed to those who liken them to just a bunch of taxpayer funded scientists doing what they were told by their boss, or the gub’ment. We belong to governments and define them, just like we belong to clubs and also define them as well. Corruption occurs through and is promulgated by INDIVIDUALS. Those practicing, corrupt individuals have then corrupted their clubs / gub’ments. It’s not the other way ’round.
Theo Goodwin says: April 10, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Climate science is in its infancy.
You are about 9 months too early. Climate “science” doesn’t yet exist! Climate “science” would be a testable set of hypothesis, the application of scientific methodology and a scientific ethic – none of this exists in this subject.
Infancy? Think for of someone just waking up with a hangover to discover they are in a bed with some jerk and they are just trying to remember through the fuzz where they could buy the morning after pill!
“So, if you are ok with “the warming”, then the Yamal issue at hand can be dismissed.”
Dude, I am totally “ok with the warming”, as is anyone who realizes two things:
1) it is due to natural processes; and
2) it’s a hell of a lot better than “the cooling”.
It’s hard to believe that someone with a law degree would be so easily conned and intractable when faced with such overwhelming contrary evidence. Thinking about it though, many politicians are lawyers so I guess I shouldn’t be so surprised.
1) No, the peer reviewed science says that about 30% of the warming indicated by the land based datasets appears to be erroneous. And, this seriously calls into question every over the top phony allegation made by the CAGW cult about recent temperatures:
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2009/09/warm-bias-of-about-30-in-ipcc-reported.html
2) This is the first you’ve heard of so-called “journalists” hiding peer reviewed science which they find to be “inconvenient” to their political agenda? What rock have you been hiding under?
A) Dr. Pielke Sr. addresses that issue via the previous link.
B) Can you find even ONE “journalist” who reported on the peer reviewed science described in the previous link?
C) Good GOD, man! Even the hardcore Leftists at Slate.com find the OBVIOUS, OVERT and SELF-DESCRIBED political agenda of so-called “journalists” to be enormously distressing. WAKE UP:
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2008/08/propagandists-guarding-gates.html
p.s. Alexandre:
There is NO ONE who “denies the warming” posting on this site that I have ever seen. On this, inter-alia, you are completely and totally wrong. A bigger man would admit his mistake and become a contributing member of the board. We all value rational debate. Your constant insinuation that we are all “warming deniers” is nonsense. If you can’t debate on our level then go elsewhere.
Good decision to leave this up as a headliner Anthony. It deserves as much exposure as possible.
This just keeping looking worse. These ‘snips’ masquerading as ‘scientists’ and their enablers have done too much damage to the credibility of real science already, and it looks like this cess pool is very, very deep.
Great stuff. Agree with Anthony on the importance of McIntyre’s work so I read it from start to finish. Anthony: I did my homework 🙂 . I’m now a witness to their crime.
What makes all this doubly absurd is that there STILL has been ABSOLUTELY NO demonstration that trees are “thermometers,” in ANY sense, One would think that by now the “paleodendroclimatologistst&statisticalprognocologistics” would be able to demonstrate this basic relationship. But NO, NO, they will not even deign to address this issue in the secular literature (favorite ploy of leftists everywhere–ignore the facts). Consequently, by default (as well as by all other measures) ALL of their “science” is JUNK, by the most basic of definitions of junk. I’m still amazed that there are so many folks that would defend this scatology!
McIntyre keeps adding proof, but it doesn’t seem to matter! WOW!
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.
Re DirkH April 10 2011 2.41pm
Others (Gary Mount April 10 2011 5.52am and Richard S Courtney April19 2011 4.57am) have pointed out that following orders was not an adequate defense for Eichmann and at the Nuremberg trials. Of course.
So yes, it seems to me that, in this as in so many other things, we do not have the luxury of an infallible rule, but are forced into making decisions.
In my original post, I merely reported what happened as I see it. Evidently, those involved never faced the issue that following instructions might not be held to be right by some, at least originally. Am I correct to observe that government would say it was right in the current situation, even if they were mindful of Eichmann and Nuremberg, and that uninvolved scientific purists (no criticism implied) would say No?
jae says:
April 10, 2011 at 7:08 pm
“What makes all this doubly absurd is that there STILL has been ABSOLUTELY NO demonstration that trees are “thermometers,” in ANY sense.”
Amen, Brother. I was reading a recent “Science” magazine article about the effects of climate on evolution over the past X number of years. They had taken a few hundred tree ring samples from an area about the size of Texas and were describing climate changes over thousands of years. Utter and total fantasy beyond all scientific control. What trash “Science” has become.
Alexandre @ur momisugly
April 10, 2011 at 4:51 pm
The argument appears to be that dendro is consistent with other proxies, when it supports the desired narrative, but the lack of consistency can be ignored when it does not support that narrative.
Your persistence is impressive, but your logic lacking, as far as I can see.
Maybe the Team might want to play with this tree ring data… or maybe not.
“North Dakota does not not have any long-lived trees but Pinus ponderosa and Juniperus scopulorum in the North Dakota badlands have records that extend back to about AD 1600 (29). Instrumental records for climate change in North Dakota are about 100 years old. Comparison of the tree ring records with the instrumental climate records, indicates that the tree ring record is sensitive to drought. All the trees have thinner rings during the drought of the 1930’s. Individual records show a lot of variation, but there appears to be a cyclicity to drought, with intense droughts occurring on a frequency of 40 – 60 years.”
http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~ashworth/webpages/g440/ndas.html
Alan Clark,
Re: “There is NO ONE who “denies the warming” posting on this site that I have ever seen.”
That may be true. However, I think that many “deny” the official AMOUNT of warming (0,7 degrees centigrade) during the last century. The instrumental data suffers many flaws:
1. Thousands of thermometers have been moved or discontinued.
2. Thermometers are concentrated asymmetrically around the world.
3. Almost all adjustments to the database have increased the warming trend.
4. UHI is poorly, or not accounted for, depending on who does the analysis.
5. Original data has been “lost”.
6. Thermometers are often poorly sited – near heat sources.
7. Different technologies have been used over time.
It is therefore reasonable to argue that instrumental data provides inconclusive evidence for unprecedented global warming. If recent warming is not unprecedented, it must be a natural phenomenon.
To me, the idea that tree rings could possibly be used as any sort of serious temperature proxy is so patently absurd on its face that any discussion beyond that is academic in the extreme. Come one! How many other factors are at play? Sunlight, water, nutrients (aka “reindeer crap”) — just to name a few.
The fact that their own data invalidated their own temperature proxy is just icing on the cake. The cherry picking of which tree best fit the desired outcome simply takes us into the realm of The Twilight Zone (or, perhaps, The Sopranos).
Ecclesiastical Uncle says:
April 10, 2011 at 7:31 pm
“In my original post, I merely reported what happened as I see it. Evidently, those involved never faced the issue that following instructions might not be held to be right by some, at least originally. Am I correct to observe that government would say it was right in the current situation, even if they were mindful of Eichmann and Nuremberg, and that uninvolved scientific purists (no criticism implied) would say No?”
I didn’t want to attack you; but your words immediately brought the Eichmann defense up for me… unfortunately i didn’t check whether somebody else already argued along the same lines so i just replicated stuff…
Yes, governments would of course say it was right. Scientific integrity doesn’t matter to a government.
1) I would modify that statement to read:
If recent warming is not unprecedented, it could be primarily a natural phenomenon.
Then again, even unprecedented warming (if it were occurring) could still be primarily a natural phenomenon.
My personal opinion is that the AMO has primarily driven both the global cooling hysteria AND the global warming hysteria over the last 35 years:
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-amo-killed-cagw-cult.html
2) As has been correctly stated elsewhere in this thread, there is no denying the physics of CO2 energy absorption. There is, however, no shortage of those who exaggerate (in the extreme) the potential warming associated with those properties:
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2000/01/atmospheric-co2-over-time.html
3) IMO, anybody who attempts to assert that recent warming is “unprecedented” is either a brazen charlatan, an extremely dangerous tyrant or hopelessly ignorant:
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2000/01/temperatures-over-time-part-i.html
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2000/01/temperatures-over-time.html
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2011/01/noaa-alarmists-vs-peer-reviewed-science.html
Alexandre says: April 10, 2011 at 4:51 pm […]
Pre-1400 proxies are scarce in general. If you exclude dendro, it will be scarcer still. But this is already another issue that is not related to Yamal.
Here is a well known 2000 year-old, non-dendro, proxy by Craig Loehle http://i56.tinypic.com/2zsn3gz.jpg
This site has links to hundreds of studies, many non-dendro, covering all continents regarding the MWP, i.e. pre-1400.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
There is no scarcity of pre-1400 proxy studies.
Yamal, btw, is a perfect example of the problem with proxies in general. It is clearly not stationary and thus, invalid for use in any linear, 2nd order statistics-based signal extraction method.
Mark
Ecclesiastical Uncle says: (April 9, 2011 at 10:12 pm)
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.
How dangerous would you be with your full mind!
Thank you, Uncle. A nice balance. A nice maturity. But be cautious in displaying wisdom in a world almost describable as wisdom-free.
Ecclesiastical Uncle says:
April 9, 2011 at 10:12 pm
The attacks on the work must continue, but do try and lay off the people!
I hope you don’t take this any more personally than it needs to be, but that is a *catastrophic* moral inversion you’ve got there. A rough translation is that a theif should be forgiven where a vandal is not because at least the thief benefits from his crime.
How about “no?” ‘Cause I’m gonna go with “no.”
I know that bureaucrats and functionaries in general feel strongly that they should be protected to one extent or another from the consequences of their decisions, whereas I believe it is fairly self-evident that there are many thousands of such persons who should be in jail but who are wealthy instead.
People’s insulation from the consequences of their action fosters corruption and incompetence, the universal stereotype of bureaucracy everywhere.
The corruption is the disease, the lies and harmful regulations are the symptom.
Theo Goodwin says: (April 10, 2011 at 9:51 am) in regard: Pamela Gray (April 10, 2011 at 6:50 am)
Wonderful question and wonderful post. The answer is simple and straightforward. The villain is PC etc
Hah! When I was reading Pamela’s post, Theo, I was amused, and rather delighted, to see her use the word “sissy”.
It is not a word one hears or sees much anymore, and I silently applauded Pamela for using it, even though I have observed that she is not one to be tied by such petty policy (which she demonstrates on a regular basis).
“they thought up the absurd excuse that the MWP was only a regional phenomenon”
As is the current global warming, as there are many contiguous temperature records, faithfully and accurately produced by dedicated amateurs, from surface stations in many different locations around the world which happen to show no warming at all at those locations, (and there are many others which do). Surely that also only points to a regional warming currently, instead of a global warming?
Curiousgeorge says:
April 10, 2011 at 6:45 am
“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!”
Well it’ll happen because we choose to do it, or because we are forced to do it when the oil and gas runs out in a few years time.
I think it’s better to plan to do something about it now rather than weight until you have no other choice and little time to dean with the situation.
RGates: I think you know what this is all about, but in case you don’t it’s about a scientist who collected proxies and because they didn’t fit his desired outcome ignored them. Not only did he ignored them, he failed to mention he’d ignored them. The reason he ignored them was that the HockeyTeam to which he’d been recruited were making every effort to persuade people that the twentieth century uptick you refer to was unprecedented. They had to do this because thinking people would look at the MWP and ask how that temperature increase occurred, which I’m sure you understand. If there was a MWP and there are around 100 times more published papers showing there was than hockeysick (deliberate) papers, then twentieth century warming wasn’t unprecedented and the link to CO2 emissions could be challenged.
What I can’t get my head round is why no one has broken ranks, I’m convinced they’ve been up to no good, the evidence is there in the climategate emails, and their desire to stifle scientific work that doesn’t fit their plans. But they must, somewhere in the darkest recesses of their minds, understand that this will all come out at some time or other and they will finish in the Science Hall of Infamy, their names forever associated with scientific fraud. They’ve probably gone to far to pull back now, but they know what’s coming to them.