This will be a top sticky post for a day or two – new stories appear below this one.
In the over 7,000 published stories here on WUWT, I have never used the word “liar” in the headline to refer to CRU and the Yamal affair. That changes with this story.
I’ve always thought that with CRU, simple incompetence is a more likely explanation than malice and/or deception. For example, Phil Jones can’t even plot trends in Excel. In this particular case, I don’t think incompetence is the plausible explanation anymore. As one commenter on CA (Andy) said
“I suspect the cause of all this is an initial small lie, to cover intellectual mistakes, snowballing into a desire not to lose face, exacerbated by greater lies and compounded by group think. “
Given what I’ve witnessed and recalled from the history of the Yamal affair with Steve McIntyre’s latest investigation, I’m now quite comfortable applying the label of “liar” to the CRU regarding their handling of data, of accusations, and of FOIA.
In my opinion, these unscrupulous climate scientists at CRU deserve our scorn, and if UEA had any integrity, they’d be reprimanded and/or shown the door. But as we’ve seen with the handling of the Muir Russell sham “investigation”, key questions to key players weren’t even asked about key points of evidence. For example, Muir Russell didn’t even bother attending the one interview (April 9) in which Jones and Briffa were supposed to be asked about paleoclimate. So UEA/CRU will probably just try to gloss this over with another lie too. – Anthony Watts
McIntyre: Yamal FOI Sheds New Light on Flawed Data
Phil Jones’ first instinct on learning about Climategate was that it was linked to the Yamal controversy that was in the air in the weeks leading up to Climategate. I had speculated that CRU must have done calculations for Yamal along the lines of the regional chronology for Taimyr published in Briffa et al 2008. CRU was offended and issued sweeping denials, but my surmise was confirmed by an email in the Climategate dossier. Unfortunately neither Muir Russell nor Oxburgh investigated the circumstances of the withheld regional chronology, despite my submission drawing attention to this battleground issue.
I subsequently submitted an FOI request for the Yamal-Urals regional chronology and a simple list of sites used in the regional chronology. Both requests were refused by the University of East Anglia. I appealed to the Information Commissioner (ICO).
A week ago, the Information Commissioner notified the University of East Anglia that he would be ruling against them on my longstanding FOI request for the list of sites used in the Yamal-Urals regional chronology referred to in a 2006 Climategate email. East Anglia accordingly sent me a list of the 17 sites used in the Yamal-Urals regional chronology (see here). A decision on the chronology itself is pending. In the absence of the chronology itself, I’ve done an RCS calculation, the results of which do not yield a Hockey Stick.
In today’s post, I’ll also show that important past statements and evidence to Muir Russell by CRU on the topic have been either untruthful or deceptive.
The Relevance of Yamal
The Yamal chronology is relevant both because, since its introduction in 2000, it has been used in virtually all of the supposedly “independent” IPCC multiproxy studies (see an October 2009 discussion here) and because it is particularly influential in contributing an HS-shape to the studies that do not use bristlecones.
IPCC AR4 Box 6.4 showed the eight proxies which have been used the most repetitively (this wasn’t its intent.) Of these eight proxies, Briffa’s Yamal (labelled “NW Russia”) is shown with the biggest HS blade, larger even than Mann’s PC1 (labelled here as “W USA”). See here) and tag yamal.
 |
 |
Figure 1. Yamal Chronology in IPCC AR4 Box 6.4. Labelled as “NW Russia”
In previous posts, I’ve satirized the “addiction” of paleoclimatologists to bristlecones and Yamal as, respectively, heroin and cocaine for climatologists. (In pharmacological terms, upside-down Tiljander would be, I guess, LSD, as the psychedelic Mann et al 2008 is indifferent as to whether proxies are used upside-down or not (cue Jefferson Airplane‘s insightful critique of Mannian statistics.)
Although Yamal and Polar Urals had been long-standing topics at Climate Audit, they first attracted wide attention in late September 2009, when measurement data became available for the three “regional chronologies” of Briffa et al 2008 (Taimyr-Avam, Tornetrask-Finland and Yamal).
The 2008 Taimyr-Avam and Tornetrask-Finland networks were dramatic expansions of the corresponding networks of Briffa (2000), but the Yamal network, which was already much smaller than the other two networks, remained unchanged. Analysis of the previously unavailable Taimyr data showed that Briffa had added measurement data from several Schweingruber sites into the Taimyr-Avam regional chronology (a point not mentioned in the article itself.) Since there were a number of Schweingruber sites (including Polar Urals) in a similarly sized region around Yamal, it seemed almost certain that CRU would have done a corresponding regional chronology calculation at Yamal.
This raised the obvious question of why. Ross posed the question in a contemporary op ed as follows:
Combining data from different samples would not have been an unusual step. Briffa added data from another Schweingruber site to a different composite, from the Taimyr Peninsula. The additional data were gathered more than 400 km away from the primary site. And in that case the primary site had three or four times as many cores to begin with as the Yamal site. Why did he not fill out the Yamal data with the readily-available data from his own coauthor? Why did Briffa seek out additional data for the already well-represented Taimyr site and not for the inadequate Yamal site?
The question applied not just to the Khadyta River site in the original CA post, but to Polar Urals and other nearby sites. These questions resulted in considerable controversy at the time. CRU protested their innocence and posted a lengthy response on October 29, 2009, denying that they had ever even “considered” use of the Schweingruber Khadyta River site, discussed in contemporary Climate Audit posts. In a submission to Muir Russell, they later denied ever re-appraising their Polar Urals chronology.
The Climategate dossier was released in November 2009, a few weeks after the Yamal controversy. As Fred Pearce observed in The Climate Files, the Climategate dossier begins with Yamal and ends with Yamal. Pearce also observed that the word “Yamal” occurs more often than any other “totem” of the disputes, even more than “hockey stick”. Nearly all Climategate documents with unbleached dates were copied after my Yamal posts and Yamal measurement data dominated the earliest documents.
The Climategate dossier revealed that CRU had, after all, calculated a Yamal-Urals regional chronology as early as April 2006. (CG1 – 684. 1146252894.txt). The present FOI request referred to this email.
==============================================================
Read the entire story at Climate Audit here. It is a MUST READ for anyone who has been following Climategate.
My sincerest congratulations to Steve McIntyre for the perseverance to finally get this issue brought into the sunlight.
UPDATE: New visitors might need a primer for this story –
YAD06 – the Most Influential Tree in the World by Steve McIntyre
Sept. 30, 2009
http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/30/yamal-the-forest-and-the-trees/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What is needed now is a MSM expose of this to show the world that those at CRU are unable to tell the truth because they had to lie to cover up other lies. It should have the alarmist camp in total panic so I would expect a barrage of flak coming from RC and it’s denizons.
The scientific equivalent of Ted Kaczynski’s committed malthusian activism? Heartland was only pointing out what alarmists do to skeptics, but their satire got a little closer to a “fit” with this information. Sweet old Ted felt justified in doing something he knew to be totally wrong because he was committed to a cause too. This looks like they knew they were killing the science in their scientific propaganda, but felt it was justified. And it wasn’t just Dr. Mike.
In the Blue Ridge Mountains of Yamal
On the trail of the lonesome pine
In the pale moon shine our graphs entwine
Where he lost his data and I hid mine
Oh, Phil, you’re over the hill
Like the pine I am lonesome for you
In the Blue Ridge Mountains of Yamal
On the trail of the lonesome pine
Coincidently, I received a request for data on May 2, 2012 @ur momisugly 6AM in my time zone. The data request was for data published in 1994.
By circa 11:30AM that morning I had written back to the individual telling her how to download the data. I’ve excised part of the email for privacy reasons for the sender of the original email.
Note that I wasn’t awake and fully functioning at 6AM. I was 1000 miles from my laboratory at the time, and these are data I hadn’t touched in over 15 years. The total size of the archive was about 135 MB, and comprised over 1100 files. I did this without IT help, and in the middle of preparation for a large field exercise I was involved in.
I’m not claiming that this was a heroic effort either, it wasn’t. IMO, It just the due that other researchers are afforded when they ask for data associated with publications that are paid for by taxpayer money.
Nobody can tell me that it would be a particularly onerous task for CRU to gather a much smaller data set, with far fewer files and send it to McIntyre. Indeed the route they have chosen is far more costly, as well as being totally unethical, which IMO is the norm for academic practice in that field.
Indeed, why would any honest scientist not welcome scrutiny from other individuals? Is not the purpose of science to advance knowledge and understanding rather than to merely publish data that support a particular political agenda?
This is exactly what needs to be done. We need to focus on the perpetrators of the AGW scam. We need to show where they are raking in money, awards, fame, etc. We need to make it so obvious that even the MSM will eventually have to cover it.
If billboards are going to be used, then this should be the kind of stuff that should be shown. Yes, it’s hard to get the message across in a single billboard, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be tried.
Why is the University of East Anglia still an accredited institution?
So, anything from the CRU should be withheld any “benefit of the doubt”.
If it smells like, looks like, and flows like a cesspool: It is a cesspool.
I think I’m no longer just “skeptic”; I have progressed to “opponent”.
Look at what’s happened in Europe: death by windmill; how CRUel!
Nick Stokes – “But I don’t know how far you can get calling people liars if you can’t explain what is the lie.”
Reading comprehension issues Nick, or just redirecting?
Mybe it can all be explained by an enlarged Amygdalae ;
http://www.bps.org.uk/news/how-city-living-changes-your-brain
Cause and effect;
Too many symposiums in UN meetings regarding Global Warming leads to a larger Amygdalae, which again leads to a larger “Chicken Little” effect. This leads to more meetings.
A clear positive feedback.
Repaired by; Stop all UN meetings, all workshops. Everything. Isolate Climate scientists.
And with regards to the IPCC report:
“In an interview with The Times Robert Watson said that all the errors exposed so far in the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) resulted in overstatements of the severity of the problem.”
For the rest, see
http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=9940
Jimbo says:
May 7, 2012 at 3:28 am (Edit)
Anthony,
I have just searched for the phrase in quotes:
“East Anglia Climatic Research Unit shown to be liars”
and WUWT is a Google results 5 and even then it’s just your home page that shows. Maybe it’s just my search location and others get differing results.
—————————————————
It’s number one now and a direct link to the article.
Err Nick, read the piece, then come back and apologise and you will be allowed to play with the big boys again. If you don’t you will have to play on your own.
The Nobel Prize should be scraped and a new award should be created to which those critical for this reformation should be acknowledged and lauded for their efforts. I hope History recalls this as the point in time where science was saved. Well done Gentlemen.
Now I understand M Manns fight against FOI.. there could be emails showing that he knew of the lies, and thus he is open to charges of financial fraud when he applied for grant monies.
Nicky has fallen silent. He is awaiting instructions from RC.
I agree with the sentiment expressed that anything that pushes Anthony beyond his usual boundaries is good, or at least good reading. Calling a spade a spade is a good thing.
Mr. Watts,
How DARE you brand our esteemed gentlemen at the CRU liars?
These are the noble men who formulate the data that enables our world famous Met Office to predict our dry Aprils, and, er, our barbeque summers, and, er, er, …….
Oh, bugger ……
Maybe they’re just suffering from battle fatigue, Anthony? After all, if you believe that the Heartland Institute could suffer “battle fatigue” and just make a “mistake” (as you told the Washington Post) because a single 2-page fake memo would lead them to put up an offensive billboard, why won’t you believe that the theft of thousands of emails from CRU could do the same to these guys?
Steve,
Would it be possible to share a bulleted summary of what just happened? The detail is great but I have lost the conceptual thread, I think, and now I cannot repeat what I have read here, If I can’t repeat it, that means I don’t understand it anymore. I have too long been away from the details. Maybe that is why the CRU and UPen have been stalling…they hoped that we’d loose track.
Someone did a summary of the Peter Gleick events to clarify. So that kind of thing would be helpful. Anyone?
Hmm Scottish Skeptic just did one….Thanks
Philip Bradley says:
May 7, 2012 at 6:04 am
There are not too many people I would genuinely fear as an intellectual opponent, but Steve McIntyre would be top of that list.
When they come to write the history of this period, Steve McIntyre will be the hero. And Hansen and Jones the villains.
___________________________
I certainly hope so. Unfortunately history is written by the winners not the losers and “they” have Money, Political Power, the Education System and a stranglehold on the Propaganda Machines ERrrr Mass Media. We only have the internet and word of mouth.
The debate over the character of Richard the Third come immediately to mind.
MANGAN: “Roddy is right about one thing. It doesn’t make any difference. The IPCC does not care. The high falutin’ academies do not care. Andy Revkin does not care. The Team doesn’t care what you say anymore. Your best efforts have led to naught. They operate with impunity. You’re a tiger, but a toothless one.”
Steve McIntyre is capable of many things but is really only interested in counting the angels on the head of a pin. Most people on both sides are like that, participating for the sheer compulsive pleasure of splitting hairs.
Well, Mr Mangan, you have just made it clear that you believe the “academics”, the Team and Revkin etc do not care about the truth. In that you are 100% correct.
It’s a shame because many people, far far better than those names above, have sacrificed blood and treasure in order that the truth be revealed. And your lot have squandered those sacrifices – for what? Free holidays in warm places and some grant money. Sad.
Phil C says:
May 7, 2012 at 10:55 am
“…why won’t you believe that the theft of thousands of emails from CRU could do the same to these guys?”
1. The emails were not a “theft”
2. Climategate was not a one-time event. It was an ongoing conspiracy to game the peer review/journal system, and defraud the taxpayers
3. Heartland did nothing dishonest
But nice try, and thanx for playing.
The official “party line” re CRU and their data handling, research integrity, etc. is expressed at Wikipedia and will be highly resistant to correction:
“….Some climate change sceptics and bloggers asserted that a number of the leaked e-mails contain evidence that scientists had conspired to manipulate data[20][21] and to keep scientists who have contrary views out of peer-review literature.[22][23] The controversy was also known as “Climategate”.[24][25] All these accusations were denied by CRU spokepersons, and the CRU’s researchers stated that the e-mails had been taken out of context and merely reflect an honest exchange of ideas.[26][27] In 2011, a new analysis of temperature data by an independent group, many of whom had stated publicly that they thought is was possible that the CRU had manipulated data, concluded that “these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions.””
Phil C says:
May 7, 2012 at 10:55 am
Maybe they’re just suffering from battle fatigue, Anthony? After all, if you believe that the Heartland Institute could suffer “battle fatigue” and just make a “mistake” (as you told the Washington Post) because a single 2-page fake memo would lead them to put up an offensive billboard, why won’t you believe that the theft of thousands of emails from CRU could do the same to these guys?
You don’t want to see do you? All of us skeptics became active AFTER we saw what CRU etc were doing, wrecking Science and national economies and decent scientists’ livelihoods for their own pockets and promotions. Climategate happened AFTER the nasties were written in the emails.
Whose pay are you in?