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.
I have always said that I found the various Climategate enquiries as like a version of the satirical British TV programme ‘Yes Minister’. By that I meant the twists and turns of the plot, the attempts to disguise the truth to save the Govts face by all sorts of devious means, and the constant over riding theme of kicking difficult or controversial subjects ‘into the long grass.’. As more and more of the Climate gate back story is revealed the similarities to the programme become ever more striking
http://www.yes-minister.com/episodes.htm.
tonyb
My Wikipedia quotation above is at this link, at least until they get around to revising it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit
It will also be “interesting” to see if all the journalists and pundits and “reports” which whitewashed the Climategate emails will get around to revising these tired assertions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident
Public opinion and political fallout
Jon Krosnick, professor of communication, political science and psychology at Stanford University, said scientists were overreacting. Referring to his own poll results of the American public, he said “It’s another funny instance of scientists ignoring science.” Krosnick found that “Very few professions enjoy the level of confidence from the public that scientists do, and those numbers haven’t changed much in a decade. We don’t see a lot of evidence that the general public in the United States is picking up on the (University of East Anglia) emails. It’s too inside baseball.”[129]
The Christian Science Monitor, in an article titled “Climate scientists exonerated in ‘climategate’ but public trust damaged,” stated, “While public opinion had steadily moved away from belief in man-made global warming before the leaked CRU emails, that trend has only accelerated.”[130] Paul Krugman, columnist for the New York Times, argued that this, along with all other incidents which called into question the scientific consensus on climate change, was “a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action, then bought into by many in the news media.”[131] But UK journalist Fred Pearce called the slow response of climate scientists “a case study in how not to respond to a crisis” and “a Public Relations disaster”.[132]
Very helpful Scottish Skeptic, thanks. The chart is priceless.
Mike Magnan:
Or put another way he has things he’s interested in (“compulsive pleasures”) and things he is not. How every human of him.
Nonetheless had CRU provided the data to him when they should have, the science would have progressed as a result. Instead, they’ve chosen to obfuscate when possible and to spend far more money than would have been required simply to be cooperative in the process. Same goes for Michael Mann.
That’s the real take home message: They lied, they dissembled, they distorted truth, and for all of their detractors, they had at least two apologists trying to explain to us why what they did was right.
I just love this quote from the Climatic Revision Unit
“Any assessment of the merit of the work should be based upon a final, approved version of the data.”
Thanks to Steve McIntyre, we have a very good idea of which version of the data is “final” and “approved”.
To assume that these guys strive to be honest is wrong. Their own words, over and over again, have telegraphed their lying ways, plain as day.
Many of the quotes that we have are from before the internet, done in small gatherings or small publications in which they thought their words wouldn’t reach the full public arena. The internet made it easy to broadcast their true intentions. They call the public the “little people;” and because the public plays a role in democracy, these little people are to be duped and deceived, not respected. Do we need any more proof than the following quotes?
Liar Liar Pants on FIre Quotes:
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” — Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
“We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.” — Stephen Schneider, ipcc author, 1989
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. the threat of global warming.. would fit the bill…. the real enemy, then, is humanity itself….we believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or….one invented for the purpose.” — Club of Rome
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” –Daniel Botkin, Chairman of Environmental Studies at UCSB
“Isn’t the only hope for this planet the total collapse of industrial civilisation? Is it not our responsibility to ensure that this collapse happens?’” –Maurice Strong, UNEP Director
“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing …” — leftist Senator Tim Wirth, 1993
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” — C. Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment
The worst of this Lie or misleading of the truth by the UEA is that others will use this “truth” on which to base their research. Believing that they are “like dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants”
when they are in fact built on a lie. I remember the “Martian Canals” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_canal, not a lie but an honest mistake that was taken as a fact for many years.
This “lie” is not an honest mistake
andrewmharding says:
May 7, 2012 at 7:13 am
…. On the 3:00pm news on BBC Radio 2 the newscaster announced that Liverpool University have carried out a study that claims that dinosaurs emitted over 500,000,000 tons of methane which caused global warming,millions of years ago. So now, as well as AGW, we having FDIGW (Farting Dinosaur Induced Global Warming). Even the newscaster was laughing, you just couldn’t make it up!!
________________________________
Now there is a really great Heartland billboard. Maybe Josh could help.
Thank YOU, Mr. McIntyre!
Your persistence is paying off in the sweet vindication of the truth! We all owe you a substantial debt of gratitude, for your unwavering pursuit of the facts.
I’m struggling with distilling this entire topic down to an easily understandable summary that my state and federal representatives can understand, as well as friends and acquaintances! I’d like to use this in an educational presentation to illustrate three things:
1) The UN-IPCC assertion of man made global warming is founded in both bad science and willfully deceitful science.
2) Spending trillions of dollars and disrupting the world economy based on these bad and fraudulent assertions of pending disaster must cease now.
3) Given the endemic, deceitful collusion revealed by recent and continuing FOIA data releases, all ‘climate science’ must be subjected to full disclosure of their comprehensive data sets, computer models with code, fundamental assumptions, data suppression or rejection, and statistical methods. Full disclosure applies for both peer review phase and post publication, for any climate science paper/thesis to be considered for publication or use as reference within a published thesis or journal article.
I don’t think McIntyre’s extensive revelations on the climate science corruption can be reduced to a 1 minute ‘elevator speech’, but I am striving for a 5 minute summary with links to the supporting data for the key points and a reference list for additional reading. If other WUWT participants have thoughts on an educational briefing package for this topic, I’d like to hear from them!
I’ll be off line until later today (I took a day of vacation to enjoy this ’till now rare, beautiful 70F day, here in the GreatNorthWet!).
MtK
Here are a couple more good primers for people new to this story:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html
“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.”
We’ve known that AGW is a fraud for many years. What took you so long, Anthony?
As a child of the 70’s with a vivd memory of Watergate, I am usually jaded by the use of “gate” in describing scandals. However, the CRU and the Nixon adminisration are showing major similarities, where a paranoid major coverup followed a relatively minor screw-up. Both are explained by “Deep Throat’s” famous quote: “Follow the Money”.
It was bound to happen; it was just a matter of time. And I believe Mann is next. The Tin Man cannot be happier than I am.
So… all the warming is due to their pants being on fire?
The people who have to take the lead now are places,, “Where the Money is Located”.
The U.S. Congress/U.S. Tax Payer Money…
One place where there might be someone with the wisdom and courage to lead is The U.S House Science Committee, Chairman Ralph Hall (R) Texas. 1-202-225-6673
The Science Committee phone number is 1-202-225-6371.
Get the staff there to listen and review the facts set out on this thread, they then will hand it off to the Congressman and others. They will like to “look smart” to their bosses.
It is not normal for any member of Congress to listen to U.S. regular people, the norm is for some paid lobbiest to do the contact. But it is what it is. We must do what it takes. Use human nature on them.
Dear Profeesor McIntyre and Mr Watts
I was pointed to this site some years ago by Christopher Booker and have followed the saga of ‘Global Warming’ with avid interest since then. ‘Thank you’ seems to be such an inadequate response to the work this and other sites do (Bp Hill, Jo Nova, Donna LaFramboise, Hilary Ostrov to name but a few) to nail the truth. I am amazed by your dedication to the cause of exposing the apparant fraud behind the ‘science’ to which we are exposed on an almost daily basis and can only endorse the comments I have read above. I am no scientist and much of what I read here is way above my head but the truth will eventually prevail due to the efforts of people like you. Many thanks.
The Climategate emails showed these “climate scientists” were frauds, cheats and charlatans. And that is giving them the benefit of the doubt! For what they have foisted on humankind, Nuremberg type trials are in order. Many of you are far to lenient towards these people.
Jay Davis
To misquote a syentist at the UEA CRU:
“Oooh, we do tell some whoppers, don’t we?”
Thanks, Anthony, for calling a spade a spade and a huge thank-you to Steve McIntyre for his tireless pursuit of the truth throughout this continuing saga.
The short film clip of Vice-Chancellor Acton of the UEA posted above should be a reminder of his (and his university’s) mealy-mouthed perfidy.
I’m confused about this YAD06 tree as a proxy. How does its tree-mometer reading correlate to the temperature record of Yamal in general? Looking at its chart it seems like it was generally as warm there back in the mid 50’s and through the 60’s as it was in the 90’s?
jayhd;
For what they have foisted on humankind, Nuremberg type trials are in order. Many of you are far to lenient towards these people. >>>>>>>>
I find it difficult to convey my anger and furstration regarding the CAGW cheer leaders and the harm they have done to humanity, that is a step too far. There is a vast difference between shoddy science knowingly foisted upon us in return for grants and fame, and rounding people up and systematically exterminating them on the basis of their parentage.
IF you wish to pursue a legal route, I can suggest that a criminal investigation would go nowhere in any event. You are asking governments to prosecute the work they paid to have done. They’ll simply sweep it under the rug. No one indicts themselves.
A class action law suit on the other hand might have some legs. But I doubt the investment which would be required to launch and win one would be made by any legal firm given that the people being sued simply don’t have the personal assets to go after to make it worthwhile.
There are some matters that the legal system does in fact fail on, and this is one of them.
Yep. Sloppy initial work. Then groupthink. Then small fibs, then larger fibs to cover. Then “it doesn’t matter”.
And Science dies a little…
Well done Steve M and Anthony,would love to see the look on Manns and Jones face as they read this,fancy a big meeting at CRU in the morning,boy wouuld i like to be a fly on the wall.wonder if they’ll sue or not……
Can’t understand your fascination with East Anglia or its polytechnic.
Whilst (sorry Willis) searching for “East Anglia Climatic Research Unit shown to be liars”, I came across this post Copenhagen article .
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=78aa4157-da68-4596-859a-a7e49a6207ae
and, as we shall see in Part II on Monday, now threatens to consume one of the scientific pillars of climate science.
Can’t find Part II