He really makes a laughingstock of himself in this feckless piece of disinformation about the Yamal affair. It reeks of desperation. He even manages to use my objections to NCDC using an incomplete, non quality controlled preliminary dataset posted on the web solely to keep volunteers updated of the survey status and for no other purpose, as an “unpublished” work suitable for scientific consumption. NCDC went ahead and used it for a paper anyway, despite my objections. Somehow in the bizarre hockey team entrenched mindset of Gavin, this is comparable to the team’s objections to releasing FOI sought data on Yamal. Note to Gavin – my file was already public!
You’d think a scientist could get this simple fact right.
Gavin writes:
UK FOI legislation (quite sensibly) specifically exempts unpublished work from release provided the results are being prepared for publication. So McIntyre’s appeals have tried to insinuate that no such publication is in progress (which is false) or that the public interest in knowing about a regional tree ring reconstruction from an obscure part of Siberia trumps the obvious interest that academics have in being able to work on projects exclusively prior to publication. This is a hard sell, unless of course one greatly exaggerates the importance of a single proxy record – but who would do that? (Oh yes: YAD06 – the most important tree in the world, The global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie etc.). Note that premature public access to unpublished work is something that many people (including Anthony Watts) feel quite strongly about.
Worse, McIntyre has claimed in his appeal that the length of time since the Briffa et al (2008) paper implies that the regional Yamal reconstruction has been suppressed for nefarious motives. But I find it a little rich that the instigator of a multitude of FOI requests, appeals, inquiries, appeals about inquires, FOIs about appeals, inquiries into FOI appeals etc. is now using the CRU’s lack of productivity as a reason to support more FOI releases. This is actually quite funny.
Furthermore, McIntyre is using the fact that Briffa and colleagues responded online to his last deceptive claims about Yamal, to claim that all Yamal-related info must now be placed in the public domain (including, as mentioned above, unpublished reconstructions being prepared for a paper). How this will encourage scientists to be open to real-time discussions with critics is a little puzzling. Mention some partial analysis online, and be hit immediately with a FOI for the rest…?
Our favorite Yamal tracking historian, Andrew Montford explodes Gavins claims at Bishop Hill.
Montford writes:
Gavin Schmidt has issued the official response to the recent excitement over Yamal. I have to say, even on a brief glance through it is a wild piece of writing.
Briffa, as we know, reprocessed data from Hantemirov and Shiyatov in his 2000 paper on Yamal. He used the same data again in his 2008 paper on regional chronologies. Schmidt says:
McIntyre is accusing Briffa of ‘deception’ in stating that he did not ‘consider’ doing a larger more regional reconstruction at that time. However, it is clear from the 2000 paper that the point was to show hemispheric coherence across multiple tree ring records, not to create regional chronologies. Nothing was being ‘deceptively’ hidden and the Yamal curve is only a small part of the paper in any case.
As McIntyre’s article is quite clear that the Yamal regional chronology dates back only to 2006 it can of course not be relevant to the 2000 paper. This is something that he makes quite clear in his article.
One of the purposes of Briffa (2000) was clearly to demonstrate the effect of RCS methodology on the Hantemirov and Shiyatov 2002 dataset. I have no objection to CRU claiming this “purpose” for Briffa (2000).
But, by 2008, this was no longer their “purpose”. Indeed, one doubts whether the editors of Phil Trans B would have accepted a 2008 paper with such a mundane purpose. The actual “purpose” of Briffa et al 2008 is stated quite clearly and was entirely different: it introduced and discussed “regional” chronologies.
Schmidt is therefore engaging in some serious disinformation. Unfortunately, this is not the only occasion. For example, he points out that McIntyre had long ago received “the data” from the Russians who originally collated it.
Full story here: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/5/11/realclimate-on-yamal.html
Gavin should know by now that he can’t get away with this sort of stuff. I wonder what Phil Jones will do next week.
Agree w/Taphonomic that the article is humorously at odd’s w/Mann’s “largely irrelevant” tweet. Tangentially Anthony – if you’re looking for other coffee cup ideas, I submit this (TM me 🙂 ):
http://i48.tinypic.com/63zvyu.gif
So is this the new way to dodge FOI requests? Release your results via press release (like BEST), but never actually publish your work. The public gets the propaganda and you don’t have to bother with defended the science. Win, win for the “cause”.
In the category of “Often wrong, but never in doubt”, Gav in his own words “Spreading the Climate Sci Word”:
.
juanslayton —
I’m still confused. Gavin Schmidt writes “So McIntyre’s appeals have tried to insinuate that no such publication is in progress (which is false).” That very clearly says to me that a publication IS in progress. Do you agreeing or disagreeing with this assertion?
Anthony Watts desrcibes Gavin Schmidt’s post as “disinformation” or “dumb mistakes,” and you refer to the above as evidence for that claim. So the claim above is that Schmidt, contrary to what McIntyre claims, affirms that a publication is in progress and the FOI request, therefore, doesn’t apply. Are you taking issue with Schmidt’s assertion that a publication is in progress? Is that what this is about?
(FYI: I’m unavoidably going offline very shortly.)
Gail Combs says:
May 11, 2012 at 1:09 pm
————————
Thank you for that link, very informative.
To: Phil C
Hang in there lad, don’t let them run you off. Although there is an overload of intelligent, educated, and experienced scientists that attend this site, one gets the frequent impression that several have missed out on some basic lessons of civility.
Based on their vitriol, one gets the impression that these individuals aren’t as smart as they think they are.
But I find it a little rich that the instigator of a multitude of FOI requests, appeals, inquiries, appeals about inquires, FOIs about appeals, inquiries into FOI appeals etc. is now using the CRU’s lack of productivity as a reason to support more FOI releases.
Gavin still misses the point that data and methodology should be made readily available in order for others to duplicate, check, confirm, argue against and to be able to discuss, the outpourings of ‘scientists’ work and stated results. Without this, they are asking the world to have faith, and that is more appropriate to religion than science. Whilst (there it is again, Anthony) ever anyone hides, obfuscates, lies and generally refuses to explain, in full, how they achieved their results, there will be doubt about authenticity, truth and motives.
If the CRU had made everything available to those who request it when it was requested, perhaps they would be more productive, firstly as they would not spend so much time playing CRU Dodgeball (dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge!), secondly because their errors would come to light more readily.
“Publish all or perish” should be the catch-phrase.
Phil C:
At May 11, 2012 at 1:35 pm you say;
“(FYI: I’m unavoidably going offline very shortly.)”
Could you do that for a long time, please?
Richard
Paul Marko says:
May 11, 2012 at 1:50 pm (responding to)
To: Phil C
Hang in there lad, don’t let them run you off. Although there is an overload of intelligent, educated, and experienced scientists that attend this site, one gets the frequent impression that several have missed out on some basic lessons of civility.
Based on their vitriol, one gets the impression that these individuals aren’t as smart as they think they are.
Yeah. But it remains site policy that trolls and CAGW-alarmist are allowed to post and write here, so we have to put up with the incivility, hatred, and bad manners. And, every now and then, an experienced scientist does visit; and – every now and then – a CAGW-pal-reviewed government-sponsored university-paid person shows up to advertise the government’s favored position, usually favoring higher taxes and greater control while the people suffer.. 8<)
I too would like a grant that allowed me to publish something today, then hold on to the data and publish something else in 2026.
It struck me a little while ago, Gavin is primarily a ‘political officer’ (literally: Political commissar) in his duties at RC. From wiki we have this fitting definition:
.
Phil C
No need to be confused. We agree that Dr. Schmidt is asserting that publication is under way. So what’s wrong? Simply this: Publication is a crucial consideration in a formal dispute. In a public forum, the issue is clearly posed. Mr. McIntyre insinuates “no publication”; Dr. Schmidt says “Yes, publication.” To third party viewers, it’s “He said, she said.” An astute posting by Dr. Schmidt would provide some evidence other than the bald assertion that it is so. Best evidence: something from the gentlemen who hold the data.
Yeah, I’ve got other stuff to work on, too. Have a good one.
Gavin should maybe consider the following from Eleanor Roosevelt:
“Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people”
Paul Marko says:
May 11, 2012 at 1:50 pm
To: Phil C
Hang in there lad, don’t let them run you off. Although there is an overload of intelligent, educated, and experienced scientists that attend this site, one gets the frequent impression that several have missed out on some basic lessons of civility.
Based on their vitriol, one gets the impression that these individuals aren’t as smart as they think they are.
>>>>>>>>>
With all due respect, the vitriol comes from two causes. 1) for anyone that has taken the time to look into the facts regarding CAGW, it is the most outrageous and belligerant scam of all time, and 2) we frequently suspect that comments such as Phil C’s are disengenuous attempts to further confuse the issue rather than trying to sincerely understand it.
The fact that the vitriol is kept to a minimum is a miracle on the part of the mods, for the perpetrators of the CAGW fr@ud deserve far worse than vitriol for the damage they have done to humanity.
One of my primary reference books for all things climatic, “Climate, History and the Modern World” by Dr. H. H. Lamb, has a chart on page 142 of “Changes in the height of the upper tree line in two areas in the White Mountains, California and in the Alps in Switzerland and Austria (From work by V. C. La Marche and V. Markgraf)” covering the last 6,000 years. The charts show tree lines were much higher than present (meaning it was warmer) for the entire 6,000-year period before the present, and in recent periods both charts clearly show the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. These trees didn’t lie, and they didn’t need their rings measured and interpreted as to temperature, moisture, changes in solar exposure, fertilization, &etc. It’s quite simple, really, If a certain type of tree once grew 100 meters above where they now grow, it was warmer then than now. If a certain type of tree once grew 200 to 400 kilometers north of where they grow now, it was warmer then than now. The evidence of the trees’ former habitat is easily determined by stumps and other woody artifacts, which then leads to the comparative ease of determining when they were there through carbon dating. If trees can no longer live somewhere because of changing conditions, they won’t, and have no choice in the matter.
Concerning tree rings, and in particular bristle-cone pines in the White Mountains of California, Professor V. C. La Marche at the Laboratory of Tree Ring Research at my alma mater, University of Arizona, Tucson, has constructed a chart indicating variations of summer warmth and/or its seasonal duration covering the past 5,500 years (see page 141 of Lamb). Unlike Mann’s and others’ studies involving these upper-tree line bristle-cone pines, La Marche’s study shows great variation over the 5,500-year period, with six warming and cooling periods including a very prominent Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, with current warming beginning over 200 years ago.
This is science. It clearly shows that current warming is not unprecedented, but in fact is normal if a bit cooler than recent previous periods of warming. It shows that climate change is normal and has occurred without the aid of humans, or of CO2 instigation, since the AGW believers posit that atmospheric CO2 was stable for this entire period of significant warming and cooling. Lamb’s studies are supported by a robust body of scientific evidence, far superior to the thin, short time period, model-driven body of science that purports to find that an insignificant trace gas rules climate change.
Only believers, the “natural climate change deniers”, and certainly not scientists, could hold out against such overwhelming evidence.
Frank K. says:
May 11, 2012 at 11:09 am
Yes, it’s this kind of manic and confused writing that won Gavin Schmidt the inaugural “GISS Klimate Kommunications Award” for 2011! Heh!
By the way, was this written during government work hours? Just asking…
(In fact, this is almost as confused as his climate code Model E …)
_______________________________________________________________
Plenty of error possibilities in that ModelE code you posted a link to.
Some of the more egregious errors are repeated failure to check return codes for error conditions, that is a programing 101 screw up.
dp says:
May 11, 2012 at 9:08 am
Why the truth matters:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/05/an-inconvenient-lawsuit-teenagers-take-global-warming-to-the-courts/256903/
================
That is an excellent suit. The EPA has already handed the plaintifs the ammunition, by declaring the last IPCC report sound as a basis for EPA rules, which has been largely upheld by the courts. If the suit goes forward, they will effectively be able to shut down industry in the US.
This clearly showns the danger in establishing a lie as fact. Once the courts start upholding the lie as though it was fact, there is no end to the damage that can result.
majormike1 says:
May 11, 2012 at 5:08 pm
These trees didn’t lie,
===
Try and post this on RC. RC couldn’t care less about the truth. Any science that doesn’t uphold AGW must be wrong. Any science that upholds it must be right. The models say it must be so.
@Paul Marko
One gets the impression you have nothing to say.
@Supporter’s of Gavin’s whinge about the CRU getting tied up in requests for basic information
Gavin’s entire argument/whinge about McIntyre seeking data and methods that underlie a publication that proffers claims the climate is being disrupted by CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuel should not be there. It would never have been something to talk about because the root cause, obfuscation and deliberate frustration of those trying to examine the remarkable claims, should have been rendered moot by providing the data and methods in the first place, just like one is expected to do when publishing scientific papers.
This is not a new argument. The data and methods should have been archived and the code needed to produce the results shared with anyone who wanted to check that the claims are valid. The presumption now is that these have not been provided because there is someting to hide, and that presumption is reasonable. The illegal suppression and, apparently, plans to delete the data rather than let it go public is further evidence that there is something to hide – that ‘something’ being fraud, cherry-picking, invalid methods, incorrect mathematics or some other defect so serious as to render the conclusions (a hockey stick temperature chart) unsupportable.
The noise from Gavin is just more of the same old smoke, restated loud in the hope that something will stick. He should not need to make the defence. McIntyre should not have to make FOIA requests. Science and Nature should have asked that the materials be provided to support the conclusions and evidence presented in the paper. Simple as that. It is strange for journals to support such anti-scientific behaviour.
Perhaps Gavin will have a change of heart and ask Mann and Briffa to provide the materials and put them on his site, putting an end to what must be a very time-consuming and expensive delaying tactic, which in the end, will not succeed.
majormike1 says:
May 11, 2012 at 5:08 pm
Well said, sir! Well said.
North of 43 and south of 44 says:
May 11, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Plenty of error possibilities in that ModelE code you posted a link to.
Some of the more egregious errors are repeated failure to check return codes for error conditions, that is a programing 101 screw up.
—
The worst part of Model E for me is that Gavin refuses (for whatever reasons) to properly DOCUMENT it! For example, there is no place that I have found where they state exactly what differential equations are being solved by the different modules. Incredible! No mention of the various numerical methods either outside of very terse and useless descriptions (i.e. no equations, stability constraints, discretizations, algorithms etc.).
Yet this is one of the codes which is being used by the IPCC to
predictproject doom and catastrophe! And they are getting millions of dollars to supposedly develop them…(including stimulus(!) funds – do you remember the stimulus of 2009? Guess who got a BIG chunk of money?).Dang.
This seems to me an incredibly simple matter.
In a debate over the value of his publication, if a scientist is very sure of his ground, why would he NOT make available his data?
@crispin in waterloo
Assuming that they still have them and can find them again. Perhaps they asked Phil Jones to look after them while they went out for coffee one day and they escaped from his care to be irretrievably lost. Maybe the dog ate them. Or the cleaner chucked them. It could be that they just came to mann in a dream anyway, or that Keef found them on (now lost) tablets of stone on the top of a mountain somewhere.
Anybody from the ‘outside’ might think that looking after one’s data and methods in a professional and organised way would be part of the basic training of any scientist. It seems that climatologists take great pride in not doing so ….which does not endear them to me any more than their other antics do.
If you’ve stolen the till don’t walk around with your hand stuck in it?
Fiddlestick Team please take note? But not the bank notes 🙂
Here is a funny movie on the danger of relying on russian trees to make hochey sticks: