This post will be a sticky top post for a day or two, new stories will appear below this one.
By Andrew Montford & Harold Ambler
May 24, 2012 4:00 A.M. in the National Review – reposted here with permission
Climategate, the 2009 exposure of misconduct at the University of East Anglia, was a terrible blow to the reputation of climatology, and indeed to that of British and American science. Although that story hasn’t been in the news in recent months, new evidence of similar scientific wrongdoing continues to emerge, with a new scandal hitting the climate blogosphere just a few days ago.
And central to the newest story is one of the Climategate scientists: Keith Briffa, an expert in reconstructing historical temperature records from tree rings. More particularly, the recent scandal involves a tree-ring record Briffa prepared for a remote area of northern Russia called Yamal.
For many years, scientists have used tree-ring data to try to measure temperatures from the distant past, but the idea is problematic in and of itself. Why? Because tree-ring data reflect many variables besides temperature. Russian tree growth, like that of trees around the world, also reflects changes in humidity, precipitation, soil nutrients, competition for resources from other trees and plants, animal behavior, erosion, cloudiness, and on and on. But let’s pretend, if only for the sake of argument, that we can reliably determine the mean temperature 1,000 years ago or more using tree cores from a remote part of Russia. The central issue that emerges is: How do you choose the trees?
It was the way Briffa picked the trees to include in his analysis that piqued the interest of Steve McIntyre, a maverick amateur climatologist from Canada. The Climategate e-mails make it clear that McIntyre earned the public scorn of the most powerful U.N. climatologists, including James Hansen, Michael Mann, and Phil Jones, while simultaneously earning their fear and respect in private.
McIntyre noticed a few problems with the way Briffa chose the sampling of Russian trees, and he wrote to Briffa requesting the data Briffa used in a published tree-ring paper. Briffa declined. And so began a four-year saga involving multiple peer-reviewed journals, behind-the-scenes maneuvering by Briffa and his closest confidants, and a Freedom of Information Act request on the part of McIntyre that appears to be on the verge of being granted. Even without the final set of data, however, McIntyre has shown beyond the shadow of doubt that Briffa may have committed one of the worst sins, if not the worst, in climatology — that of cherry-picking data — when he assembled his data sample, which his clique of like-minded and very powerful peers have also used in paper after paper.
It was already known that the Yamal series contained a preposterously small amount of data. This by itself raised many questions: Why did Briffa include only half the number of cores covering the balmy interval known as the Medieval Warm Period that another scientist, one with whom he was acquainted, had reported for Yamal? And why were there so few cores in Briffa’s 20th century? By 1988, there were only twelve cores used in a year, an amazingly small number from the period that should have provided the easiest data. By 1990, the count was only ten, and it dropped to just five in 1995. Without an explanation of how the strange sampling of the available data had been performed, the suspicion of cherry-picking became overwhelming, particularly since the sharp 20th-century uptick in the series was almost entirely due to a single tree.
The intrigue deepened when one of the Climategate e-mails revealed that, as far back as 2006, Briffa had prepared a much more broadly based, and therefore more reliable, tree-ring record of the Yamal area. But strangely, he had decided to set this aside in favor of the much narrower record he eventually used.
The question of Yamal had rightly come up when Briffa was questioned by Climategate investigators. He told them that he had never considered including a wider sample than the one he went with in the end, and hadn’t had enough time to include a wider one. However, the specific issue of the suppressed record appears to have largely been passed over by the panel, and Briffa’s explanation, like so many others given to the Climategate inquiries, appears to have been accepted without question.
But the ruse has now been shot to pieces, by the recent decision from the U.K.’s information commissioner that Briffa can no longer withhold the list of sites he used in his suppressed regional record for the Yamal area. The disclosure of these sites has allowed McIntyre to calculate what the broad series would have looked like if Briffa had chosen to publish it. He has shown that it has no hint of the hockey-stick shape that Briffa’s cherry-picked data indicated.
Two and a half years after the initial revelation of the Climategate e-mails, new controversies, on the part of the scientists and the investigators involved, continue to emerge. Many of the players involved are desperate to sweep the scandal under the rug. However, their machinations have only succeeded in bringing renewed attention to their questionable science and ugly behind-the-scenes shenanigans, reigniting hope that more complete and more independent investigations — on both sides of the Atlantic — will yet be performed.
— Andrew Montford is the author of The Hockey Stick Illusion and the proprietor of the Bishop Hill blog. Harold Ambler is the author of Don’t Sell Your Coat and the operator of the blog talkingabouttheweather.com.
davidmhoffer says:
May 25, 2012 at 9:50 pm
Just curious. Could you explain how having Hentemirov’s data would tell McIntyre which portions of it Briffa used and which portions he didn’t? Or how he weighted it? In which time periods? etc?
===========
That is simple. The purpose of statistics is to allow a sample to ACCURATELY represent the whole. Thus, if Briffa’s statistical method is correct, ALL statistically correct methods will give the same answer as Briffa’s, within the limits of the error bars. If not, then Briffa’s methodology is not statistically correct.
Say for example we took the GISS temperature record for the past 100 years. From that we took the temperature records for the 10 cities on earth that best matched the global average for the past 10 years. Would you think it is statistically correct to then assume that the records for those cities would also be the best match for the global average for the past 100 years?
Is it not more likely that those 10 cities simply matched the global average for 10 years by accident, and a different 10 cities would be a better match going back 100 years? It is a simple matter to test this statistically. Anyone that has worked with statistics already knows the answer.
Yet, this is the methodology used by climate science. They select those trees that best match the global average for the past 150 years, and assume they are the best proxy for the past 1500 years. Without ever having tested the methodology to see if it statistically valid.
This is the problem with the tree ring circus called climate science. It is based on bogus statistics. Given the tactics of climate scientists worldwide to not release their data or methods it certainly seems likely that they are well aware that their methodology will not hold up under scrutiny. Thus they are fighting every step of the way to protect their reputations and careers.
When will one of these esteemed ‘scientists’ be charged with what they are really doing?
Namely: Fraud, Racketeering and Grand Larceny?
Or is stealing public/tax dollars no longer a crime?
skeptical;
sceptical says:
May 26, 2012 at 3:51 am
Good points Eric Adler. It is because of the work of people like Mr. Briffa that the limitations of tree rings as temperature proxies are understood.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think we need a word for trolls that work in teams. One trolll drops in, makes some points that promptly get shredded by commenters, but along comes a different troll to compliment the first one while blithely ignoring the fact that the first troll’s comments have already been exposed as drivel.
fred berple;
you completely missed my point.
sceptical says: May 26, 2012 at 3:51 am Good points Eric Adler.
You are obviously unaware that the so-called ‘work’ of Briffa, Mann, et al, stands the previous century of climatological study on its head? It is all new fabrication, completely at odds with everything I have read over the previous fifty years. It is an attempt to rewrite history, at ignoring direct observation. Go to any mountain range whose height exceeds trees’ ability to survive. Notice the dead trunks well above the current treeline. Guess what, it used to be warmer, quite a bit so for a long time to get that dead trunk there. Craig Loehle does honest work: http://i39.tinypic.com/2q3arlw.jpg . That pathetic purple squiggle is the HS. Liu’s study 2011, very similar to Loehle, again with the HS in purple:
http://i40.tinypic.com/35c4bw9.jpg . Lest we not forget, the IPCC’s 1990 graph which did agree the the previous decades of climatology: http://i39.tinypic.com/bgemm9.jpg , and certainly did not support the anthro/CO2-driven climate scam. Thus the past need be rewritten to perpetrate this fraud.
When you parse what Hantemirov said, he makes no specific criticism of McIntyre’s work, nor did hecontradict or dispute the topic at hand, Steve’s Polar Urals plots (generated from the data Hantemirov had supplied). No, Hantemirov’s “critique” is simply a rude, dare I say childish, assertion.
Which is fitting, as the “TEAM’s” overall dissatisfaction of Steve has mostly to do with his understanding of their statistical tricks, and his dogmatic insistence that the CRU show respect for the scientific method (particularly replication) and to obey the laws of the UK (a decidely low bar to clear for publicly funded scientists).
As for integrity and good faith, McIntyre sent a polite e-mail to Hantemirov following the latter’s angry post, asking for specifics, apologising for not putting his code on the specific blog thread, and then adding full code snippets to the article (a trivial act, as a quck search of CA would have turned up Steve’s methods in numerous places, because Steve respects openness and transparency). McIntyre’s efforts at delving more deeply into Hantemirov’s criticisms went unrewarded, as Hantemirov didn’t respond, either in the thread or by e-mail to Steve.
Here’s my take on the Hantemirov comment. Hantemirov’s initial contacts with Steve (during which he supplied Steve with the data), were polite and professional. But his very next comment, only days later, was rude, angry and disorganized. To me this suggests that following Steve’s Yamal posting, the “TEAM,’ now embarrassed, jumped all over Hantemirov’s ass for having given aid and comfort and data to the enemy, thereby making it socially and professionally necessary for Hantemirov to make a big show of condemning McIntyre to maintain his status within the group.
davidmhoffer,
“I think we need a word for trolls that work in teams.”
Tag team trolls, or TTT’s for short.
References, as requested:
Briffa ‘declining’ to provide data:
Steve these data were produced by Swedish and Russian colleagues – will pass on your message to them
cheers, Keith
http://climateaudit.org/2009/10/05/yamal-and-ipcc-ar4-review-comments/#comment-197542
Hantemirov on McIntyre’s ‘amnesia’ : http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4931
Here is Osborn’s reply to McIntyre’s request FOI request based on his 2006 email
Firstly, the email identified as 1146252894.txt refers to groups of trees, to
temperature data from the regions where the trees were sampled, and to a
future plan to process the measurement data from the groups of trees to
produce proxy series and many bootstrap estimates of these series. It is only
an inference that a regional chronology was later produced for the URALS
group of trees
http://www.climateaudit.info/correspondence/foi/cru/yamal/Appendix%204%20-%20UEA%20Second%20Refusal%2020110718.pdf
McIntyre also quotes from the response in support of his case
Regional chronologies have subsequently been produced from various data
in the ‘greater Urals’ area of northern Siberia,
But for some reason, our auditor only reproduced the first half of the sentence. Here is the full thing
Regional chronologies have subsequently been produced from various data
in the ‘greater Urals’ area of northern Siberia, and one of those might be
based on the URALS group of trees referred to in the email. (My bold).
Mickey Reno: When you parse what Hantemirov said, he makes no specific criticism of McIntyre’s work
Are you serious? Here’s the verbatim text: Steve, I’m horrified by your slipshod work. You did not define what you compare, what dataset used in each case, how data were processed, and what was the reason for that, what limitation there are, what kind of additional information you need to know. Why didn’t you ask me for all the details? You even aren’t ashamed of using information from stolen letters. Do carelessness, grubbiness, dishonourableness are the necessary concomitants of your job?
Seems to me however you ‘parse’ it this is a damning criticism of McIntyre’s lack of definitions, description of data provenance, pre-processing, selection etc etc. Sure he listed his raw source code, but this just underlines the futility of the ‘auditing’ approach to doing science. It tells us nothing of the selection criteria, limits, pre-processing and so forth. McIntyre posted the day after he recieved the data, and before consulting with Hantemirov. In his haste to get another non-hockey-stick plot out there he clearly failed to do the kind of ‘due diligence’ that he demands in others.
Okay. Someone in the know answer a simple question for me; why trees in Yamal and not, for example, trees in Iowa? What makes a remote part of the world so special that you would chose that location?
Phil Clarke;
….blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I repeat my question to you. How does having Hentemirov’s data provide any mechanism for determining which of it Briffa used, and which he didn’t?
Phil Clarke;
The data from Briffa’s ten trees is posted in the article above. Are you of the opinion that the data from these trees accurately represents the hocky stick graph produced from them by Briffa?
If I may restate my question another way, if we put these ten graphs on an episode of Sesame Street and played the “one of these things just doesn’t belong here” game, do you think that the average 8 year old could not spot the problem?
Phil Clarke;
When local temperature records are compared to the Yamal data, it is clear that the trees were not responding in any way shap or form to local temperatures. Is it your position that a mechanism exists by which these trees respond to global temperatures, but not the actual temperatures that they are experiencing?
When local temperature records are compared to the Yamal data, it is clear that the trees were not responding in any way shap or form to local temperatures.
Your questions and inaccurate assertions suggest you have not actually read the literature. I can only suggest you start with Briffa et al 2008….
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1501/2269.full.pdf
Phil Clarke;
I have read the literature, and I’ve also read Lucy Skywalker’s investigation of the local temperature records. The local temperature records don’t match.
But you failed to answer any of the direct questions I asked you, all you managed to do was point me back at Briffa’s own paper in which he neglects to mention the very issues I asked you about. Nice attempt at a misdirect.
Now answer the questions directly, or look foolish, your pick.
How about one more? What is 2+2?
(I figure I gotta lob him one he can actually answer without looking silly)
Phil Clarke,
You are hopelessly naive. Briffa is no more honest than Michael Mann.
For the less naive, there is this:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
, all you managed to do was point me back at Briffa’s own paper in which he neglects to mention the very issues I asked you about
The issue was your unsupported assertion that the Yamal proxies do not match regional temperatures. Briffa deals with this in section 5; Summing the appropriate
local pentad totals (pentads 38–42 for Fennoscandia, 27–37 for Yamal and 34–38 for Avam–Taimyr;figure 6), it is clear that the temperature/tree-growth relationship is strong and stable through time
When I want to read more about crystals and unicorns, I go to Lucy’s site. Meanwhile I get my science from the literature, rather rather than bloggers who do not even reveal their real name….
[Moderator’s Note: Don’t try that again. David M. Hoffer is a real name and is the name of the commenter using it. If you have evidence otherwise, present it, else apologize to Mr. Hoffer. -REP]
Mod – I was referring to ‘Lucy Skywalker’ – not David. I’m guessing that is not her given name….
[REPLY: In that case my apologies. I am rather surprised, though, that you would agree that anonymous bloggers like Tamino and Eli Rabbet are not credible. -REP]
For the less naive, there is this:
Well, I’ve demonstrated above that chartered accountant Montford is more than capable of inaccuracy, and I’m not sure what a discussion of the route into publication of a particular paper many years before the first Yamal paper was even published has to do with the topic at hand. However the ‘Jesus paper’ is one long exercise in misdirection away from the fact that Wahl and Amman showed that McIntyre’s criticisms of MBH 98/99 had a completely negligible impact.
Montford’s screed revolves around his proposal that ‘r-squared’ is a meaningful measure of skill for a climate proxy. If say, that was not the case, then there’s not a lot of point to his article. Odd thing is, that was pretty much what the National Academies of Sciences DID say in their investigation into climate reconstructions:-
The squared correlation statistic, denoted as r2, is usually adopted as a measure of association between two variables. Specifically, r2 measures the strength of a linear relationship between two variables when the linear fit is determined by regression. However, r2 measures how well some linear function of the predictions matches the data, not how well the predictions themselves perform. The coefficients in that linear function cannot be calculated without knowing the values being predicted, so it is not in itself a useful indication of merit. (Page 92)
So Montford has it wrong again, whether through ignorance or intentionally does not really matter. I think anyone relying on an accountant’s blog for complete and unbiased information is the one being ‘naive’.
In that case my apologies. I am rather surprised, though, that you would agree that anonymous bloggers like Tamino and Eli Rabbet are not credible.
I certainly would not advocate treating any blog, whether Steve’s, Anthony’s, Josh’s or Grant’s as a primary source. Lucy’s website is notable for the fact that to accept her version of reality, one has to reject a huge corpus of published science. Whereas both Eli and Tamino have contributed to said corpus, under their real names.
[REPLY: The only reason you know that Tamino and Eli have “contributed” is because they were “outed”. You have no idea who “Lucy Skywalker” is do you? As for “primary source”… better check the definition again. McIntyre and Watts ARE primary sources and they have blogged and published under their real names. -REP]
Phil Clarke;
Well, I’ve demonstrated above >>>>
What you’ve demonstrated is a willful disregard for the main issues being brought your attention, misdirection, and dismissing out of hand the work of others because they are just bloggers posting under a handle. Whine all you want but at day’s end:
1. Lucy Skywalker points the reader at the exact data from the exact local weather stations in question. Anyone who doesn’t trust a blog post is welcome to check the data themselves (which I did). Anyone who bothers to read her work will soon find out just how carefully researched and detailed it is.
2. You haven’t answered the direct questions I asked of you.
Your defense of Briffa’s work seems to amount to linking to articles by Briffa. You’ve even linked to an article by Briffa where he admits that there are factors governing tree growth that cause divergence from the temperature record, and he doesn’t know why! How dense do you think people are?
Go back and look at the ten graphs.
One of these things just doesn’t belong here
One of these things just isn’t the same
When Sesame Street level reasoning can expose the stupidity for what it is, are you certain you still want to defend it?
Is Phil Clarke YOUR real name?
Do you get paid for your efforts?
Phil Clarke says:
May 26, 2012 at 6:18 pm
Mod – I was referring to ‘Lucy Skywalker’ – not David. I’m guessing that is not her given name….>>>
Anyone else notice that when confronted with an issue that he has an easy answer to, Phil Clarke responds within minutes? But when confronted with the difficult questions that I’ve asked of him (which he still hasn’t answered) if he responds at all it takes hours. I’m guessing that he isn’t actually familiar at all with the subject matter, and so has to run off and do research, or think through how he is going to direct attention away from the issues.
Would someone with a simple interest in the subject go to those lengths? Would someone with a simple interest in the subject continue to expose themselves as nothing more than a manipulative sycophant relying on misdirection and obfuscation to cloud the issue rather than bring any understanding to it? Does Phil Clarke even believe a single think he writes?
He’s now reverting to the most classic of paid troll ploys, which is to suggest that what someone writes cannot be trusted because they are an accountant…. or they write under a handle…. or that their work isn’t published in a journal. To all of this I respond:
One of these things just doesn’t belong here
One of these things just isn’t the same
Phil Clarke says:
“…the ‘Jesus paper’ is one long exercise in misdirection away from the fact that Wahl and Amman showed that McIntyre’s criticisms of MBH 98/99 had a completely negligible impact.”
A “completely negligible impact”?? ^That is proof of Mr. Clarke’s delusion.^ McIntyre & McKittrick absolutely destroyed the credibility of MBH98/99, and of Mann08 [the upside-down Tiljander proxy]. Only a true believer like Clarke has drunk enough Kool-Aid to blind him to M&M’s total destruction of Mann’s cherry-picked fantasies.
Mann and Briffa hide out from any debate, for the simple reason that their claims are based entirely on repeatedly falsified pseudo-science. Planet Earth is debunking every conjecture they have made. NONE of Mann’s globaloney predictions have panned out. Not a single one of them.
The ultimate Authority — Planet Earth — is falsifying Michael Mann’s silly conjectures. But Phil Clarke has drunk the Kool Aid, so he doesn’t understand what the planet is telling everyone else. Thus, Clarke appeals to false authorities, and ignores the only real Authority.
Where’s Phil’s runaway global warming? Hiding in the ocean pipeline somewhere?☺
Smokey,
Worse than that. He ignores Sesame Street!
Can I cherrypick too? I’m going with YAD121 as the one responding only to temperature and ignoring all other variables. *looks at YAD121* No alarming hockeystick…. Cool! Problem solved. We can all stop worrying now. glad thats behind us. Anything else?
edcaryl says:
May 26, 2012 at 9:47 am
davidmhoffer,
“I think we need a word for trolls that work in teams.”
Tag team trolls, or TTT’s for short.
Tag Team Trolls Popping Off — T3PO.