From the “he who must not be named” department, comes this sure to be future McI-fodder.
UEA/CRU responds in a press release, authored by Tim Osborn, an excerpt:
===========================================================
Tim Osborn comments on “Yamal, Polar Urals and Muir-Russell”
Recent accusations (here, leading to embellishment across parts of the blogosphere, e.g. here) that the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) promoted tree-ring results that fit some preconceived view (e.g. of modern temperatures exceeding those during Medieval times) or curtailed other work because it did not support such a view, and that CRU deceived the Muir-Russell inquiry about its work in this area, are all false. (emphasis is Osborn’s)
Two key points to begin:
1. The raw tree-ring data used in our published work are available; anyone is free to use them in any way they wish.
2. We already responded in detail to criticisms concerning the Yamal chronology. The figure on that webpage (reproduced at the end of this document) shows the impact of including additional tree-ring data (black line) compared to our previously published data (blue and red lines). The impact is relatively small, though note the caveats in the text on that webpage. We are currently working towards a new paper that incorporates additional tree-ring data from the Yamal and Polar Urals region.
…
It is misleading, therefore, to imply that because we have not yet published all of our work in this area, we are somehow restricting the advance of scientific knowledge in this area. A recommendation of the Muir Russell report that is directly relevant to the issue of scientific advancement and to the current accusations is: (bold mine)
We note that much of the challenge to CRU’s work has not always followed the conventional scientific method of checking and seeking to falsify conclusions or offering alternative hypotheses for peer review and publication. We believe this is necessary if science is to move on, and we hope that all those involved on all sides of the climate science debate will adopt this approach.
Full press release is here: http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/rebuttalsandcorrections/yamal
ALTERNATE LINK: http://www.webcitation.org/681asTi21
============================================================
…much of the challenge to CRU’s work has not always followed the conventional scientific method…
Oh, well that makes it OK then. /sarc What a laughable defense to cite now. What greater condemnation of CRU’s methods could be written? Do these guys understand what they are doing when they cite things like this? I think not.
Recall the bullying of CRU’s Phil Jones regarding the “scientific method” and peer review:
In July 2004, referring to Climate Research having published a paper by “MM”, thought to be Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels, and another paper by Eugenia Kalnay and Ming Cai, Jones emailed his colleagues saying,
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [TRENBERTH] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Source: Wikpedia on the CRU emails – Alleged exclusion of papers from IPCC report
This episode reminds me of a famous movie line:
“I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” – General Yamamoto in the 1970 film Tora! Tora! Tora!,
Maybe the coded battle message now will be Yamal! Yamal! Yamal!
This page http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
claims it was “Last updated: 28th October 2009 ” while Firefox tells me it was
“Modified 24 february 2010.”
He also said (and please treat this in confidence, which is why I emailed to you and
Phil only)…
Seeing that plastered on the ‘net had to sting.
Phil @ur momisugly May 29, 2012 at 12:20 pm: “What about it, they weren’t kept out and Trenberth was quite clear that under the rules of the IPCC they could not be.”
Are you willfully ignorant or something worse?
Do you call what was done with McKitrick and Michaels 2004 by The Team honest in ANY way?
http://climateaudit.org/2012/01/31/geoffrey-boulton-and-ipcc-secrecy/
Despicable is the only way to describe the anti-science philosophy of Jones, Trenberth and the other members of The Team that you so ardently defend here.
Maybe the coded battle message now will be Yamal! Yamal! Yamal!
“Tora!” (tiger) was the code for “Surprise achieved.”
In this instance, “Yamal!” would be the code for “Crap! They’ve figured us out!”
Rhoda R says:
May 29, 2012 at 12:41 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
I do not consider that not using an outlier is wrong. At times, a judgment call needs to be made. However, whenever one determines that it is not appropriate to use an outlier, one should always include the following:
1 Full and proper identification of the outlier and what it shows.
2 Full supporting reasons for considering it to be an outlier, and the reasons why it should not be included.
3. The effect of using/incorporating the outlier in the study/results.
Then anyone reading the study will be acquainted with all the (available) evidence, and can consider the validity of reasons put forward for not using all the data, and will know what effects there would be on the study if all the data was included.
“Yamal” – a definition: A code word shouted out when a stranger is spotted in CRU offices.
On receipt of this code word it is normal to hide under your desk and wait for the stranger (who may be seeking truth) to depart.
Currently Yamal is heard being shouted many times per day and staff beginning to damage their clothes in the rush to hide.
“Yamal” – a definition: a medical condition where the sufferer is averse to the truth.
The only known cure of Yamal is total public exposure.
Gail Combs says:
May 29, 2012 at 10:43 am
“I do not think Shakespeare could write a comedy as funny as the CRU Yamal saga. It would take Monty Python….”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That’s a good link you provide, Gail, but I humbly submit that there is a better one: “The Larch Sketch”
Anthony, DavidA’s comment at May 29, 2012 at 9:25 pm Should be put with the article since it shows what a liar Tim Osborn is. I cleaned it up for you.
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1199999668.txt
[Thu, 10 Jan 2008]
Hi Ben and Phil,
as you may know (Phil certainly knows), I’m on the editorial board of IJC. Phil is right that it can be rather slow (though faster than certain other climate journals!). Nevertheless, IJC really is the preferred place to publish (though a downside is that Douglass et al. may have the opportunity to have a response considered to accompany any comment).
I just contacted the editor, Glenn McGregor, to see what he can do. He promises to do everything he can to achieve a quick turn-around time (he didn’t quantify this) and he will also “ask (the publishers) for priority in terms of getting the paper online asap after the authors have received proofs”. He genuinely seems keen to correct the scientific record as quickly as possible.
He also said (and please treat this in confidence, which is why I emailed to you and Phil only) that he may be able to hold back the hardcopy (i.e. the print/paper version) appearance of Douglass et al., possibly so that any accepted Santer et al. comment could appear alongside it. Presumably depends on speed of the review process. If this does persuade you to go with IJC, Glenn suggested that I could help (because he is in Kathmandu at present) with achieving the quick turn-around time by identifying in advance reviewers who are both suitable and available. Obviously one reviewer could be someone who is already familiar with this discussion, because that would enable a fast review – i.e., someone on the email list you’ve been using – though I don’t know which of these people you will be asking to be co-authors and hence which won’t be available as possible reviewers. For objectivity the other reviewer would need to be independent, but you could still suggest suitable names. Well, that’s my thoughts… let me know what you decide.
Cheers
Tim
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Thanks Gail, I just realised after posting the CRs messed it up. If posts allowed quick edit I would have fixed it. I wonder if Tom has ever had to answer for that, I don’t think so.
Anthony, I believe that “Sleeping Giant” comment was made by Admiral (not general) Yamamoto.
pbrisco says:
May 30, 2012 at 10:28 am
Anthony, I believe that “Sleeping Giant” comment was made by Admiral (not general) Yamamoto.
Actually, the line was delivered by Toshiro Mifune, who played Admiral Yamomoto in a couple of Hollywood epics. The scriptwriters wanted a closing line that would foreshadow the war’s end, with a suitable “Japanese” fatalism. Yamomoto may have thought that after the attack, but there’s no record of his actually saying it.
I suspect the only accurate statement in the whole thing is that CRU did not deceive the Muir Russell enquiry. Such a deception was entirely superfluous since Muir Russell was under no illusions as to what to report and gathering evidence was certainly an unnecessary complication to be avoided as far as possible.