At Climate Audit, Something odd has been discovered about the provenance of the work associate with the Marcott et al paper. It seems that the sharp uptick wasn’t in the thesis paper Marcott defended for his PhD, but is in the paper submitted to Science.
Steve McIntyre writes:
Reader ^ drew our attention to Marcott’s thesis (see chapter 4 here. Marcott’s thesis has a series of diagrams in an identical style as the Science article. The proxy datasets are identical.
However, as Jean S alertly observed, the diagrams in the thesis lack the closing uptick of the Science. Other aspects of the modern period also differ dramatically.
Here is Figure 1C of the Science article.
Now here is the corresponding diagram from the (Marcott) thesis:
The differences will be evident to readers. In addition to the difference in closing uptick, important reconstruction versions were at negative values in the closing portion of the thesis graphic, while they were at positive values in the closing portion of the Science graphic.
I wonder what accounts for the difference.
Read the full report at Climate Audit
===========================================================
This story just got a lot more interesting. I wonder if we don’t have a situation like with Yamal, and sample YAD06 which when included, skewed the whole set. Perhaps there was some screening in the thesis and that didn’t include part of the proxy datasets, or later for the Science paper maybe there was some Gergis sytyle screening that made hockey sticks pop out. It might also be some strange artifact of processing, perhaps some Mannian style math was introduced. Who knows at this point? All we know is that one paper is not like the other, and one produces a hockey stick and the other does not.
Some additional detective work is sorely needed to determine why this discrepancy exists and if anyone in the peer review process asked any similar questions.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ask Gavin – he has an excuse for everything
“Almost enough to make me paranoid that someone really stupid is running the show. How else do you explain such central disorganization?”
Often stupidity is indistinguishable from overwhelming arrogance and a sense of absolute superiority. People who have these traits believe they will get away with anything because they always have gotten away with it, and furthermore they are confident that no one with the power to do so will DARE contradict them. They deeply and honestly believe that any objections to their machinations can be shouted down with tribalistic appeals to their political supporters and cries of “Denier! Denier!” Much the same as the charge of “Heretic!” worked to end arguments in older, past times.
We can’t say this enough – we are dealing with a pseudo-religious movement here, NOT a scientific one. They believe to their core that the only purpose for the data they get is to pursue the cause of GOOD, as they believe in it. Data doesn’t count to them if it doesn’t serve the purposes of GOOD – which always coincides with their own self interest, of course. They despise anyone who contradicts them, and define them as “Evil” – just look at their rhetoric if you doubt that. And for a True Believer, nothing said or put forward by those who are “Evil” is ever worth considering or discussing. They burn with the the thought that Evil must be destroyed! (Every episode of book burning through man’s long history always comes down to this same root cause)
Pursuing the science is necessary work for our side, but there are always those who pop up and say we should *only* focus on that. We cannot, because science is now a distinctly secondary part of this problem. No matter what “Science” we either provide or refute, it will mean nothing to the AGW crowd and their supporters, because it is NOT about “Science” to them. It is about Good and Evil and Belief and Heresy. We are the heretics in their eyes, they will ALWAYS treat us like Heretics, and the Orthodox will NEVER agree to convert to a Heretical view.
The only option we have is to fight with every public tool we have available to move public opinion (including ridicule and constant public expositions of the mendacity of the AGW supporters), trusting in the hope that finally their views will become so odious to the public that they will finally fade from view, and AGW will simply become one of the Great Hoaxes of history. Without the Force of Government behind them, they are nothing and they know it. That’s why the fight over this is now overwhelmingly political – it is about them grabbing the Power they need to impose their orthodoxy on the rest of us, *Especially* the heretics and unbelievers.
The scientific war is finished. The war for Public Opinion is not. That’s the war we have to fight, and the war we have to win.
Depends how long ago his thesis was. Things often change from what is in the thesis and the things that show up in publications are usually better and more complete than what was in the thesis. That said, the uptick at the end won’t hold up. He even admits that himself.
If it were my paper I’d by answering the questions raised. Just saying.
Does this mean he must now defend this paper or have his PhD revoked?
Bill
wws at Miarch 15, 2013 at 6:07 am
“The scientific war is finished. The war for Public Opinion is not. That’s the war we have to fight, and the war we have to win.”
While you may be correct, be careful — you are beginning to sound like “them”.
“An even more intriguing possibility – perhaps the reviewers demanded Marcott add the hockey stick, as a requirement for their approval.”
beware of trolls pushing conspiracy theories to make folks look bad.
REPLY: Yes, I agree. Never ascribe malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence – Anthony
Brad Steelers at 12 23 am, says we should not take any scientist seriously who doesnt show his work, and I agree. However, the MSM, the warmistas, activists, and politicians vying for popularity via the green vote dont care that his “work” is not justified by the proxies that went into it. They just love it that a new hockey stick has been produced even if the nearest uptick in the data used is from 1870 to 1910. Thats why we need the detective work more than ever.
Here are all the proxies in Marcott’s database which goes back to 19,300 BC (each point is the anomaly from the average temperature of each individual proxy across all data available – not the same as versus a 1961-1990 baseline).
http://s22.postimage.org/i05ns3pip/Marcott2013_All_Proxies.png
Is this not “Steig’s Antarctica” redux?
Innocently toss a paper out into the aether, then find your carefully crafted conclusions shredded in the WUWT wood chipper.
Peer review at its finest.
kim says:
March 15, 2013 at 12:18 am
Almost enough to make me paranoid that someone really stupid is running the show. How else do you explain such central disorganization?
Several governments and at least 2 multi-national governmental organisations, (UN and EU) are closely involved. What other explanation do you need?
While I agree with the comment “Yes, I agree. Never ascribe malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence – Anthony” and with Mosher’s comment to be wary of conspiracy theories, I also think Marcott lacked professionalism when failing to discern the differences himself. He has essentially published two studies (a thesis is a published scientific work) which appear to be in disagreement and yet he himself has not made mention of this or discussed the reasons in the second published work.
If they are not in disagreement he should have explained this in the paper, and if they are in disagreement he should have explained the additional data in the paper that changed the results (or whatever other explanation there may be).
Certainly Marcott was aware of the differences so the omission was intentional, for whatever reason, thus opening the door to this speculation going on here.
Lucky America, with its press freedom enshrined in the Constitution.
It looks as if the UK is going down the road of a government controlled press.
Could this lead to a situation where only ‘authorised’ views of ‘climate science’ are allowed to be published, as the Scottish plan already seems very wide in its scope, and in the rest of the UK a future Parliament could make dissent illegal if it goes against the government of the day’s views.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9932023/Maria-Miller-Labour-and-Lib-Dems-could-open-the-door-to-state-licensing-of-the-press.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9932669/Scottish-newspapers-forced-to-sign-up-to-regulator-under-McLeveson-plan.html
HLx says: March 15, 2013 at 2:41 am
Grammatical error:
… it didn’t use_ to be there. Not used. 🙂
‘Used’ is correct, since we’re talking about the past.
Steven Mosher says:
March 15, 2013 at 7:43 am
‘“An even more intriguing possibility – perhaps the reviewers demanded Marcott add the hockey stick, as a requirement for their approval.”
beware of trolls pushing conspiracy theories to make folks look bad.
REPLY: Yes, I agree. Never ascribe malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence – Anthony’
Reviewers never make demands that something be added to an acceptable article. Thinking that reviewers make such demands is darn close to paranoia. However, reviewers should have questioned and rejected the blade of the hockey stick. (Also, whatever faults the article has, they do not affect acceptance of Marcott’s thesis and the award of his doctorate.)
We all must keep one thing in mind; the paper was published in “Science”. When was the last time you read anything in “Science” that was not AGW supporting? After 35 yrs, I resigned from the AAAS ~8 years ago because this glaring dogmatic promotion of climastrology.
BC
I wonder what Marcott’s faculty advisors have to say about this thesis v his new paper. Has anyone asked them?
REPLY: Yes, I agree. Never ascribe malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence – Anthony
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In this case a whole new level of incompetence seems to have been inserted between the original paper and the publication. If not malice, then at least perception management run amok. A rather incompetent attempt at perception management.
Normally I would agree with that statement but there seems to be a lot of said “incompetence” in the field of climate “science”. Trouble is, incompetence is equal opportunity. It should manifest equally in both directions. In the field of climate “science” it seems to always manifest in the same direction every time and usually from the same group of people. That tends to cause me to place less weight on the “simple incompetence” possibility.
Note also that the error bars have significantly been tightened. adding the new points might not make them larger, but it cannot make them smaller.
Theo Goodwin says at 8:47 am above that “Reviewers never make demands that something be added to an acceptable article.”
That entirely misses the point. If, in the reviewer’s mind, the article is UNacceptable (for whatever reason), then they certainly can and do say that adding Thing X would be necessary to make the article acceptable to them. The thing added may be a better sensitivity analysis, a discussion of discrepancies with other published papers, reconciliation with other data sources or a host of other requirements that should improve the paper.
The moral hazard is that there is no appeal or check on the reviewer’s sole opinion that the article as originally submitted was unacceptable. The author who feels strongly that the reviewer is off base may try to ignore the reviewer’s opinion and seek publication elsewhere. Or take the easier course and add whatever was requested and move on.
Note: I’m not saying that this did or did not happen in this case. But it is not mere paranoia to question whether one or more reviewers may have exerted undue influence over the process.
1. I believe it is perfectly fine to have one analysis in a diss thesis, and another in a publication. No big deal.
2. Here, the differences could be the tip-off of a trail leading to yet anoher story of data manipulation to manufacture a pre-conceived narrative which on its own is not supported by the data, accurately analyzed. Go for it.
3. It is very likely that one set of standards applied to diss defense, and anothe set applied to getting a paper published. The two are very different endeavors.
4. For Mann, the fix was in BEFORE the diss defense; I have read that Mann discovered his diss topic by making the association of Schneider, and being guided to carry out the MBH98 hockey stick diss via Schneider’s mentorship. I cannot locate this story on the interweb anymore since far too many subsequent irrelevant searhc results come up.
5. The diss gets placed in a library and in archives to perform its role as a contribution to science, generally. The committee’s names are attacked to it – each does not have to totally vouch for the diss, as nowadays all co-authors of a published paper have to, but they still have provided their imprimatur, meaning they generally approve, but are not necessarily at the “I totaly vet this analysis” level.
6. Because the diss is “out there” in the realm of science-for-all-to-see, and the committee’s names are attached, they have some dgree of accountability regadring answering questions of data selection, analysis, interpretation.
7. the committee is not “on the hook” at all for the publication . Only the manuscript authors. Which may or may not include some of the committee members. Almost always, the chair would be included, but the others would depend upon various circumstances.
8. While the diss is produced with very local forces, mostly just the committee, it may look one way, but when the manuscript is submitted, it is subject to a differnt set of forces – peer review, what the journal wants to say, etc.
9. So, this could very well be a story where the truth was in the diss, but the truth had to be juggled to get the analysis published.
–In a parallel issue where the truth will evenutally rise above politics, the status quo gate-keepers will not acknowledge that abortion contributes to breast cancer. While you woudl have a hard time getting a contrary paper published in the mainstream U.S.-based epi and cancer world, that game is not the only game in town.
Papers keep emerging from Asian countries, from near east to Pacific rim, including evidence in line with the ABC theory. The U.S./Canada/U.K./Australia/Western Europe cabal cannot suppress epidemiology data from China, Turkey, Iran, Korea, etc.
In the headlines recently was a study noting an upward trend of breast cancer, in the recent couple of decades, among women below the age of 45. In the study, and the press discussions of tis, and the scholarly and blog discussions, NOWHERE was the explanation of ABC even conjectured. Except in the pro-life blogosphere, where this entirely reasonable explanation was obvious to those of us NOT in the cabal.
Feyerabend had great discussions about the reality that “science” ultimately is a cultural practice, and so will always include cultural conventions and be subject to these biases I am referring to by saying “cabal.”
This is EXACTLY why Feyerabend wanted to advance the idea of anarchy science, where differing views and approaches could be sustained and set in the mix, along with whatever socail custom happens to be part of the orthodoxy; currently, manuscript peer review is simply a workable, accepted custom. This is why he titled a book, “Against Method.”
You can google “epistemological anarchy” and have some interesting reading. You probably should read Kuhn before Feyerabend, but a basic, honest science background, like they USED TO teach in middle schoo and high school, should suffice.
If you graduated high school after, I guess, 1987, or 1990 for sure, and if you started college accordingly /the next fall, you should be suspect of your grasp of “science,” unless you were fortunate to be taught by a genuine scientist or lover of science.
Mann was on that cusp. No wonder he was ready to pay along. And no big deal for Marcott, either: this is their culture, not the culture of those of us who learned “science” versus leftist political dogma (the environment is headed for disaster, we are killingth eplaent with overpopulation, etc.).
Paddylol:
At least one of the co-authors, Peter Clark, signed off on the theses abstracts of Marcott and Shakun. Both theses are largely peer reviewed papers.
Are there no respected scientists out there who have the credentials and the cojones to submit a collective rebuttal to Science, simultaneously published in NYT, WSJ, Atlantic, etc.? The goals should be to a) get the paper publicly and noisily and embarrassingly withdrawn; b) put warmist scientists on record as supporting or at least permitting this junk (or perhaps repudiating it as in “I would do anything for Love, but I won’t do that.”); c) showing that there is still some integrity among scientists. This effort must come from within the broad scientific community, not just from the “usual skeptics”. As I have posted before, silence is complicity. It’s time to remind some of these frog-like scientists that it’s getting boiling hot in the pond, and this is a good opportunity for them to hop out.
The story of his journey from cool to hockey stick would be a great evangelical piece for the alarmists, why hasn’t it been written yet?