Many people have been wondering what sort of response would be coming now that Steve has conclusively shown that the Marcott et al “hockey stick” is nothing more than an artifact of what appears to be the worst case of cherry picking ever.
His latest post reveals how to ‘Hide the Decline’, Marcott style:
By blanking out the three most recent values of their proxy #23, the earliest dated value was 10.93 BP (1939.07 AD). As a result, the MD01-2421+KNR02-06 alkenone series was excluded from the 1940 population. I am unable to locate any documented methodology that would lead to the blanking out of the last three values of this dataset. Nor am I presently aware of any rational basis for excluding the three most recent values.
Since this series was strongly negative in the 20th century, its removal (together with the related removal of OCE326-GGC30 and the importation of medieval data) led to the closing uptick.
Here’s the response from Real Climate Scientists™
(h/t to commenter Richard Mason on the Powerline blog)
From the YouTube description:
Stars in the background are artificial, as is the passing airplane.
Seems like a perfect response.
Read McIntyre’s latest here
Related articles
- McIntyre finds the Marcott ‘trick’ – How long before Science has to retract Marcott et al? (wattsupwiththat.com)
- The Marcott-Shakun Dating Service (climateaudit.org)
- Hiding the Decline: MD01-2421 (climateaudit.org)
- The Hockey Stick, Broken Again (powerlineblog.com)
- How Marcottian Upticks Arise (climateaudit.org)
- Marcott’s hockey stick uptick mystery – it didn’t used to be there (wattsupwiththat.com)
Robert says:
March 18, 2013 at 8:19 am
You missed my comments at ClimateAudit. I will post more critical comments and some of them will be at WUWT and at the Bishop’s. Others have posted in support of my comments. As much as I admire McIntyre, there is no cult.
The main reason that McIntyre gets a lot of pats on the back is that he does the statistical work for the rest of us. Also, he has a huge record of success in this activity. In matters of statistics, he is the authority for skeptics and Alarmists alike. Yes, Alarmists too. Not one of them has successfully challenged his statistical analyses.
As wonderful as McIntyre is, he is half of what we need. We need a twin to McIntyre who can rip into the empirical side of the work as effectively as McIntyre rips into the statistical side. The temperature proxies used by Marcott are way too weak to bear the weight he puts on them. We need someone who can demonstrate that point for all the world to see. In the case of “hide the decline,” the emails gave us enough information that we ordinary folk could do that work and we did it extremely well. On Marcott’s proxies, we need help.
phlogiston says:
March 18, 2013 at 9:32 am
:”A farted room.” You nailed it. Thanks.
My response to Real Climate is very similar to the above, but my moon is smaller.
So a nondescript PhD thesis gets massaged with the help of crayons and juice boxes and becomes the Cat’s Ass of CAGW with none of the bullies aware that the teacher would check. Once found out bullies say not a word and then start pointing fingers everywhere…
Theo
I was careful in my wording. There is a large atta-boy contingent at CA which fits perfectly well the cult description given earlier about RC.
I have no doubt that RC readers who rely on the authors of that site for their “authority” arguments would say the same thing about these scientists as many CA readers do about Mcintyre. I would also be very surprised if climatologists would agree with your statement that not one alarmist ” has successfully challenged his (Mcintyre’s) statistical analyses”.
There is certainly more discussion at CA than RC. However, as mentioned earlier, my words were chosen carefully – they describe the large volume of posters who are simply applauding Mcintyre for reaching a conclusion they rather like despite these posters having little or no understanding of the issue.
I have no idea if Mcintyre is right or wrong in this case. He has strongly implied that some young scientists are guilty of data manipulation – this is serious. He is certainly not without evidence. However, before I draw any conclusion I want to see what the scientists have to say (and its up to them to decide how and when to respond, within a reasonable time scale). It would have been far better had he contacted them before putting up his latest post – I would have done so in his situation. I don’t care if other scientists have behaved poorly towards Mcintyre, guilt by association never really did it for me as a useful concept.
If you’re not troubled by a lot of people who simply read Mcintyre’s argument, decide he’s right (he’s Mcintyre) and then post accordingly then you should be.
Marcott-Shakun report was proof read, and then subject to “peer-review”.
Given what had happened with Mann et al. and that whole mess that was, someone in this paper’s “peer-review” process should have realized that all the figures required checking.
Surely now it is so obvious that the “peer-review” process is broken, and to any reasonable person the process is beyond repair. The whole process needs to be stripped away and a fully open system, with check and balances installed. Until then all parties involve in this paper’s “peer-review” process should be held to account pending dismissal.
Replace it with a more open – dare I say it, a more challenging review process – a review where those in the field and out side the field are allowed to question methods and results. Where the reviewer’s reputation and income is affected by their actions.
After-all on the basis of reports such as this on $Billion will be foolishly wasted.
McIntyre gave us a rock solid basis for complaint against Marcott, NSF, and “Science.” He writes:
“By blanking out the three most recent values of their proxy #23, the earliest dated value was 10.93 BP (1939.07 AD). As a result, the MD01-2421+KNR02-06 alkenone series was excluded from the 1940 population. I am unable to locate any documented methodology that would lead to the blanking out of the last three values of this dataset. Nor am I presently aware of any rational basis for excluding the three most recent values.
Since this series was strongly negative in the 20th century, its removal (together with the related removal of OCE326-GGC30 and the importation of medieval data) led to the closing uptick.”
The problem described goes way beyond confirmation bias. There is no rational basis for truncating the series. Truncating a series is far more than cherry picking. It is taking deliberate action that changes the series. Because there is no rational reason for the change, the action of truncating the series must be understood as deliberately giving a false impression of the series. Apart from making up data, I cannot imagine a more serious offense by an author.
Tckev
Can you please explain what is wrong with Marcott paper ?
I’ve seen some sensible complaints about the most recent period which they themselves describe in the paper as being unreliable. The paper’s focus, however, historical temperatures stretching back 10000 years. Are these measurements wrong ? If so, how.
Can you please describe in detail the problems with the paper which imply that the results it describes as reliable are actually unreliable.
BTW “Steve said so ” isn’t an acceptable answer here…
Funny … LOL … you’re the greatest WUWT!
Robert says:
March 18, 2013 at 10:08 am
…
“I have no idea if Mcintyre is right or wrong in this case.”
We have to get past this before we can engage in a broader discussion. Where is he mistaken?
tckev says:
March 18, 2013 at 10:10 am
They need reviewers who have McIntyre’s skill level in statistics. No doubt they use only climate scientists.
One word description: “Stonewalling” (stonewall, stony silence) To engage in delaying tactics; stall, refuse to answer or cooperate; stall – a tactic used to mislead or delay.
.
Theo
I’m confused. You base the complaint on one person’s investigation and the fact that he disagrees with a given procedure and can’t find any documentation showing what was done was sensible.
I’m not quite sure that this counts as a “rock solid” basis for complaint. I recall in that the CA discussion an expert in dating proxies writing he saw no problem with Marcott et al,’s actions. Steve responded that he was 99.99% sure that the expert was keeping quiet out of loyalty. I’m not quite sure what to make of that.
A bit less hyperbole might be sensible. A serious person has asked a serious question to Marcott et al. . Hyperventilating before there has even a response from the authors is not sensible.
Theo
You wrote:
“I have no idea if Mcintyre is right or wrong in this case.”
We have to get past this before we can engage in a broader discussion. Where is he mistaken?
———————————————————————————————————————
Where do I have to show Steve is wrong ? I’m no expert on dating proxies, are you ? How can I possibly have an opinion worth having on this at this stage ?
In this situation of one person making allegation I am doing what most sceptics and sensible people would do:
(1) read to the allegations + discussion
(2) read the responses + discussion
If (1) and (2) are properly worded then I can probably at a fairly informed judgement (I’m a physical scientist). So far I’ve done step (1) . Not enough for me, and it shouldn’t be enough for you either.
I just went over to Real Climate and did a search on the word “Marcott”. There is not a single mention of his name in 2013! It can’t just be that they’re neglecting him; they must be blocking any mention of him. Pretty soon he will join McIntyre as “They Who Cannot Be Named”!
“All that is now
All that is gone
All that’s to come
and everything under the sun is in tune
but the sun is eclipsed by the moon.”
-from: Eclipse/Dark Side Of The Moon- Pink Floyd/Roger Waters
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says (March 18, 2013 at 7:06 am): “Anthony I love your site, but I think you gave into temptation here.”
Yeah, he did. And it was soooooo funny!
TImothy Sorenson says (March 18, 2013 at 8:14 am): “Based on the frequency of Snowy Tree Cricket pulse and time-interval analysis…”
Thank you, Sheldon, but it’s really a common field cricket and its name is Toby:
Robert, do you have any idea why the experts at RC are so quiet on this subject?
Are they in shock?
Have they simply dismissed this whole issue (actively ignoring or denying it)?
Or, are they busily attempting further replication of SM’s or Marcott’s work?
Any comment on that?
Are you aware that Nick Stokes is also actively looking at this subject?
Are you aware of his findings to date?
.
Robert says:
March 18, 2013 at 10:53 am
What I read on McIntyre’s site strikes me as similar to “1 + 1 = 2.” I think you just have to read carefully. Maybe do an outline. All he is doing is discussing how the series are used in Marcott’s thesis and paper and showing choices that Marcott made. You do not have to know statistics to follow that.
Jim
I do love the “series of questions” style of post you made.
Why would I care what RC is doing or isn’t doing ? Oh, I see, they are quiet because they can’t defend the indefensible. Well, having seen many of their posts in the past when they’ve done just that, I don’t take several days silence as being indicative of a problem in the analysis. Also, I seem to recall that it took them a few days in the past to respond to Steve’s posts.
Are they in shock ? I’ve no idea. I certainly was when I saw your post and realised you were seriously trying to use RC’s silence as evidence to support Steve. No wonder they laugh at you.
Am I aware what Nick Stokes is doing ? I’m vaguely aware of Nick Stokes. He’s that guy who argues that black is white. I therefore really don’t care what he’s doing and I probably wouldn’t trust his findings regardless of whether they were for or against Marcott et al. (Nick Stokes, I mean, seriously…..).
Re MarkW. 😉
Robert,
McIntyre writes:
“I am unable to locate any documented methodology that would lead to the blanking out of the last three values of this dataset. Nor am I presently aware of any rational basis for excluding the three most recent values.”
McIntyre is being very polite. But surely you can see that when a series of proxies is identified by a name and the author removes the post-1939 values from that series yet continues to use the same name for the series and provides no description or explanation of what he has done then he is now misusing the name of the series and misrepresenting the series. Surely, you can see that. How is McIntyre wrong about that?
Theo
Is this really your argument ? That a response from the authors isn’t really needed before one forms a judgement because its so incredibly straightforward and damning ? This is ridiculous. Its far from being trivial. If you think to liken it to 1+1=2 then you haven’t followed the discussion..
I’ve been a scientist for the past 20 years – data analysis is what I do. In this case the key issue is not what was done, which to first order is clear, but why it was done. Fundamentally, this is an issue of proxy treatment. I’m far from an expert here, and nor are you !
Do you really think not think it helpful to seek a response from the people who did the analysis prior to coming to a conclusion ?
This is supposed to be a sceptics’ site. I guess scepticism is only good when its not directed at Steve Mcintyre. :).
Theo
Please don’t give me “surely you can see” argument….
Wait for a response. Its what a real sceptic would do.
There are few arguments that don’t have counter arguments, regardless of how persuasive the first argument may appear to be.
No scientific expertise is required to fully comprehend the disaster of today’s green mania based on expert claims:
There is no uptick in the data (Marcott’s hockey stick).
There was no warming in the data of the Antarctic mainland (Steig’s map).
A simple tide gauge average shows no trend change in 150 years (Church & White’s chart).
Polar bears are thriving (Gore’s movie).
The 1930s were clearly hotter than this decade (Hansen’s graph).
Real single-site thermometer records in the US and Europe back to the 1700s and even 1600s shows no trend change (IPCC reports).
AGW theory is the theory of massive water vapor enhancement of boring old greenhouse warming (Democratic smears).
It’s a false alarm based on clear scientific fraud encouraged by massive federal funding of climatology that punishes critical thinking.