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)
Don
I really don’t care if you give me the benefit of the doubt or not. What is important is the argument and not the person.
I don’t regard cautioning against drawing hasty conclusions as removing specks. This is a discussion on the Marcott et al. paper. Someone serious has levelled a serious accusation. This is not a community of experts (regardless of how some may think of themselves) dispassionately assessing the claim. To go further requires the authors to respond, not to hyperventilate about their apparent dishonesty, incompetence etc .
I’d like to take a stab at calming this row between Robert and several others, if I may.
Robert,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it the case that you see yourself as thinking as a good skeptic who is simply interested first in getting the facts – from all relevant sides and to the extent possible – analyzing them calmly and then allowing the chips to fall where they may, driven only by said facts? Let us assume for argument’s sake this is 100% the case. Your next step, in order to carry much weight with your target audience – the other posters on this site – is to present your arguments in a way that helps establish the validity of your belief that you are indeed just trying to get to the facts, as opposed to hiding some unrevealed agenda. The most straightforward (and thoroughly simple) way of achieving this would simply be to state some areas where you are in general agreement with your target audience. That way people have a much better idea of where you’re actually coming from. For example, it doesn’t matter how many times others have stated that the media hype of Marcott is overdone; if you agree with that, just say you do and give a brief explanation of why. To further illustrate how easy this all is, let me give an example of something you could say:
“Hello all. Let me begin by saying that I certainly do agree that media reports have done what they commonly do (and not just on the subject of climate change), which is to have reporters who understand little or nothing about the science behind a research paper mindlessly hype one portion or another of it, as if it were received wisdom from on high. I also agree that if this paper ends up being thoroughly shot down, the headlines and hype announcing such a crash and burn to the world will almost certainly be all but nonexistent – headlines go on top of Page A1, corrections at the bottom of page D22 (and then only grudgingly and sparsely, if at all).
“Regarding the Marcott paper itself and SM’s critiques up to this point, absolutely it is the case that, on the face of it, the changing of dates, the disappearance of some portions of some proxies, etc do indeed demand an explanation from Marcott, et al. But let’s not get too terribly far ahead of ourselves just yet. Presumably a response is indeed in the works, and for all we know the paper may have excellent reasons for having done whatever it’s done, so it’s just good science to wait and see it before forming too hardened a picture of things. Granted, if no response ever came, this would be very damning, and one would have little choice but to assume Marcott, et al have determined that no scientifically defensible explantion exists. But surely a response is coming, and we really should not jump to conclusions before then.
“What do you all think – does this make sense or not?”
Something like the above is a really good way to get things started on a mutually respectful, and therefore constructive, footing. Constructive dialogue should be our chief goal here, should it not? Anyway, if you feel that your position basically mimics what I’ve laid out in my example, just say so and let’s everyone get on with a continued attempt at said constructive dialogue.
FWIW.
@Robert – so why would this paper be published WITHOUT the necessary info and code to replicate the work? Is that only required on the skeptics side of science? Why would warmistas let Marcotte be thrown overboard, as a trial balloon to see if any hockey stick can survive?
Things are definitely weird in climate “science” these days. Since no one is going to die anytime soon over this stuff it is a free for all, if this were medicine or 787 batteries someone’s ass would be on the frying pan.
Robert,
you generalize without acknowleding the very special triviality of this case. This is about averaging a few numbers and a massive effect. Hard to imagine how 2 cold modern data points got lost unnoticed, almost impossible to imagine how warm medieval data points replaced them, leading to the blade moving wildly up from down.
Though waiting for a reply is the proper next step, I can easily understand anybody already switched to hyperventilation mode.
Well, I suppose that in fairness I should also grant Robert his points, to try and establish my own objectivity. I couldn’t agree more that we can’t conclude much before Marcott, et al respond, and even that may raise as many or more questions as it answers. In fact I’ll be shocked if it turns out otherwise. It’s also undeniable (well, to me any way) that, as in any forum such as this or CA or wherever, some posters will understand little of the actual subject matter, will engage in cheerleading and/or piling on, and therefore produce far more heat than light. The relative degree to which this happens among various sites can be debated, but clearly it happens to some extent everywhere. I saw once where Robert was called a troll, and I think this is extremely unhelpful to a pursuit of truth EXCEPT when the alleged violator is transparently guilty of the charge. Such a charge should be saved for that sort; otherwise the word ceases to carry meaning. Robert’s posts have absolutely not merited the charge, IMO, and I think it is healthy in the extreme to have posts such as Robert’s. Not only do they force others to focus and clean up their arguments, but they may actually make some good, helpful points, especially those that get the cognitive dissonance meters to crank up.
Having said all that, it would be bizarre and throughly anti-science – and I don’t think Robert is trying to go this far – to suggest that people cannot even BEGIN to assess a situation before all the facts are in. The discovery of truth is a process – a continuum – and speculation today drives the discovery process that will hopefully produce true understanding tomorrow. As long as people don’t treat speculation as fact, it’s the only choice they have in the beginning, before more facts are in. So by all means, let’s conclude things where the facts are clear and speculate where they are not (yet), and just make clear when we’re doing one and when we’re doing the other.
I hope this all doesn’t come across as too touchy-feely, and apologies if it is, and rest assured I have zero intentions of going on in this vain. I’m not a touchy-feely guy and sure don’t want to appear as one. I just hate seeing people never getting beyond talking past each other, because it’s just a waste of time for everyone, IMHO.
@Elmer. I don’t understand why you are so keen for a photograph of Marcott. I doubt it’s germane to the debate.
But if you must.
http://blogs.oregonstate.edu/antarctica/files/2013/01/DSC_0128.jpg
I was amazed by the total effect of the response video. I will admit that I was not greatly impressed by it, but a dog which I had picked up from the pound a number of years ago was. This was the first time that I have ever seen him pay any attention to the computer or the noises that it makes.
He came charging into the room and almost pushed me aside so that he could investigate. I was able to keep from laughing at him but his interest was very great and I did not want to spoil it for him.
Robert at 6:12 am says in paraphrasing what the authors of Marcott might say in their defense: “The “blade” was described in the text as being unreliable and not a valid measurement. Its a bit absurd to focus on something the authors themselves don’t regard as significant.”
They were selling this thing as something even they admitted it was not. They were feeding the media frenzy. You must have missed this bit of Revkin’s interview with Shakun which I transcribed:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/14/no-uptick-in-marcott-thesis/#comment-404659
Are you new to this controversy? It seems to me you lack historical context. I’ve been reading and commenting on Steve’s blog (and this one) for seven years now. My training is in history and literature. I trust that blog and not only because of Steve, but because of others like Roman, Jean S., Mosher, UC, Jeff Norman, Brandon Schollenberger and Mr. Pete. Other excellent scientists/statisticians like Bender have passed through and contributed. It’s a wild and woolly affair, but it’s effective. While I agree that the piling on can get excessive, I believe it to be an entirely natural response to the less than professional behavior of several principals in the field climate science over the last two decades. Also complicit in this bad behavior have been many politicians who are acting on “authority” as you put it (Never mind that the science conveniently fits in with their world view). Have your read Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion? Have you read Donna LaFramboise”s The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert?
There is a history behind all the acrimony. The stakes are very high, in the range of hundreds of billions of dollars if not more, if you want to put a monetary value on it. If people get a little emotional about it, can you blame them?
You also don’t seem to understand the concept of circumstantial evidence, which although it is a legal and not a scientific term, applies here. Many people who lack the scientific skills are trying to come to a decision on these matters. The evidence, if I may use another legal term, is piling up against the principals in the field of climate science who have been, at great benefit to themselves, pushing the AGW hypothesis and–if you view the temperature record for the last decade and half– grossly overselling it, or so it seems. This is costing you, me and hundreds of millions of other people around the world a significant amount of money as governments react to the overselling with constrictive legislation and onerous regulations.
As a student of history, I always try and look at the longer, broader view of things. I’ve looked at this controversy up close for several years now and while I’m not particularly conversant in the science, I recognize patterns of behavior that have occurred before in other controversial scientific discoveries and–dare I say it?– hoaxes that were likewise oversold.
I too sympathize with both Marcott and Shakun, who have not been served well by their elders in this controversy and may have been victimized by overly strident instructors in the course of their education in the natural sciences. But the paper is what it is. And the way it was presented is what it is.
Robert says:
March 18, 2013 at 8:19 am
Do you think your “cult argument” applies in this case ? If not, why not ?
++++++++
Your attempt to deflect the cult analogy to CA is evidence that you agree that RC is a cult, or that the evidence is too overpowering to refute successfully. Otherwise you would argue the point.
No, CA does not qualify as a cult. Consider this analogy from religious history: At RC you can argue how many angels dance on the head of a pin, but you cannot argue that there are no angels. At CA you can argue the best way to determine if there are angels and if there are, how many are dancing on the pin and how certain you can be of the result.
One site argues that angels exists beyond question. The other argues that we have the right to question if angels exist. One argues for belief based on authority, the other argues for the right to question authority as a basis for belief. History has already shown us time and time again the path that is most likely to lead the masses to their doom.
provoter says:
March 18, 2013 at 5:44 pm
I like your work. Thanks.
Robert says:
March 18, 2013 at 4:44 pm
“Theo – You ought to stop digging. You’ve contradicted yourself a lot during this discussion.”
Show me one contradiction.
Donald Mitchell wrote: “I will admit that I was not greatly impressed by it, but a dog which I had picked up from the pound a number of years ago was.”
McIntyre did describe the paper as “a real dog’s breakfast.” This confirms it. LOL
pottereaton says:
March 18, 2013 at 7:03 pm
“Robert at 6:12 am says in paraphrasing what the authors of Marcott might say in their defense: “The “blade” was described in the text as being unreliable and not a valid measurement. Its a bit absurd to focus on something the authors themselves don’t regard as significant.”
They were selling this thing as something even they admitted it was not. They were feeding the media frenzy. You must have missed this bit of Revkin’s interview with Shakun which I transcribed:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/14/no-uptick-in-marcott-thesis/#comment-404659
…
But the paper is what it is. And the way it was presented is what it is.”
Spot on! Especially the last sentence. The paper was published in “Science,” for Goodness Sake, and is a completed, finished, finalized document that stands on its own. The authors are responsible for any error in that paper regardless of what they have done, said, or written elsewhere.
At the time of Climategate1, Phil Jones and Michael Mann loudly proclaimed that their published work, including the hockey stick, was clear as a bell to scientists and that no one should be upset about Mike’s Nature Trick. We know what happened to that argument.
And that’s where I call “Horse Feathers” on your whole argument, Robert.
You see, you indicated “et al” after Marcott, showing he was not one individual but the first of several–there were co-authors. Also, weren’t there several reviewers of this (I assume you think) “wonderful” paper? Why did they let Marcott, who is this “young guy starting off in his career”, take it on the nose for such a questionable job? Had they never heard of (the human, non-god but statician extraordinaire) Steven McIntyre?
Was Marcott pre-selected to be Mann Junior? The MSM certainly seem to think so based on their cover for such sloppy work. Isn’t this just in time for IPCC inclusion?
But like you, I shall wait and see what Marcott’s response is–too bad he got off to such a rocky start, don’t you think?
And too bad his paper didn’t hit CAGW out of the ballpark for “The Team”, huh? And forgive me for assuming, but after each of your parries, I became less and less convinced you want Marcott to crater. But I’m not convinced he won’t, for shame.
Robert,
I would suggest that you may be misreading the tone of comments at CA. There is a lot of history and what you are perceiving as cheerleading is more like deja vu. It would be informative but very time consuming, for example, to look at the history behind how many PCs were retained in Steig, et al., 2009. The number retained was just a little too convenient. This paper seems to have the same flavor. However, I have a little different take on the authors, especially Marcott and Shakun. It seems to me that these two have been used as cannon fodder, while the wiser elders keep their distance safely shielded. For this reason, I see very troubling ethical issues on part of the elders, while the young ones are going through a learning experience that they may not have been prepared for properly by their mentors.
David L. says:
March 18, 2013 at 2:17 pm
Frank K. says:
March 18, 2013 at 6:50 am
Their response fit in with the general level of professionalism exhibited by many of the mainstream CAGW “scientists”.
BTW – it was 8 F here in New Hampshire this morning, and a big snow storm is headed our way tomorrow – in the middle of March. Happy Global Warming(tm) spring!
Snowed here in Philly all day saturday and I had to shovel the walk. Snowing right now (Monday) as I look out my window. They are predicting up to 6 inches. This Wed. is the first day of spring. And here I thought it arrived earlier and earlier each year: I’d be thankful for spring as early as Wed.
============
Freezing here in Toronto, too, with the same weather system plaguing us. Those damned groundhogs got it wrong again! (Mind you, in fairness, there was no groundhog consensus on Groundhog day this year, but the local varmint definitely messed up.)
Robert, have you seen this comment from Paul Dennis? It might answer some of your questions:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/3/16/omg.html?currentPage=3#comment19841741
Theo Goodwin says:
March 18, 2013 at 9:47 am:
“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.”
Great point. In a similar vein, there need to be SM understudies. Firstly, he is only one man, and no one should be comfortable with all these eggs being in one single basket. Secondly, everyone retires eventually. I don’t know if it’s something he’s given much thought to, but it seems like he could do a ton of good by offering courses or even just seminars or workshops on what he actually does and how he does it. I’m of course talking primarily about talented math and stats people, graduate level or beyond, as it would make zero sense for him to provide entry- or mid-evel stuff. He could charge a tidy little fee and do well by doing good. Livestream.com (among others) is an ideal vehicle for conducting online teaching and seminars.
In short, that kind of knowledge should be shared and propagated while the opportunity lasts. Thousands of people have the necessary skills and training to do more or less what McIntyre does, but he has that special combination of traits and skills that would most reliably and effectively be passed on straight from the original source. It would be a waste if they went extinct through his eventual retirement, lost to the “gene pool” for good.
John Slayton says:
March 18, 2013 at 9:09 am
My cat appeared to be initially alarmed at their response, but he calmed down once he identified the source. What is Kenji’s take?
My cat, Mr. Bugsy, was also alarmed by the wolf howling. First, I allowed my daughter’s little dog to visit and have the run of HIS house and now I have wolves behind the funny window on the desk! He’s not happy with me.
Robert says:
March 18, 2013 at 6:12 am
H.R:
I suspect their eventual response will be :
The “blade” was described in the text as being unreliable and not a valid measurement. Its a bit absurd to focus on something the authors themselves don’t regard as significant.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Robert, I agree wholeheartedly with your points about the unthinking pack mentality from some posters on here but, as has been said elsewhere, that’s a natural feature of any open forum. To be fair to WUWT, at least here it’s not the moderators who ringlead that behaviour by editing / binning valid points (such as yours) that don’t agree with the mob. Posters here, on either side of the debate, are assumed to be adults unless they choose to prove otherwise!
As for the part of your initial post I’ve copied above, allowing my scepticism to run (very slightly) into cynicism, I’d suggest there may be a very good reason that the authors “don’t regard it as significant”.
Lets assume for a minute that Steve M’s analysis of the flaws is correct. I certainly can’t judge that, although I can understand what he’s saying and can see it APPEARS to be a problem. The authors and the team are smart cookies. If these “problems” are real then it’s hard to believe they weren’t aware. before publication – the apparent issues certainly seem pretty straightforward once highlighted.
But the (scientifically) “unimportant” part is undoubtedly the headline-grabber (and, therefore, the most politically important part) of this paper – another hockey stick, and this one with a full 15 1/2 inch goalkeeper’s blade! Knowing that the flaws WILL be found, and also knowing that the headlines will already be published, of course you put a note in the paper itself saying that part really doesn’t matter!
It’s an SOP of manipulators to have their cover story safely in place beforehand.
Reblogged this on Climate Daily.
I realise that describing a problem of a lack of scepticism to a bunch people who pride themselves on that label is never going to win me friends. However, I’ve seen nothing written here that addressed my central points.
At the risk of repetition, I’ll write them again:
(1) A serious person has levelled a serious allegation and put forward evidence. If true, this implies a case of very poor scientific ethics which would merit disciplinary action.
(2) This, along with the other points raised about the analysis, deserves a response within a sensible time scale.
(3) Data analysis is complex. In spite of being a physical scientist for 20 years I don’t feel qualified to pass judgement until I’ve seen all the facts. I’m painfully aware how complex things are and that there are quite often innocent explanations for apparent wrong-doing.The response mentioned in (2) is a key missing fact.
(4) Appeals to authority (eg Steve) don’t overcome (3). Appeals to your own analytical ability don’t do too much either I’m afraid.
(5) Writing offensive things about me may make the poster feel better but it doesn’t do much to beat my arguments either.
I could also add that, rather interestingly, the only person who said that they agree with much of what I write was Steve Mcintyre. I’m also pleased that he took my suggestion and contacted Marcott directly to ask for a response. Great. The author of the most unpopular posts on this thread has probably contributed the only concrete thing (the suggestion of contact with Marcott taken up by Steve) to emerge from this discussion. Incidentally, *any one* of you could have done the same thing. Instead it seems there is a preference for judgement after step (1). Sorry, but I can’t you join you in a judgement until steps (1) and (2) are followed. If you really want the sceptic label you should think hard about this. I doubt you will though.
****
vigilantfish says:
March 18, 2013 at 9:18 pm
Freezing here in Toronto, too, with the same weather system plaguing us. Those damned groundhogs got it wrong again! (Mind you, in fairness, there was no groundhog consensus on Groundhog day this year, but the local varmint definitely messed up.)
****
Couple more inches of globull warming here in western MD — again.
10 day model shows re-establishment of incessant northerly flow across east NA after a brief break. Cold all the way thru the rest of March…
Robert
I’ve been following your comments here with some amusement. The best I can make out it is that in your opinion we should wait to see if the authors get back and reply here, at CA or elsewhere to the issues raised, and if so what they then do reply!? And I agree, it will be interesting to see how they handle this.
But why are you arguing that meanwhile no criticism should be levelled at the paper, the authors, the reviewers, the editors and journal, and no speculation should be allowed before they clarify things? Why is that?
Whatever reply there will be (even if it’s utter silence) will raise new questions and criticism. Should everybody then again hold their breath in anticipation of another possibly (not) forthcoming response? I don’t get that part at all! Neither do I get the part that others should be ‘troubled’ about comments you think are uninformed or just applauding in support. Why?
I you want to wait for a reply, and if you expect that such a reply would be forthcoming and could be taken at face value (wrt to the quite severe criticism), you are of course free to do so. But your argument seems to be: Therefore also everybody else should keep quite meanwhile.
You’ve gotten a fair number of (different) and sensible replies (and some snark, but hardly’ hyperbole’). But one of them I think is inaccurate: I don’t think you are new to the discussion pr the field and unaware of its history and previous instances of ‘remarkable’ treatment of proxy-data. On the contrary, you tell us you are quite familiar with how RealClimate works .. Neither should you then be unfamiliar with how concern, queries, questions and requests for background information about previous ‘reconstructions’ have panned out. But here you strongly argue the ‘Wait and see. Wait for their response. And hold back and do/say nothing before they had a chance to reply’, is that what you really are argueing?
Are you arguing that none of them has had any (reasonable) chance to reply, that all of them should be assumed to be completely unprepared for the scrutiny and the resulting questions!? Really?
You (from your stated layman’s perspective) seem to acknowledge that the queries are legitimate. You even point out that the ‘take away message’ of the paper and the main graph is not really science or a real ‘reconstruction’ but (inside the paper) hinted to be ‘questionable’ albeit being the basis for some very strong assertions about present and past temperatures?
And you spend many carefully worded long comments for several days at several blogs arguing that all others should sit quiet? That this would be more helpful getting to the truth?
Well, one problem, Robert, is that the various players of the climate industry have argued for decades that the sceptics should remain quiet, and not only that. They should be silenced and excluded, submissions rejected or buried and worse. And you can hardly argued that this, or skeptics complying with those wishes has furthered any truth, can you?
So why are you so adamant about the tone of some commenters here? And that others should not attempt to form (enlightened) opinions about what this paper is about. After all, it is in its final form, and it is as such it is taking heat, or if you will ‘reviewed by peers’ thoroughly for (probably) the first time. You seem to have a problem with that … and I too wonder why!
Jonas N
I’m pleased that you acknowledge that my posts (made on two threads btw) are carefully worded. This, however, makes your misunderstanding of them a little worrying. “And you spend many carefully worded long comments for several days at several blogs arguing that all others should sit quiet? That this would be more helpful getting to the truth?” . Come on. Please try not to put words into my mouth. If I want to write something, I’ll write it – I don’t need you to do it. Far from asking others to keep quiet I have actually complained that there hadn’t been a discussion. A discussion would consider the possibility of alternative explanations. A discussion would have focused on the details of Steve’s analysis and held them up for sceptical inquiry not cheering. A discussion does not consist of everyone essentially saying the same thing. The one decent contribution from this thread which may have led to more facts on the table and which would have been (in your words) “helpful getting to the truth” came from *me* – when Steve took up my suggestion to contact the authors directly for a response. If the response is lousy this strengthens Steve’s argument massively.
Regarding me not being a newcomer, this is utterly irrelevent. If its of really any interest to you I’ve followed Steve’s blog since the early days of the Mann et al. hockey stick. I occasionally post at RC, CA , Judith Curry’s blog and WUWT. My views on the whole climate issue are actually very similar to Mcintyre’s btw. I find the general tone of comments at each of the blogs to be much the same, with CA being better than the rest but still rather full of atta-boys who can’t abide the slightest bit of criticism.
BTW I have a PhD in particle physics and I’m a professor at a major European University. None of that gives the slightest authority in any argument – it should, however, explain why I choose my words carefully and why I argue as I do here. I’ve seen too many cases of people attacking others with arguments they thought were watertight and being left with egg on their faces. Science is complex. Steve may be right or wrong – he certainly has evidence. I prefer to collect the full body of evidence prior to making a judgement. The idea that this means I try to stop a discussion is ridiculous.
Three things to think about – (1) If I haven’t written it, don’t assume I think it, I didn’t do this to you (2) Mcintyre was the only person who actually said he agreed with much of what I wrote (3) The only useful contribution to actually getting more facts on the table ultimately came from me (how’s that for forming “enlightened opinions”). It may not have been much but this was a lot better than posts comparing the analysis to snake oil.