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)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
> From the YouTube description:
> “Stars in the background are artificial, as is the passing airplane.”
Ahemmm… was that “passing airplane” a Harrier Jump-Jet flying backwards??? Airplanes have green navigation lights on the right wingtip, and red on the left wingtip. If it was flying forward (left to right relative to us) then we should have seen the righthand (green) light.
Robert
I don’t think I have misread you, or put words in your mouth. Rather, I have been reading them and tried making some consistent sense out of them. And yes, the bulk of them suggest that you urge those you like to paint as sensible to shut up and wait for a reply ..
Maybe that’s what you mean by ‘discussion’!? And if, or when that happens, there would be more to delve in, I agree, and possibly some new and interesting aspects. However, if you expect a reply to be conclusive or definite, or finally settling or clarifying things, I’d say you will disappointed. And I really don think you expect a full-disclosure reply about all the questionmarks. If there were dubious choices made, at best we can hope to hear some diversion and waffle ..
And that was really my question to you: What indeed is it that you are arguing? The ‘If I didn’t write it … I didn’t mean it either’ is waffle. You mean quite a lot of things you aren’t writing. And that’s why I am asking. You say that a ‘discussion’ would focus on points raised by Steve, but I can’t see you doing that at all. Others have raised other points, legitimate or not. I can’t see that you have adressed those either. You comment on the use of the term ‘snake-oil’ but do not address any part of any substantive issues raised.
And no, I don’t think you can stop a discussion. But apart from stating your view that ‘all the evidence is not in’ you’ve spent days urging others not to discuss … While not even participating in any discussion about what is already on the table (which n.b. is the entire paper!)
BTW, your notion that people “can’t abide the slightest bit of criticism” is completely false. You are the perfect demonstration of this. You get a variety of different sensible replies of how and why people are not agreeing with you, asking you further questions (which you sometimes carefully avoid).
And yes, people may be very convinced about their position. And wrong. Which results in eggs in faces. But as long as they were honest about their convictions, I don’t see a problem with that. The more difficult part is to admit and correct whan one has been wrong ..
Regarding your points:
1) I expect you to mean what you do write. (I don’t expect you to reveal every one of your motives). And when I think what you write doesn’t add up, I a) try to figure out what that could mean, and b) ask you what you did mean. Your lack of answer means: Goto pt 1 again.
2) More than SteveMc granted you some points. And questioned others. I don’t think you’ve added much.
3) I certainly don’t think you contributed to any understanding of what has been going on. You only said we should wait for the others to reply. Which of course we all do. Meanwhile they haven’t and that is where we are at present. You disaproving of the term ‘snake oil’ is comparable to you labeling CA as cult. Not entirely convincing wrt consistency …
Well, Robert, you have more faith in these “climate scientists” than I do. For example, Mann’s hockey stick algorithm produces a hockey stick regardless of the data fed into it, and he’s never once acknowledged the problem (at least not publicly). I can’t predict the future 100%, but his behavior indicates he likely never will.
And we’ll see whether Marcott ever comes up with explanations on the issues Mr. McIntyre has raised, but by and large I find Marcott’s approach isn’t as transparent as it should be. It may be unfair to lump Marcott in with “The Team”, but that’s the crowd he’s apparently most comfortable with, and I detect an agenda that trumps real science.
We’ll see, yes, we’ll see. If nothing ever comes of this inquiry we’ll just apply the “snake oil” label whether you like it or not–it’s an accurate description of his behavior. But then, “snake oil” is also how I describe Mann’s self-serving algorithms, too, for had he owned up to the fictitious nature of such, CAGW would be a fad of the past. Instead, we’re stuck in a world where CO2 is considered a toxin and global energy policy bows to a falsehood. For most in the 1%, it matters little or less. For the rest of us, it is turning out to be rather devastating.
Or should I just patiently wait 100 years for Mann to be more forthcoming? (Maybe you could ask Mr. McIntyre to ask Mr. Mann why the delay…)
Robert says:
March 19, 2013 at 9:19 am
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.
Robert, there have been other attempts at reading through the data.
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/hockey-stick-found-in-marcott-data/
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/more-fishing-for-hockey-sticks-in-marcott-et-al-2013/
even by a warmist:
http://moyhu.blogspot.co.at/2013/03/my-limited-emulation-of-marcott-et-al.html
which could not reproduce the stick starting from the initial data published, so it is clear that the result is obtained in some specific circumstances.
There have been several weaknesses showed already: proxies not conform to their own criteria,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/marcotts-proxies/
smoothing over 300 years but a stick “unsmoothen” and “not robust” at the end and so on and finally unclear new dating service which fits to a sudden stick,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/11/validity-of-a-reconstruction-of-regional-and-global-temperature-for-the-past-11300-years/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/validity-of-marcott-et-al-part-ii/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/11/a-simple-test-of-marcott-et-al-2013/
the disappearance of some records and the divergence to the own previous doctor thesis.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/14/marcotts-hockey-stick-uptick-mystery-it-didnt-used-to-be-there/
the divergence to the previous stick by 50 years (the new one has the stick prior to 1950!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/14/another-hockey-stick/
It is no appeal to authority, it is simply debunked.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/10/it-has-come-down-to-this-climate-science-has-become-a-stick-fight/
Jonas N
You certainly have put words into my mouth. As I was very careful in my wording (as you noted), and I simply don’t recognise thes nonsense you write.
Regarding your points:
“1) I expect you to mean what you do write. (I don’t expect you to reveal every one of your motives). And when I think what you write doesn’t add up, I a) try to figure out what that could mean, and b) ask you what you did mean. Your lack of answer means: Goto pt 1 again.”
When I write that your talking nonsense about my motives (as I did), I’m writing what I mean. Therefore you don’t, as you write, expect me to write what I mean. If it doesn’t stack up to you then there is nothing much I can do about it. I can’t change my motives to fit your prejudice. Maybe you should change your prejudice to fit my motives ?
2) More than SteveMc granted you some points. And questioned others. I don’t think you’ve added much.
Yep – he granted me more than others here and questioned some points. I also grant him things questioned him on some of his points. This is a discussion. Regarding what I’ve added, I don’t think I’ve added much (indeed I wrote this – remember that bit about me writing what I mean and being careful with words) . I just think I’ve added more than others since Marcott et al. have now been directly contacted. A step closer to getting more facts. I’m at a loss to see how the other contributions. have made a similar contribution.
3) I certainly don’t think you contributed to any understanding of what has been going on. You only said we should wait for the others to reply. Which of course we all do. Meanwhile they haven’t and that is where we are at present. You disaproving of the term ‘snake oil’ is comparable to you labeling CA as cult. Not entirely convincing wrt consistency …
Please stop this tactic of telling me what I wrote. I talked about judgement – that bit where one pronounces guilt, shoddy practice etc. If an attempt at a discussion about accumulating facts isn’t constructive then I’m not sure what is. Did I really label CA a cult ? I must have missed this. I certainly responded to a post in which the poster accused RC of being a cult and drew a parallel with some CA posters. As ever, the full quote tells a different story to the one you portrary (and I stand by the quote 100% though it must be understood in the context of a reply to an earlier post and definition given therein – all sources available here).
“Take a look at climate audit discussions. There are certainly a few expert comments in there. However, quite a lot just want to clap Steve on the back and join in with the condemnation of whoever is being audited without having any understanding of the details at hand. Do you think your “cult argument” applies in this case ? If not, why not ?”
Attack me. But please be intellectually honest about it and don’t invent or twist things.
Robert
Still no! Neither am I writing nonsense, nor am I putting words in your mouth. If I’ve misread some detail, feel free to correct me.
I never claimed to know your motives, I claimed the opposite. You call that nonsense? Really? What I said is that you (your claimed assertions) don’t always add up, and also look peculiar. Because most certainly not all you write is ‘carefully worded’. To be sure, your comments to or about others haven’t been. But most obvious is that you have not engaged in any of the issues raised by quite a few, not only SteveMcI. Instead you have been very (?) adamant about this meta-topic, urging people to wait (which they do without your help) and even wait patiently (which they don’t, based on familiarity with similar instances).
And wrt to ‘motives’, you can be certain that there are motives involved. For writing the paper, for omitting proxy data, for moving it around, for changing methodolgy, for publishing it and choice of reviewers etc. We will never find out all of them, particularly not the more dubious or questionable ones. And politley waiting for the authors answers will not improve their quality and earnestness. My guess is that they are pondering what they still may get away with claiming, mostly catering to the believers, the (benign) media, and all the activists (who most certainly are not in it for finding the truth, any truth)
However, now that the final paper is out, everyone can have a dig at it, and poke and question away, scrutinize and criticize. And mind you, speculate about motives. And this is where you come in with that most peculiar meta-discussion about ‘let’s wait some more and see what they do next’ (after things like this having been goining on for decades).The IPCC has peddled shoddy science for more than a decade. And if you have a better speculation as to why, please shoot …
But maybe, you think we should ask nicely … and wait some more!?
You are right in people passing judgement, and sometimes prematurely. And that people speculate, not always nicely. How else could it be? And I think (while we are patiently waiting for devine enlightment, or just the truth to be shared with us from it’s present holders) that discussions about factual topics and speculations about what went on improves the assessment. And also weeds out erroneous ones ..
Wrt to ‘cult’, you did indeed word it carefully in your quote, but equally carafully you omitted your next one:
I don’t agree with that assessment, but others have already answered well. However, my point was that you aren’t quite consistent in your attempted role as a neutral arbiter, or as you imply just wanting to ‘getting to the truth’. You most certainly criticize others for all kinds of (imagined) transgressions, while pracitcing similar ones (just sometimes more ‘carefully worded’)
You might not approve of me summarizing your efforts, commenting on them, and even correct me if I was totally off mark (which I don’t think I’ve been). But I think you’ve been very evasive wrt to questions directed at you. Indeed, that was why I first addressed you:
I fully accept you wanting to wait for more information, evidence before ‘passing judgement’ but this also sounds quite laywerly, and defensive. (Which is why people here are questioning your role.) But appart from that, what is it that you want to convey here? Especially since you (again ‘carefully’) avoid all contact with the actuall issues raised by many others than just SteveMcI. Your most on-topic remark seems to have been that they (in the paper) are ‘carefully wording’ some reservations about the blade’s robustness … Again, that comes across like what a defense would say, after having been caught.
Why are you so (extremely) occupied with the tone of some commenters, incidentally those you think are the least informed? And why aren’t you answering fair questions directed at you? And why aren’t you pointing out logical fallacies with the arguments of others if you think they made such. Instead you are arguing semantics .. and pouting of having your views commented upon with words you wouldn’t have chosen yourelf (or think are a trifle misleading?)
And sorry, I don’t think I have attacked you. I asked what it is you are arguing (apart from pointing out that they have not yet replied), what are you trying to accomplish beyond repeating the obvious? And why is this so important to you?
As I’ve hinted before, your arguments don’t quite add up, what is it that we are missing?
@Robert says:
March 18, 2013 at 6:12 am
“H.R:
I suspect their eventual response will be :
[…]”
==============================================================
I’m sorry, Robert. I missed your comment and you missed the joke.
If you’ve had a chance to follow trafamadore’s and tramafadore’s recent comments on the topic of Mann’s reconstruction and other erstwhile defenders of said hockeystick over the past several years, those two are the most common rejoinders that get trotted out.
I don’t know what, if any response will be forthcoming from Marcott, but I am willing to bet that that in a relatively short period of time, “trolls” will use the two phrases I wrote down, regardless of the outcome.
Robert says:
March 19, 2013 at 11:06 pm
What’s with this “me” thing, Robert? It sounds like (since you claim to have a PhD) to be very thin-skinned regarding anything you disagree with. We’re here to discuss the problems with the Marcott paper and the ramifications of said problems. You are not the center of the discussion and you aren’t the sole arbiter of truth and morality. I’d say get over yourself–there are a number of points I’ve raised and you’ve conveniently ignored them all. And that’s your choice, of course, but we commenters call ’em as we see ’em and if that doesn’t meet your approval, well, too bad.
I don’t expect a response from Marcott regarding the multiple problems with his paper, just as I don’t expect to ever see any justification from Mann regarding the problems with his hokey sticks (yes, I meant “hokey” so I spelled it “hokey”). By the time the critics get done with critiquing this paper from Marcott et al, he’ll probably wish he’d never submitted it. (Not putting words in his mouth; just basing it on my own response if I unfortunately happened to be Marcott.)
So here is the crux of the whole CAGW issue–everything else is miniscule by comparison: Does CO2 cause positive forcing or negative forcing or no forcing at all? That’s the issue. And the ramifications are immense.
Well…
I hade a brief look at Real Climate, and indeed: The only mentioning of some Marcott was a year old paper (with the same set of authors) by Shakun et al. (the one purporting to get rid of the CO2 lagging the temperature changes).
Not one syllable about the recent and most formidable ‘Hockeystick’ ever devised in a paleo-reconstruction. Well, I guess they are just terribly busy with all other important stuff, like saving the world and insulting those too stupid to realize that .. Not even all-important Mike (Mann) who has applauded the paper like crazy on his own page, and according to his own account by now read the paper properly has found the time to summarize how important it is indeed, and why on RealClimate. But as we know, these are world class ‘climate scientists’ very very busy elsewhere ..
And indeed, there has been an answer from the Marcott-camp. By his (former) advisor Peter Clark, who goes on to say:
Well, there we have it, the long awaited ‘reply’. And from it we learn that they intend to make a list of such questions they themself would like to respond to. Well good, at least we now know that, and can rest in anticipation of what exactly those questions might turn out be. And of course read the carefully worded answers too.
The only questions remaining, is what should be do with and/or think about that Marcott-paper until then? And with our queries as to how it came about and why? Well maybe those questions too will bi in that list of FAQs. Better to sit still and wait, not passing any premature judgement while the ball is still safely in their cort. Maybe they even show it for a short while … (*)
I am sorry Robert, I am being a little sarcastic here, in your general direction, without putting one single word in your mouth. All the above were my words, strictly mine … 🙂
(*) I suggest we do exactly as before: Treat this like a final and published paper in the prestigeous journal Science, and marvel at the fact that it says and happened as it did. And continue to speculate over how this came to be … And everybody else is of course totally free to have completely different opinions about what best serves the ‘truth’ …
I think Robert gives a balanced commentary which sounds like he is ussed to appraising climate literature, but where is the RC critical appraisal of this most interesting paper?
I read an interesting paper recently for the first time (Humlum et al 2012) and thought, gosh thats quite interesting/controversial, I wonder what Gavin et al thought of that?
Well it hadnt taken long for RC to post a fairly wicked commentary,
“I think that the analysis presented in Humlum et al. (2012) is weak on four important accounts: the analysis, the physics, reviewing past literature, and logic. ”
Not much encouragement there,
I think Marcott et al got a much fairer critique at CA , and only the climate science community will determine the future of his career not some false start like this which clearly is the responsibility of senior colleagues and the reviewers
Robert,
Your entire bloviating here, appears to be cautioning readers and commentators to avoid premature conclusions?
If as you claim, you are a long time reader at Climate Audit, why would you bother?
Stephen McIntyre has earned the respect and trust of readers because of his caution, care to follow the evidence and personal integrity.
He does not post premature speculation.
Why would you be so adamant that readers should wait, when we know that is McIntyre’s MO?
As the post video sarcastically states, waiting for the Team to respond is farcical, their past behaviour precedes you.
I read your words as attempting to deflect attention from the subject.
Threadjacking into minutia. The behaviour of a concern troll.
One of the things people here have to realize about “Robert” is that as a European academic, he never never encounters a skeptical viewpoint within his own milieu. So for him there is a genuine difficulty in accepting that there is still a genuine basis for disagreement concerning AGW. You should also realize that at present warmists are walling themselves off from any arguments against AGW. I, therefore, give Robert credit for even venturing onto a site like WUWT and arguing with people here.
What you’re seeing in this discussion is not just a difference of opinion over facts, but a kind of ontological difference (in the sense spelled out by Aileen Kraditor and Eric Voeglin); that’s why in such discussions there’s always a sense of people talking past each other – because they really aren’t on the same playing field. That’s one reason why I think it’s so valuable that such discussions are recorded in places like this and why it’s so important that moderators are willing to contenance commentary from ‘the other side of the fence’, which, in fact, is more like missives from another world.
rw – You seem to know much more about ‘Robert’, and ‘where he’s coming from’ than others. And maybe what you say explains some of the peculiar arguments we’ve seen. But for others, the whole thing still seem peculiar. Especially since he is not answering quite simple direct questions, not even those pertaining to issues he wants to bring up.
Further, I would definitely not agree with you that the playing field (or fields) in Europe is/are so different that it allows someone remain shielded in the way you indicate. The political and NGO -climate-nuttery is in many instances worse here than in the US, yes. But thats a measure of the amount of politics and the numbers feeding of political handouts, not about the level of understanding among those with inquiring minds intact. Anyway, ‘Robert’ here claims to be familiar with the discussions ..
And his most succint point to date has been: ‘We have not heard their formal response yet … ‘
Which is true.