McIntyre charges Grant Foster aka "Tamino" with plagiarism in a Dot Earth discussion

Richard – I’ll repeat my request (again) for your specific evidence of plagiarism, including the specific elements from McIntyre’s work that Tamino used without attribution.
Or should we all take your fixation with the letter ‘B’ as a tacit admission that you cannot produce such evidence?

richardscourtney says:
“I take that as tacit admission that you guys are ‘acting under orders’.”
Pretty silly if that’s really how you take it, Richard. Who do you imagine is giving all us B names our orders? Why do we obey?
“Tamino in his blog stated errors in the paper by Marcott et al. a week after those same errors had been revealed by McIntyre and placed in the public domain on his blog.:
What McIntyre revealed is that he had not yet read the paper. See quote from the authors above, in which they explain that, due to “the small number of records that cover this interval” [1890 to 1950] the steep warming is “probably not robust.” Much later, McIntyre (also Pielke Jr) treated repetitions of this “not robust” statement from the Marcott paper as if they were dramatic new confessions. But they are new only to people who have not read the paper.
“Hence, the entire report of Tamino was ‘prior art’ of McIntyre which – on Tamino’s own admission – Tamino knew to be ‘prior art’ but chose not to attribute and/or cite to McIntyre but presented using different wording.”
But this is theory about what Tamino knew is no more reality-based than your theory about who controls us B’s. Here is what Tamino actually said about what he learned from McIntyre and what he decided to leave out:
“All I “learned” from McIntyre’s “analysis” is that Marcott et al. had re-calibrated proxy ages, that McIntyre blamed the uptick on the re-dating process, and that he was happy to hint at the possibility of deliberate deception on the part of the authors. The references to McIntyre in my original version were to his insulting tone regarding this work, but I finally decided it was better to ignore that and comment on the science.”

BA and Brian,
1. No one contends that the concept of “proxy dropout” was originated by Steve McIntyre. What McIntyre discovered (among other things) was that Marcott’s modern uptick was chiefly the result of dropout and re-dating of cores. Tamino’s own post presents the idea that the uptick is the result of dropout as though Tamino made this discovery. That is the plagiarism.
2. Tamino’s admission that he deleted references to McIntyre’s “low road” suggestion of invidious conduct on the part of Marcott et al. is damming because it demonstrates that Tamino read McIntyre’s post before publishing his own. It seems clear that the “low road” suggestion was Marcott’s re-dating proxies, the inexplicable deletion of certain end dates which had the effect of keeping an unfavorable proxy out of the modern period, etc. From Tamino’s own description, it appears that he began his post by attempting to defend Marcott, et al. from McIntyre’s “low road” suggestions. He evidently found, however, that no plausible defense for Marcott’s conduct suggested itself and converted the post to a general discussion of the Marcott uptick being the result of dropout without reference to McIntyre’s comments. Of course, the mere fact that an uptick was produced by dropout does not imply misconduct if the reasons for dropout are legitimate but Tamino could not very well credit McIntyre for finding the fact that dropout caused the uptick without making his evident inability to defend Marcott apparent.
3. BA’s quote from Marcott et al. does not contain any reference to the dropout problem. It merely reports that the difference between two methods of data analysis is not “robust.”

BA says:
April 2, 2013 at 3:39 pm
…
“All I “learned” from McIntyre’s “analysis” is that Marcott et al. had re-calibrated proxy ages, that McIntyre blamed the uptick on the re-dating process, and that he was happy to hint at the possibility of deliberate deception on the part of the authors. The references to McIntyre in my original version were to his insulting tone regarding this work, but I finally decided it was better to ignore that and comment on the science.”
——-
This is not consistent with his original explanation, nor is it particularly consistent with the behavior Grant Foster generally exhibits on his blog. In other words, this subsequent explanation is questionable, to use no stronger word. That he needed to offer a subsequent explanation at all is suggestive. I suggest that he realized he damned himself with his initial admission and started trying to dig himself out.

BA says:
See quote from the authors above, in which they explain that, due to “the small number of records that cover this interval” [1890 to 1950] the steep warming is “probably not robust.” Much later, McIntyre (also Pielke Jr) treated repetitions of this “not robust” statement from the Marcott paper as if they were dramatic new confessions. But they are new only to people who have not read the paper.
—————–
Why publish the paper then, if major parts of it were not robust? You seem to think that this disclosure in the “fine print” somehow makes up for the fact that the graph they presented was completely misleading.

bmcburney says:
“3. BA’s quote from Marcott et al. does not contain any reference to the dropout problem. It merely reports that the difference between two methods of data analysis is not “robust.””
Read it again, that quote refers directly to the dropout problem:
“Without filling data gaps, our Standard5x5 reconstruction (Fig. 1A) exhibits 0.6 C greater warming over the past ~60 yr B.P. (1890 to 1950 CE) than our equivalent infilled 5×5 area-weighted mean stack (Fig. 1, C and D). *However, considering the temporal resolution
of our data set and the small number of records that cover this interval (Fig. 1G), this difference is probably not robust.*”
No reading between the lines needed. Marcott et al. state that the steep recent warming under one method (Standard5x5) is not robust because of “the temporal resolution of our data set and the small number of records that cover this interval (Fig 1G)…”
And what’s in Fig 1G? Well, that’s a graph of
“Number of records used to construct the Holocene global temperature stack through time.”
It shows this number of records as an orange line that drops steeply toward zero in the last decades of their reconstruction. It *is* a graph of the dropout problem, and it’s the reason Marcott et al. say in their article that the final uptick (in Standard5x5) is not robust.

Reg Nelson says:
“Why publish the paper then, if major parts of it were not robust? You seem to think that this disclosure in the “fine print” somehow makes up for the fact that the graph they presented was completely misleading.”
The final uptick is not a major part of the paper. It’s a very minor part that the authors (accurately) themselves caution against trusting. The belief that it’s a major part is a proxy for not having read the paper.
Marcott et al. comparisons of modern with older temperatures are not based on the proxy uptick. Rather, as they state clearly in the paper, their comparison involves the more robustly estimated holocene temperatures contrasted with (also robustly estimated) modern instrumental temperatures.

BA says:
What McIntyre revealed is that he had not yet read the paper. See quote from the authors above, in which they explain that, due to “the small number of records that cover this interval” [1890 to 1950] the steep warming is “probably not robust.” Much later, McIntyre (also Pielke Jr) treated repetitions of this “not robust” statement from the Marcott paper as if they were dramatic new confessions. But they are new only to people who have not read the paper.
It’s too bad Tamino didn’t realize this.
‘Cause then, instead of taking a week after Steve McIntyre’s post on Marcott et al. to come up with ways of excusing their practices and shielding them from McIntyre’s criticisms, Mr. Foster could have just written, “McIntyre has posted on Marcott et al. What he says is largely worthless, because he obviously hasn’t read Marcott et al. He proceeds as though Marcott et al. never wrote this, this, or this [each point devastatingly illustrated with a pithy excerpt].” QED
Is the intended lesson that Tamino should be letting BA write his posts for him?

BA says:
April 2, 2013 at 5:04 pm
Reg Nelson says:
“Why publish the paper then, if major parts of it were not robust? You seem to think that this disclosure in the “fine print” somehow makes up for the fact that the graph they presented was completely misleading.”
The final uptick is not a major part of the paper. It’s a very minor part that the authors (accurately) themselves caution against trusting. The belief that it’s a major part is a proxy for not having read the paper.
——–
If that’s so, why is it that the thesis version of Marcott et al did not exhibit the final uptick where the Science version did?
Once again, you are being disingenious. The final uptick helped the paper get press and generate headlines – it is despicable precisely because the authors know perfectly well and state openly that it is not robust.

There are two kinds of plagiarism, as I stated upthread.
One is using someone else’s words, often at length, while passing them off as your own.
The second is using ideas, points, arguments, evidence, or findings from a source—this may, and often does, include ideas, points, arguments, evidence, or findings that you object to—and not citing or crediting the source.
In making this claim:
By Steve’s own measure, Tamino has not come remotely close to plagiarism. The text is not remotely similar. The methods are not the same, and the conclusions are not exactly the same either.
barry is effectively pretending that deliberate failure to cite sources is not plagiarism.
“Therefore,” since Tamino didn’t reproduce a bunch of Steve McIntyre’s text without putting quotes around it, barry feels we must conclude that no plagiarism could have been taking place.
No one’s charged Tamino with cutting and pasting a bunch of Mr. McIntyre’s text without putting quotes around it.
So barry is being disingenuous.
Something all three B’s frequently are.

Hey Grant. Your blog’s entire existence depends on McIntyre and Anthony’s excellent and award-winning blogs. If you didn’t hang on their shirttails acting asinine you wouldn’t get any attention. You’re like the kid in Grade 9 who compensates for his low grades by making scatalogical jokes, leering at the girls and sneering at the teacher. Anthony and Steve show real class, and more generosity than you deserve, by actually noticing you and linking to your screeds.

Reg Nelson says:
“If you truly believe what you claim, press the major media outlets to retract their inflammatory, unsubstantiated “non robust” articles.”
I believe you haven’t managed to read what I wrote, let alone Marcott et al.
The headline conclusion came from the robust holocene proxy record compared with the robust modern temperature record. It was never based on that uptick in the proxies, which the authors clearly discount. In the interviews I’ve seen as well as the paper itself, the authors remain clear about this.

JunkPsychology,

instead of taking a week after Steve McIntyre’s post on Marcott et al. to come up with ways of excusing their practices and shielding them from McIntyre’s criticisms

That works only under the assumption that there was something wrong with their ‘practises’. Marcott et al states in the paper that the proxy-derived uptick is not robust. McIntyre laboured under the illusion that they, instead of the decisions of news media editors, thought otherwise.
Tamino echoes the author’s criticism of the proxy-derived uptick in two posts:

The sharp uptick at the end — which the straight average shows even more strongly than the ensemble average of perturbed series — is probably not correct

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/global-temperature-change-the-big-picture/

The large uptick at the end (in 1940) is larger than indicated by the instrumental data — another reason to doubt its reality.

Tamino is referencing the authors’ comments, by the way, not McIntyre’s. Tamino read the paper.
Mark Bofill,

The final uptick helped the paper get press and generate headlines – it is despicable precisely because the authors know perfectly well and state openly that it is not robust.

The proxy-dierived uptick was not the issue that drove news commenjtary. It was the relation to the instrumental record. But even if it was, do you imagine that the authors have power over the editors of the news media? Your concern should be aimed at the news media. You would find me agreeing with you if you said the press fail to deliver the intricacies and uncertainies in science properly. And you’d find agreement from the mainstream climate community, too.
JunkPsychology,

No one’s charged Tamino with cutting and pasting a bunch of Mr. McIntyre’s text without putting quotes around it.

The charge of plagiarism would not pass muster in any forum. it is absolutely pretentious. Cite one similar example that would corrobarate this claim. there isn’t any! Steve barely discusses proxy dropout, and he doesn’t analyse it in the post he himself cites.
Let’s be precise. Steve calims plagiarism. There isn’t a case for it under any recognized formula. The notions explored are standard iseas. Steve did not invent the notion of data dropout. He has no claim to authorship on it. None of his notions or methods are original. Plagiarism is, effectively, impossible in this case.
Did Tamino get the well-known idea of looking at data dropout as a cause of spurious results from reading mcIntyre’s blog? I have no idea, and neither does anybody else. This an assumption being made here. But even if he did, it’s not plagiarism. It happens all the time on blogs and in academia. Tamino is no more required to ‘cite’ McIntyre than Anthomy Watts needs to cite anyone for working with anomalies rather than actual temps. This is “boilerplate” stuff, to use McIntyre’s own wards on what does and doesn’t need citing.
Unless someone can access the deleted parts of Tamino’s edited post, track which McIntyre posts Tamino read, or can read Tamino’s mind, the accusation is based on assumption.

BA says:
April 2, 2013 at 6:54 pm
Mark Bofill says:
“If that’s so, why is it that the thesis version of Marcott et al did not exhibit the final uptick where the Science version did?”
Most obvious reason seems to be that proxies drop out in a different order when you use simple averaging (thesis) vs. weighted averaging (Science paper). There may be other differences but the newer paper used methods the authors thought better, overall. That’s what scientists try to do.
————
BA, I’m sorry. I can’t pretend I think you really believe this. You suggest that the uptick is explained by the authors using a method they thought better which just so happens to produce a hockey stick blade which they admit is not statistically robust. Then you go on to blame the media; the climate scientists had no idea how this would be received and what the media would make of it. Please.
Maybe you aren’t being disingenuous, maybe you really are a babe in the woods. I can’t cite off the top of my head my source, and I don’t really care enough to go looking for it (work intrudes), but if you look you can find plenty of evidence that climate science doesn’t work this way; that there is pretty good communication and coordination between important climate papers and the press.

Espen says:
“BA: You can’t compare the “robust” proxy record and the “robust” instrumental record since the former is so coarse grained that it corresponds to a 300-year smoothing of the instrumental record. I have no idea what your credentials are, but Mann and other climate researchers who repeat this over and over again on their twitter feeds these days, should know enough math to refrain from such nonsense. So they’re either lying, not qualified for the work they do, or so blinded by their “cause” that they behave self-deceptive like sect members. I’m leaning to the latter.”
How and why you can compare these things is discussed in the paper, especially in connection with the analyses in their Fig 3. It’s discussed again in Marcott’s FAQs. It’s been elaborated further on the science blogs, where people have worked out more explicitly what would be required for high-frequency, large-magnitude, and rapidly-reversed global up-down (can’t be down-up, that would have the opposite effect) variations unseen by either smoothed or high-resolution proxies, and unexplained by physical theory, to substantially alter this conclusion.
But let’s focus on the source, Fig 3. In your own words, what does it show, and how do you “know” it’s a lie?

To Grant Foster,
There are better ways to present yourself to the more accomplished auditors of climate science than rancor. Try some other strategy like moderate politeness.
John

“The headline conclusion came from the robust holocene proxy record compared with the robust modern temperature record. It was never based on that uptick in the proxies, which the authors clearly discount. In the interviews I’ve seen as well as the paper itself, the authors remain clear about this.” (bold my emphasis)
BA is “clearly” on the “Team” and it is “clear” that the “Team” was involved in the production of Marcott et al from the beginning. They make the “discount” purposely ambiguous to the MSM knowing it will be challenged by SM and others. The fact that RC is providing the FAQs several days after they see how it is received is direct evidence that they are involved. “Clearly” BS thinks Marcott et al and the media interviews are “clear” because he’s a part of this hoax.

Brian says:
April 3, 2013 at 8:05 am
———-
Brian, that’s the closest thing to a reasonable argument I’ve heard. And you know, maybe you’re technically correct. Maybe it’s not in fact plagiarism. How about this instead, it’s a crappy thing to do. To look at McIntyre’s work, write the original post referencing McIntyre’s work, and then delete all reference and attribution and claim that he used no part of McIntyre’s analysis and that his was completely different and unique, and that his extensive original references to McIntyre’s work were all solely about McIntyre’s sneering tone and so on, OK, fine. Maybe Foster is telling the simple truth, implausible as that may appear to some, maybe it’s not plagiarism. It’s still a crappy thing to do.

BA says:
“Read it again, that quote refers directly to the dropout problem:
‘Without filling data gaps, our Standard5x5 reconstruction (Fig. 1A) exhibits 0.6 C greater warming over the past ~60 yr B.P. (1890 to 1950 CE) than our equivalent infilled 5×5 area-weighted mean stack (Fig. 1, C and D). *However, considering the temporal resolution
of our data set and the small number of records that cover this interval (Fig. 1G), this difference is probably not robust.*’
No reading between the lines needed. Marcott et al. state that the steep recent warming under one method (Standard5x5) is not robust because of “the temporal resolution of our data set and the small number of records that cover this interval (Fig 1G)…”
And what’s in Fig 1G? Well, that’s a graph of
‘Number of records used to construct the Holocene global temperature stack through time.’
It shows this number of records as an orange line that drops steeply toward zero in the last decades of their reconstruction. It *is* a graph of the dropout problem, and it’s the reason Marcott et al. say in their article that the final uptick (in Standard5x5) is not robust.
Ok, let’s read it again. Marcott et al. do admit that the data is sparse and do use the phrase “not robust” in connection with that comment. However, they do not claim that the “uptick” is not robust and do not suggest in any way that the “small number of records” has created the uptick as a “dropout” artifact. What they say is that the difference between two methods of data analysis both of which produced a large uptick is not robust. Here, they are expressly claiming that they “get” an uptick no matter which way they do the analysis and only the relative size of the uptick up for debate. Worse, since only the difference is “not robust” they are expressly claiming that the uptick is not only real but that the value must be between the two values they found.
The key to understanding what Marcott et al. are saying is to answer the question “what specifically is ‘probably not robust’ according to them?” You claim “it’s the reason Marcott et al. say in their article that the final uptick (in Standard5x5) is not robust.” But Marcott et al. actually say “this difference is probably not robust.” The difference is not “the uptick” it is the difference between the 0.6 C greater warming found by “Standard 5×5” versus the “equivalent infilled 5×5 area-weighted mean stack.”
In fact, you may recally that Marcott’s first suggestion to McIntyre was that the “uptick” was the result of high frequency changes in the proxies.

richardscourtney says:
“I take that as tacit admission that you guys are ‘acting under orders’.”
DCA says:
“BA is “clearly” on the “Team” and it is “clear” that the “Team” was involved in the production of Marcott et al from the beginning.”
Paging Dr. Lewandowsky! It’s funny, but I guess you two are serious? I’m part of no “Team” and acting under no ‘orders’, but if your conspiracy was real I’d say that anyway, eh?
In reality the “Team” might consist mainly of people who have read Marcott et al, so they know what it actually says. I’ve kept close to that paper in my posts above, and got no response on specific points such as Fig 1G or Fig 3, both relevant to main arguments on this thread.
Fig 1G is where Marcott et al graph the record dropout problem, which they explain is why the proxy uptick is not robust. Yet this is a “discovery” that McIntyre seems to want credit for, and most here (not having looked at the paper) are willing to grant him. Fig 3 graphs multiple proxy, instrumental and model temperature *distributions* (not time plots) that are the basis for their comparative statement,
“Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000-2009 (34) has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.). These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the Standard5x5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high frequencies in the stack (6) (Fig. 3). In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900-1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution under both the Standard5x5 and high-frequency corrected scenarios. Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P.”

richardscourtney says:
“In addition, people may want to also consider that BA suggests the ludicrous ideas of Lewandowsky warrant merit.”
Honestly, I’m no fan of Lewandowsky’s survey paper. I’m not convinced the analysis is robust. But when you launch into reasoning like this, and others here don’t call you on it, it’s as if you’re trying to prove that Lewandowsky’s theory is correct!
” (a) Several AGW-activist groups have teams of trolls who are called to action in attempt to hide truth on web blogs.
(b) Three anonymous trolls appeared on this thread at the same time and with their stated purpose being to defend the egregious Tamino following his exposure as a plagiarist.
(c) The three trolls each uses a screen name which begins with B and this is consistent with their being called into action from a list of names filed in alphabetical order.
(d) It is not clear why anybody would want to defend the plagiarism of Tamino.”

BA says:
April 3, 2013 at 12:33 pm
…
Honestly, I’m no fan of Lewandowsky’s survey paper. I’m not convinced the analysis is robust. But when you launch into reasoning like this, and others here don’t call you on it, it’s as if you’re trying to prove that Lewandowsky’s theory is correct!
————
The fact that I’m paranoid doesn’t prove nobody is out to get me. I can’t talk about Lewandowsky anymore, the mere mention of his name triggers my recursive fury. My skin turns green, the tin foil hat pops right off my head, and I start reciting conspiracy theories in tongues until I go into convulsions and seizures and wake up three days later with no memory of what happened.
In case it got lost in translation, I post this nonsense specifically because I couldn’t possibly care less if anyone thinks I’m indulging in counterfactual conspiratorial ideation, and I hope nobody else worries about it either. Mentioning Lewandowsky shouldn’t discourage anybody from making an argument, that was probably what his whole darn conspiracy was trying to accomplish in the first place. :p

Among all the points that are claimed to have been overlooked, how about someone finally cites a specific reference to a similar instance of ‘plagiarism’ in the blogosphere?
Because no one has done so, I take it we’re breaking new ground over this snaffle. IE, the meaning of plagiarism is being extended beyond its usual limits to try and make the accusation stick.

daveburton says:
April 1, 2013 at 8:25 pm
Finally, I gave up, and went away for a long time.
Trying to convey anything meaningful at Tamino’s misnamed “OpenMind” is just about impossible.
There is no use to waste time and energy trying a dialogue with somebody who just does not want to. Time and energy can be much better used on blogs which allow true dialogue. I at least found it being a much better use of my time and the bonus is I learn something still having fun.
wte9 says:
April 1, 2013 at 5:50 pm
I asked Tamino to clarify his view on whether he used McIntyre’s ideas without attribution:
…..Notice that I not only identified (quite independently) the reason for the exaggerated uptick, I also implemented a method to overcome that problem? Notice how I showed the result and compared it to Marcott’s reconstructions? Notice how I computed the result using both the re-calibrated and the originally published proxy ages? Notice how I did so for the same latitude bands as Marcott, and compared those too? Notice how I even did an area-weighting of those latitudinal results? Science.
Rofl. What a self admiring plagiator!
And as usual warmist have a problem with reality, they try to deny it, but this is no new news.
The same denial of reality is shown again when they try to maintain: oh no, the hockey stick was the least important part of the reconstruction.
bmcburney says:
April 3, 2013 at 1:40 pm
…
Tamino attempted to save Marcott and found he really couldn’t do it because, although he could sorta kinda “fix” the dropout problem, he not explain the data deletion which caused the dropouts to be an issue in the first place (and he still needs the re-dated cores to get any uptick at all). Therefore, Tamino deletes reference to McIntyre and suggests he found and “fixed” the dropout problem with the Marcott et al. paper all by himself. Suggesting he found the dropout problem without reading McIntyre first is plagiarism.
Exactly

bmcburney says:
“Again, the paragraph doesn’t say what you say it says. It just doesn’t.”
I doubt that any scientific paper could survive this level of motivated misreading. But Marcott et al. could have tried by stating things more simply, in short sentences and boldface. And if they had a statistician with Tamino’s acumen on board, they might have better understood and articulated what’s wrong with that Standard5x5 uptick, and graphed it with a dashed line or suppressed it accordingly. They’ll be sadder but wiser when they write their next paper. In the meantime it looks like the main conclusions from this paper are standing up to initial scrutiny well, and will be cited, replicated and improved by other researchers.
Certainly McIntyre and Tamino went steps beyond Marcott, and Tamino worked out a better way to do things. For McIntyre to imagine he discovered the dropout problem that is plainly stated and graphed multiple times in the paper, or to express surprise when Marcott said “not robust” in an email, are signs that he had not read it.
daveburton says:
“For what it’s worth, Tamino has gotten one climate-related article published (with co-author Stefan Rahmstorf):”
He has two. And other articles involving time series or spectral analysis, some of them widely cited.
Louis Hooffstetter says:
“Yeah, and that paper was a classic, wasn’t it?”
F&R 2011 does something new, and already shown to be robust. It’s been cited in more than 20 other peer-reviewed articles. Who knows, might actually become classic.

it has always been clear to me that Tamino was the most vicious and irascible blogger in the field of climate science, with the possible exception of Joe Romm.

It occurred to me a few days ago in one of my LOTR ruminations (based on a bizarre comment thread on Real Science) that in some ways D. Appel resembles one of the giant trolls that burst into the city of Minas Tirith after the gate has been breached. After reading this, I realized who the other two trolls were.

bmcburney says:
“I also believe that if they had adopted Tamino’s “differences” method of analysis and had used the published proxy dates then they certainly would have obtained a more plausible result in the modern period. As compared to what they actually did, I think they would have had a much better paper. So I guess we have reached a kind of agreement.”
No. I do like the differences method which looks simple yet comes out pretty close to both RegEM, and Standard5x5 too for all but the most recent values. I wish Marcott et al had thought of that or for other reasons graphically downplayed the Standard5x5 uptick instead of just stating that it is not robust. On the other hand, comments I’ve seen by paleoclimatologists seem to agree that adjusting the published radiocarbon dates using new and better correction in general was the right step. It would make little sense for a synthesis study in 2013 not to use the best methods.
“Of course, according to Tamino, if they had done all those things they also would have produced an “modern uptick” of less than 0.15 C. Now, go back and re-read the original press release see if you can think of a reason why they didn’t do exactly what you are now suggesting they should have done. Here is a hint, imagine a press release headline which said: “New analysis by Marcott et al. reveals shocking truth that modern warming is comparable to medieval warm period and current temps are significantly lower than during vast majority of the holocene.””
Conspiratorial, and wrong. 1940 is the end point for the reconstruction, and for the small modern uptick Tamino finds in re-analyzing the proxies. As the authors make clear in their paper, FAQs and interviews, their comparisons between holocene and modern temperatures are not, and could not possibly be, based on the proxy uptick. Proxies that end in 1940 cannot tell us about temperatures in 2000-2009. Marcott’s PR mistake was imagining that people would read the paper if they were curious about how that comparison was made. With equal lack of success I’ve been suggesting people look at Fig 3.
“Mind you, that still would have left the problem of changing the frequency resolution in the modern period only (which is a problem which really can’t be solved given these proxies). But if you dump all the conclusions regarding comparisions to the modern period, I think you would have a fairly sound paper.”
Just for a start, have you read their sections about the resolution issue? Since the redating accusations didn’t work, and the proxy uptick thing turns out to be trivial, this idea about resolution or “spikes” seems to be the next line of attack. But it’s not holding up either.
Lars P. says:
“The problem is you are getting your information only from Tamino’s closed mind.”
Most of the info I posted here comes from reading the Science paper itself.

BA says:
April 4, 2013 at 2:24 pm
…
On the other hand, comments I’ve seen by paleoclimatologists seem to agree that adjusting the published radiocarbon dates using new and better correction in general was the right step.
…
—-
That’s interesting, I’d love to read those. Do you have a link?

Mark Bofill says:
“That’s interesting, I’d love to read those. Do you have a link?”
For example, see Richard Telford’s post Mar 16, 2013 at 4:56 PM:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/16/the-marcott-shakun-dating-service/

Wow I need to NOT skip the comments at Climate Audit, that’s a fascinating discussion!
Doublethanks BA. 🙂

BA says:
April 4, 2013 at 2:24 pm
On the other hand, comments I’ve seen by paleoclimatologists seem to agree that adjusting the published radiocarbon dates using new and better correction in general was the right step. It would make little sense for a synthesis study in 2013 not to use the best methods.
I could not see anybody having a problem with using the new and better radiocarbon dates, so why do you keep mentioning it, as nobody raised the question?
Conspiratorial, and wrong. 1940 is the end point for the reconstruction, and for the small modern uptick Tamino finds in re-analyzing the proxies. As the authors make clear in their paper, FAQs and interviews, their comparisons between holocene and modern temperatures are not, and could not possibly be, based on the proxy uptick.
No researcher would graf the thermometer record onto any reconstruction:
“Michael Mann at Real Climate, Dec. 2004:
Response: No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum….”
The new hockey stick was praised as a validation of the thermometer record.