![most-influential-tree-350[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/most-influential-tree-3501.jpg?quality=83)
It seems that in the latest publication from CRU’s Keith Briffa, they decided to leave out those elements (The most influential tree in the world) Steve identified that led to the Yamal Superstick.
Have a look at this remarkable graph below.
McIntyre writes:
Unreported by CRU is that they’ve resiled from the Yamal superstick of Briffa 2000 and Briffa et al 2008 and now advocate a Yamal chronology, the modern portion of which is remarkably similar to the calculations in my posts of September 2009 here and May 2012 here, both of which were reviled by Real Climate at the time.
In today’s post, I’ll demonstrate the degree to which the new Briffa version has departed from the superstick of Briffa 2000 and Briffa et al 2008 and the surprising degree to which it approaches versions shown at CA.
Figure 3. Comparison of Briffa et al 2008 superstick to yamal_trw chronology of Briffa et al 2013. Both in z-scores.
[…]
…the next graphic shows the two CA calculations that had been so reviled by CRU and Real Climate (the green chronology of Sept 2009 and the May 2012 calculation with updated information from Hantemirov). I think that I’m entitled to observe that the B13 chronology is more similar to the two reviled CA calculations than it is to the Briffa et al 2008 superstick. Needless to say, this was not reported in CRU’s recent Real Climate article. 
Figure 4. Comparison of B13 Yamal chronology to CA (Climate Audit) calculations.
omnologos points out this missive from Gavin Schmidt on RealClimate:
The irony is of course that the demonstration that a regional reconstruction is valid takes effort, and needs to be properly documented. That requires a paper in the technical literature and the only way for Briffa et al to now defend themselves against McIntyre’s accusations is to publish that paper (which one can guarantee will have different results to what McIntyre has thrown together).
Looks like that guarantee expired.
Commenter ianl888 quips:
@Steve McIntyre
From Fig. 4 above:
it’s quite obvious that in 2009 and again in 2011, you shamelessly plagiarised Briffa 2013
Easily the worst sin in the academic book, run a close second only by disrupting the space-time continuum in order to perform the plagiarism
Too Funny! To prevent this from happening again, we need to establish a Pre-plagiarism Crimes unit, complete with a minority report. /sarc
Read Steve’s full report here: http://climateaudit.org/2013/06/28/cru-abandons-yamal-superstick/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Watch those CAGW snakes. They’ll still pull out the hockey stick occasionally, simply because it was once “accepted by consensus”. You know how they like to warp time. They’ll try to keep themselves in the “win” zone.
Seriously, unless this is all over the news, which I doubt, the general public won’t know that officially the stick has been dropped, so it will still have its propaganda usefulness. They continued to use it when they knew it was broken, and they’ll still pull out the scary charts to frighten the people.
I read the following comment left by a ‘Steve Wilson’ on Gavin’s RC post that read:
“….I don’t follow the contrarian side very closely so had to go to Wikipedia to see who Steve McIntyre might be…”
Such a comment sums up the intellectual quality of Gavin’s acolytes!
Perspective. The impact of the dendros has always been to “disappear” the MWP. It continues to be largely dissappeared. while the current anomoly has been reduced per Steve’s observation, so has the MWP anomoly.
There are so many HUGE issues with dendro-climatology. They win if we attribute any meaning to their graphs.
It would be delightfully ironic, if the person or persons who delivered the leaflet to the residence of Steve Mcintyre was/were (a) green activists.
A wonderful example of unintended consequences in my opinion.
Hey, I can claim a special distinction in webworld: I have been slapped down by Tim Osborn of CRU!
I only now noticed that he responded to an impertinent comment of mine (see June 3 and June 4 at end of this thread):
Tim Osborn commented on “The Yamal Deception”
He questioned whether I had read his RC post and the Briffa et al. (2013) paper (I had), while I was pointing out that the CRU lack of direct, credible engagement with issues raised by Steve McIntyre was/is most disappointing. I suppose he can say indeed that they treated the issues, in their way. I and many others would like to see more candid, thorough, and responsive discussions of the criticisms raised at CA and elsewhere.
“”””””……joerommiswrong says:
June 29, 2013 at 3:01 pm
I read the following comment left by a ‘Steve Wilson’ on Gavin’s RC post that read:
“….I don’t follow the contrarian side very closely so had to go to Wikipedia to see who Steve McIntyre might be…”
Such a comment sums up the intellectual quality of Gavin’s acolytes!……””””””
Well I don’t follow the OJ Simpson lawyer’s brats at all; so who the heck is Steve Wilson ?
I know Joe Wilson; he’s Valerie Plame’s main squeeze, but don’t know a Steve Wilson.
Thank you, Duster: June 29, 2013 at 2:35 pm. That helps. I should have realized it was tree rings, not temperature.
“Yamal Superstick of Briffa”
That would make a great title for a fantasy novel.
I am reminded of the chilling story of a plane crash which was caused by the failure of an air speed sensor and an inexperienced officer. The instruments kept telling him that the plane was about to stall, he kept pulling back on the stick and increasing the thrust….as the plane dropped out of the sky, tail first.
I am reminded of this story because it appears that Western Leaders are taking aggressive steps to ‘decarbonise’ our economies which are potentially catastrophic. They are making these critical decisions of the basis of wrong or false information.
It’s a worry.
I think rather than criticizing the Briffa paper it should be praised and the authors too. It seems they have come clean and published the complete tree ring paleo from ALL the trees from the same region of the single tree in Yamal and it shows NO warming. Its a big step for climate science in my view. Maybe they have realized the party is over and someone decided to let them publish the truth and real science (well, at least the CRU Team).The problem is now getting to the politicians on the Carbon Tax trough!
Pesadia above says:
“It would be delightfully ironic, if the person or persons who delivered the leaflet to the residence of Steve Mcintyre was/were (a) green activists.
A wonderful example of unintended consequences in my opinion.”
The hockey stick graph was delivered to every Canadian household by our Canadian federal government.
Isn’t it amazing and wonderful that Steve McIntyre didn’t just treat it as junk mail!
Talk about making a difference! If there is any justice, Steve McIntyre will receive the order of Canada and I will be able to pay homage to his star on the “Walk of Fame” in downtown Toronto.
Hot damn, it’s cool to be a fellow Canadian!
Chris Schoneveld says:
June 29, 2013 at 9:12 am
Manfred says:
June 28, 2013 at 8:28 pm
“No warming for 100 years at Yamal”
and Bill Illis says:
June 29, 2013 at 5:07 am
So, where’s the big high-latitude Arctic warming?
Obviously, tree rings are now proven to be poor temperature proxies. But that proof was already implicitely presented by Michael Mann.
——————————–
I do agree on Michael Mann, but that is a no-brainer.
Treeline hasn’t moved as well, another good indication that temperatures have not increased at Yamal.
That may not yet mean, the temperature record is totally wrong, and Yamal is far away from AMO or PDO climate drivers and may be an exceptional location. It would be interesting to compare with the closest instrumental temperature records.
I believe I recall from the climategate emails, that Briffa had his necktie cinched up at mention of the divergence problem and he caved in and went with the flow. Also in the emails, he snarked a bit at Mann’s work and I guess it was only a matter of time before he came in from the “warm” so to speak. I judge him to have a propensity to be honest but was not strong enough to stand up to the bullying.
“Commenter ianl888 quips:
Posted Jun 28, 2013 at 5:18 PM | Permalink
@Steve McIntyre
From Fig. 4 above:
it’s quite obvious that in 2009 and again in 2011, you shamelessly plagiarised Briffa 2013
Easily the worst sin in the academic book, run a close second only by disrupting the space-time continuum in order to perform the plagiarism”
Seriously speaking, I believe Steve M has a case of plagiarism to bring against Briffa!! He clearly predated the work of Briffa. Wouldn’t that be a cute piece of work. Everyone was aware of Steve’s published work on CA and it was even reviewed by Real Climate. I think he also has a case against Karoly, Marcott, etc for exactly the same reason. This would be one way to get “referenced” in the literature for the analyses that he did for which no credit was given. Maybe the plagiarism expert Bradley would happily join in and assist.
Eliza says:
June 29, 2013 at 6:00 pm
True, but the party gate crasher was Mr. McIntyre.
Without his scathing and frequent rebuttals, these “climate science” jokers never would have come clean.
Look, today’s post-normal “climate scientist”, the product of our counter-productive institutions of “higher eduction”, are willing to fess up only after they’ve been embarrassed time after time.
And they pay tuition for such an education? Simply amazing…
Reading this along with the comments is too much.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/
Hey Ya! (mal)
Filed under: Climate Science Instrumental Record Paleoclimate — group @ur momisugly 30 September 2009
…[Response: Don’t be so obtuse. The general point is perhaps something we can agree on – replication does not imply correctness. Far more important given the fact that we are dealing with climate proxies in this instance is whether we are interpreting them correctly. And much more progress is being made by looking at that, than is being made checking anyone’s arithmetic. – gavin]”
Response: Fair enough, so here goes (a couple of allied quotes as well): 1) “In my opinion, the uniformly high age of the CRU12 relative to the Schweingruber population is suggestive of selection”, 2) “It is highly possible and even probable that the CRU selection is derived from a prior selection of old trees”, 3) “I do not believe that they constitute a complete population of recent cores. As a result, I believe that the archive is suspect.”,4) (Ross McKitrick) “But it appears that they weren’t randomly selected.”, 5) (Anthony Watts) “appears to have been the result of hand selected trees”, – gavin]
[Response: Oh sure. He’s just ‘asking questions’ – and yet the innuendo and implication was perfectly clear to his friends and to the greek chorus and no correction of McKitrick’s or Watts’ comments were made. Strange that. At absolute minimum McIntyre is complicit in propagating slander – and if that makes you feel better about this, than good for you. It doesn’t do much for me. – gavin]
One small step forward.
The person who put “flat earth” on the President’s teleprompter will come to regret it, I think.
Eliza says
‘I think rather than criticizing the Briffa paper it should be praised and the authors too. It seems they have come clean and published the complete tree ring paleo from ALL the trees from the same region of the single tree in Yamal and it shows NO warming’
H’mm
I guess we should be sort of pleased in a prodigal son sort of way. They have perhaps stopped being disingenuous..
But given that it is very likely that they knew the truth all along and deliberately suppressed it, don’t they need to be punished for that too?
Kev-in-Uk: “BBC television production of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, maybe? It’s what the Vogon captain says when contemplating Arthur’s review of his poetry.”
Whenever the alarmists are pushing the denier shtick, I am going to start asking them for some of their dreaddful poetry.
Latimer Alder;
But given that it is very likely that they knew the truth all along and deliberately suppressed it, don’t they need to be punished for that too?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If there is serious punishment for recanting, then one can be assured that they will never willingly recant.
“it’s quite obvious that in 2009 and again in 2011, you shamelessly plagiarised Briffa 2013”
In a major breakthrough, McIntyre controls the future without needing to control the past!
“He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.”
George Orwell
davidmhoffer says:
June 29, 2013 at 9:11 pm
Latimer Alder;
But given that it is very likely that they knew the truth all along and deliberately suppressed it, don’t they need to be punished for that too?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If there is serious punishment for recanting, then one can be assured that they will never willingly recant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not to mention that it is the politicians who pressured them into fudging the science that need punishing the most.
…”it’s quite obvious that in 2009 and again in 2011, you shamelessly plagiarised Briffa 2013″…
I believe the term he is trying to coin is “pre-plagiarized”. 😎
@davidmhoffer
We don’t need them to recant The work of showing them up has been done already. If they do its a nice to have and may purge their souls from sin (or other such analogy), but it isn’t essential.
And I take leave to doubt whether they needed mush pressure from politicians to fudge the science. Seems to me that for most of them the lure of fame (and maybe a bit of fortune) was more than enough to entice them into doing so. They’d seen that Mikey could rocket form nonentity to scientific superstar in a matter of weeks by providing ‘convenient results’, and took note.
“Pre-plagiarism” or perhaps it should be “Anticipatory plagiarism” – which is when you publish something before the “approved author” has even thought about it.
(It reminds me of the concept of “anticipatory bail” in India. Under Indian criminal law, there is a provision for anticipatory bail which allows a person to seek bail in anticipation of an arrest on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence.).
It’s a sort of antidote to “Retrospective Prediction”!
http://ktwop.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/climate-science-reduced-to-retrospective-predictions/