Posted on 10/01/2009 8:29:06 AM PDT by Thickman
This is a seminal event in the battle against the CO2 propaganda machine. I believe that folks on FreeRepublic can do a great service to this nation by helping spread the word and interest in this FRAUD perpetrated on the scientific world and us!
There's a strong mathematical/scientific refutation. Note there is no proposed release of his selection method(s) either. Weak indeed.
Oh, yeah, not peer reviewed either.
Yes, that would be the point. If I have understood this correctly McIntyre demonstrated that Briffa's data-analysis technique would show no hockey stick at all if Briffa hadn't carefully cherry-picked 12 trees with high growth for the most modern dataset.
Briffa apparently got a hockey stick by choosing to use only a small subset of the available data and excluding all others. Which would be farcical science.
Science is broken So much for the repeat claims that peer review is a rigorous process. Those who keep telling us we have to listen to the experts and who put so much stock in a peer reviewed paper have been left hanging out to dry. Even if Briffa has a reason to exclude 2/3rds of the samples and somehow its just a coincidence that the ignored data were from slower growing trees, nothing changes the fact that he didnt mention that in the paper, and nor, damningly, did he provide the data. It only takes a sentence to say (for example) ABC tree chronologies excluded due to artificial herbicide damage and it only takes a few minutes to email a data file.
Very weak and very convenient. Let’s suppose that Briffa’s methodology had produced the data set used by McIntyre. Does anyone think that Mann would have used Briffa’s data? Unlikely. So, who benefited by Mann’s use of Briffa’s data? Well, in addition to the usual political suspects, my guess is that Briffa and Mann have enjoyed increased attention, praise, and funding. Just a guess.
It IS a weak response. And McIntyre DID analyze the situation with a bigger data set that DID include the Yamal data... and found NO AGW.
It is amazing to what length's Briffa went in order to conceal his data. Even when he was backed into a corner it still took over a year and extraordinary efforts by McIntyre to pull the data because Briffa had not meta tagged it (similar to a document dump in response to a subpoena).
This could be a major development if it can just get some MSM legs. Fox News, where are you!
This would seem to apply to Briffa.
From the Dinosaur DNA thread;
“Whenever any kind of evidence is concealed, one immediately questions the spoliators’ motives for doing so. The intuitive answer is that they dislike what the information would reveal. Therefore, to spoliate evidence suggests that the spoliators’ argument or theory would be weakened, or embarrassed, by that evidence. This suggestion is so strong, forensically speaking, that it is treated as a rule of presumptive inference in law courts. In other words, if someone hides evidence in this way, the law presumes that the hidden evidence was damaging to the argument of the spoliator. The spoliator then bears the burden of proof to show otherwise.”
IIRC the only reason Briffa had to disclose the data was that he had submitted to the Royal Society, who I understand strictly require submitters to enter their data to an archive that RS control.
Now the Royal Society have been hopelessly pro-AGW to date, but in this case their rules have allowed the truth to come out.
Thanks Thickman.
Does anyone on this thread know whether the ring thickness methods control for the fact that tree growth rates are not just a function of temperature, but also of the amount of CO2 in the air? (I.e., higher CO2 levels may produce thicker rings quite apart from any temperature change.)
Billions of dollars ripped from the coffers of the rich countries and showered on the developing nations, industries crippled, carbon sacrificing, electricity plants shut down, etc., etc., etc. .....based on 12 trees somewhere in Russia?
It's almost laughable, if it weren't so sickening. Is it just me....or have we been had?
Briffa's license plate number
ping
Especially when it comes hot on the heels of this admission:
“I note that McIntyre qualifies the presentation of his version(s) of the chronology by reference to a number of valid points that require further investigation. Subsequent postings appear to pay no heed to these caveats. Whether the McIntyre version is any more robust a representation of regional tree growth in Yamal than my original, remains to be established.”
Had he the true faith in his convictions he would have simply pointed out where McIntyre’s analysis were wrong.
It’s not like the fate of the world’s economy depends on this minor detail, is it?
For this reason I am certain that algorithms are used when analyzing tree rings for the purpose of reconstructing temperature records.
Of course none of this adds validity to the use of tree rings for generating historical data, let alone just 12 of them from someplace in Russia.
Artifical, still implicating man?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.