Replies

The basis for McIntyre's selection of which of our (i.e. Hantemirov and Shiyatov's) data to exclude and which to use in replacement is not clear but his version of the chronology shows lower relative growth in recent decades than is displayed in my original chronology. He offers no justification for excluding the original data; and in one version of the chronology where he retains them, he appears to give them inappropriate low weights. 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.

What I read HERE is that Briffa had a data set of 46 samples. He chose 12 and excluded 34. His result was the hockey stick used by Mann and everyone after him to show unprecedented warming in the last 100 or so years. When McIntyre finally got hold of the data set and used those 34 samples, he found a sharp decline in temperature over the last 100 years. 12 samples show a dramatic increase, fitting it with the global warming theology, 34 excluded samples show a large decrease, contradicting global warming theology. The 46 samples all together show a very moderate warming, consistent with a warm up from the little ice age.

From the link above:

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 it’s just a coincidence that the ignored data were from slower growing trees, nothing changes the fact that he didn’t 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.

There are other good reports on the chronology of McIntyre's efforts to obtain the data over several years. Check out this web site: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html

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!