Posted on 03/16/2013 9:10:16 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
At Climate Audit, Something odd has been discovered about the provenance of the work associate with the Marcott et al paper. It seems that the sharp uptick wasn’t in the thesis paper Marcott defended for his PhD, but is in the paper submitted to Science.
Steve McIntyre writes:
Reader ^ drew our attention to Marcott’s thesis (see chapter 4 here. Marcott’s thesis has a series of diagrams in an identical style as the Science article. The proxy datasets are identical.
However, as Jean S alertly observed, the diagrams in the thesis lack the closing uptick of the Science. Other aspects of the modern period also differ dramatically.
Here is Figure 1C of the Science article.
Now here is the corresponding diagram from the (Marcott) thesis:
The differences will be evident to readers. In addition to the difference in closing uptick, important reconstruction versions were at negative values in the closing portion of the thesis graphic, while they were at positive values in the closing portion of the Science graphic.
I wonder what accounts for the difference.
Read the full report at Climate Audit
===========================================================
This story just got a lot more interesting. I wonder if we don’t have a situation like with Yamal, and sample YAD06 which when included, skewed the whole set. Perhaps there was some screening in the thesis and that didn’t include part of the proxy datasets, or later for the Science paper maybe there was some Gergis sytyle screening that made hockey sticks pop out. It might also be some strange artifact of processing, perhaps some Mannian style math was introduced. Who knows at this point? All we know is that one paper is not like the other, and one produces a hockey stick and the other does not.
Some additional detective work is sorely needed to determine why this discrepancy exists and if anyone in the peer review process asked any similar questions.
Wonder if MarCott's bank account has had a dramatic change recently? !
*************************************EXCERPT***************************************
eworrall1 says:
An even more intriguing possibility – perhaps the reviewers demanded Marcott add the hockey stick, as a requirement for their approval.
Marcott obviously knew the hockey stick was bogus – otherwise he would have added it to his PHD thesis paper.
************************************EXCERPT************************************
In real climate science, the problem with hockey sticks is they are not there.
But no hockey stick = no funding = have to get a real job.
Hence, in today’s ‘climate science’ the hockey sticks are there.
The climate audit article is truly damning, but it’s ‘climate science’, so no one should be surprised.
**********************************EXCERPT******************************************
Bare in mind that these two had different functions , where has the ,Thesis had to be scientifically valid , with the author expecting a hard time in a viva.
The ‘research’ had to be politically useful for ‘the cause ‘ in order to get it into AR5 and to ensure the authors ‘Team ‘ place which still opens the door to much funding and career progression.
With the author aware that with the ‘right reviewers ‘ their work would have a much easer time in review.
The stick is where the majority of the political ‘value ‘ , and all that can bring , comes from .
So its not the actual research that matters but ‘what’ the research is needed for . And in that Marcott is merely following the ‘leaders ‘ in this field such has Mann .
there are different levels of bad things you can do as a scientist.
the first is to look at data and draw the wrong conclusion- that is forgiveable if it is an honest mistake and this is the point of peer-review (among other things)
the next level is looking at data and manipulating it to give you the results you want. This is unforgiveable and should get you fired and out of your fiel.
But the absolute worst, is to delete original raw data because it does not support what you want, and just make up the results you want. This borders on criminal because you can no longer even check the raw data- it is knowledgs permanently lost. It is a waste of all the money spent gathering that data.
The last thing is what these “scientists” did and they should no longer have jobs- why they do is beyong comprehension.
**************************EXCERPT************************************
Severian says:
Ultimately it doesn’t matter in the “real” world. They’ve accomplished their goal, generating scary headlines in all the usual suspect media outlets. The Warmistas know how to play this game very well, it matters not whether or not it’s right, or if someone else later discredits it, that will never get any significant air time in the media. The goal is to produce AGW confirming headlines that allow politicians the support they need to instigate a carbon tax, with the emphasis on tax, which is what the whole game is about. Post normal science indeed. That and ensure more funding for said “scientists.”
There should be some serious repercussions....
I agree with your anti Gorebull warming stance. I have asked you repeatedly I private to PLEASE TAKE ME OFF YOUR PING LIST.
Now I have to do it in public. It is spam to me.
Thanks Ernest.
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.