Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 03/01/2010 2:02:45 PM PST by Enchante
Summary 1. Reconstructions of temperature over the past 1000 years have been an highly visible part of IPCC presentations to the public. CRU has been extremely influential in IPCC reconstructions through: coauthorship, the use of CRU chronologies, peer review and IPCC participation. To my knowledge, there are no 1000-year reconstructions which are truly "independent" of CRU influence. In my opinion, CRU has manipulated and/or withheld data with an effect on the research record. The manipulation includes (but is not limited to) arbitrary adjustment ("bodging"), cherry picking and deletion of adverse data. The problem is deeply rooted in the sense that some forms of data manipulation and withholding are so embedded that the practitioners and peer reviewers in the specialty seem either to no longer notice or are unoffended by the practices. Specialists have fiercely resisted efforts by outside statisticians questioning these practices - the resistance being evident in the Climategate letters. These letters are rich in detail of individual incidents. My submission today will not comment on these individual incidents (some of which I've commented on already at Climate Audit), but to try to place the incidents into context and show why they matter to the research record. I will not comment in this submission on CRUTEM issues only for space reasons.
(Excerpt) Read more at publications.parliament.uk ...
www.climateaudit.org has lots of info and analysis on various aspects of Climategate
I don’t follow it all the time but whenever I go on there I find a lot of really good info
Stephen McIntyre, who runs that site and has done a lot of debunking of Climatefraud, has been continually defamed and maligned by the scum of the IPCC
Excellent...gonna get interesting!
Pinging folks...
ah, I was just about to ping you, since I figured you’d find it interesting! good summary of some of the key problems, and much more is emerging all over the place
an aside, given that the UK has really stringent libel laws, I wonder if McIntyre and others can drag the bozos into court there?? It might be another way to build the record with depositions and discovery???
Not sure how many people know about Steve McIntyre...He has done work where the result was the closing for Fraud reasons of a Gold Mining company which had done some Interesting statistical things with some rather crucial mining data...( that is my attempt to paraphrase what I understand )
Breaking news: Cherry Picking of Historic Proportions
***********************************EXCERPT*******************************
A big news day. It appears Steve McIntyre (volunteer unpaid auditor of Big-Government-Science) has killed the Hockey Stick a second time…
The sheer effrontery and gall appears to be breathtaking.
The Briffa temperature graphs have been widely cited as evidence by the IPCC, yet it appears they were based on a very carefully selected set of data, so select, that the shape of the graph would have been totally transformed if the rest of the data had been included.
Kieth Briffa used 12 samples to arrive at his version of the hockey stick and refused to provide his data for years. When McIntyre finally got hold of it, and looked at the 34 samples that Briffa left out of his graphs, a stark message was displayed. McIntyre describes it today as one of the most disquieting images he’s ever presented.
Since 1995 Kieth Briffa has been publishing graphs about temperature of the last thousand years. Like Michael Manns’ famous (and discredited) Hockey Stick graph, Briffa’s graphs were based on tree rings and appeared to show dramatic evidence that the current climate was extraordinarily warm compared to previous years. They were used in the infamous spagetti plots, and the IPCC 3rd Assessment Report, and recycled in other publications giving the impression they had been replicated. His work has even made it into school resources (Cimate Discovery, p4). His publications since 2000 are listed here.
Suspiciously Briffa refused repeated requests to provide the Yamal data that his analysis was based on (something about the data belonging to the Russians). As Steve McIntyre points out, this kind of data should be archived and freely available after any peer reviewed paper is published.
Last year Briffa published a paper in a journal (Philosophical Transactions of Biology, the Royal Society) that did maintain basic standards (after being prodded) and a few days ago McIntyre noticed the data was finally up. This data had been used in papers going back as far as 2000. (And no one thought to politely inform McIntyre that the information he’d requested for years was now available?)
Hiding data in science is equivalent to a company issuing it’s annual report and telling the auditors that the receipts are commercial in confidence and they would just have to trust them. No court of law would accept that, yet at the “top” levels of science, papers have been allowed to sit as show-pieces for years without any chance that anyone could seriously verify their findings. In science, getting the stamp of Peer Review has become like a free pass to “credibility”.
…
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.
…
Now we know why he might not have been so forthcoming with the data…
If all the tree rings are combined, the graph looks like this below. (I’ve added the black thick line to the original to make the merged data stand out). Obviously today is not as warm as things were 1000 years ago (at least not in far north Russia), and it’s also clear things have been warming since 1800 in Yamal.
Here’s a map to help put places to the names. These are the four sites mentioned as sources of the tree ring data. Yamal and Taymir are roughly 400 km apart.
Posted on September 29th, 2009 under Global Warming • Tags: Alarmist Behaviour, Grassroots Skeptics, Hockey Stick Graph, Little Ice Age, Science.
He is going after them....YES!!!
I don’t think McIntyre claims to have exposed the BRE-X (gold mine) fraud but to have seen parallels between how that fraud was hyped and data was abused/concocted, with how the IPCC/AGW fraud has proceeded.
I’m far from expert on any of this, but from what I read about the BRE-X fraud (mid-90s) it collapsed when attempts at physical verification were made in Indonesia (where the great, historic “gold find” was supposed to be, but which turned out to be a total hoax). Maybe McIntyre did push for proper analysis there, I’m not sure, but from what I recall reading about it the whole thing rose and fell pretty darned fast, b/c as soon as routine verification was attempted the whole house of cards began to collapse.
It seems that McIntyre makes the comparison to show how easily data fraud can be hyped by “interested” parties if there is no independent analysis and verification. Definitely a great comparison, whether or not McIntyre was involved in the original exposures of the BRE-X fraud.... certainly a relevant example from his own knowlege/industry.
Interesting read at the link! Thanks for the ping EatB!
OK,...clearly I overstated his role....I thought he was directly involved.
bttt
Things just piling up against the GW crowd. Thanks for the post and ping.
This whole post and attachments are excellent.
tks.
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.