Replies

Yamil tree Rings study really BAD Science and being challenged....coverup underway....

NOW to Powerline:

The Alarmists Do "Science": A Case Study

*********************************EXCERPT********************************

November 21, 2009 Posted by John at 8:18 AM

A fascinating, hot-off-the-presses story emerges from the emails that were hacked yesterday from the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre. It is one of many exchanges that shed light on the priority that the global warming alarmists give to politics and career advancement over science.

The story began when Steve McIntyre, the same researcher who was largely responsible for destroying Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph purporting to show unprecedented warming in the 20th century, turned his attention to a famous article published by Keith Briffa of East Anglia's CRU in 2000. This article analyzed the diameters of tree rings, including rings from an area called Yamal in Siberia, and conveniently generated another hockey-stick shaped graph. You can read an account of the ensuing controversy here. McIntyre's work appeared to show that Briffa had cherry-picked trees in order to get the result he was looking for. One fact that this story highlights is that global warming alarmists publish their results in scientific journals, but refuse to make the underlying data publicly available so that the validity of their analyses can be checked.

McIntyre's revelations caused a firestorm of controversy, in response to which the alarmist community circled its wagons to fend off the threat from an outsider. This process can be clearly seen in the East Anglia emails.

The alarmists' effort to respond to McIntyre was complicated by the fact that Briffa had been ill and undergone surgery, and was then recuperating. So several of them wrote to Briffa's co-author, Tim Osborn, for advice on how to respond to McIntyre's critique. Osborn replied on September 29, 2009:

Hi Mike and Gavin, thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith. I'll pass on your best wishes for his recovery when I next speak to Keith. He's been off almost 4 months now and won't be back for at least another month ....
Regarding Yamal, I'm afraid I know very little about the whole thing -- other than that I am 100% confident that "The tree ring data was hand-picked to get the desired result" is complete crap. Having one's integrity questioned like this must make your blood boil....
Apart from Keith, I think Tom Melvin here is the only person who could shed light on the McIntyre criticisms of Yamal. But he can be a rather loose cannon and shouldn't be directly contacted about this....

So: these scientists don't really have any idea whether McIntyre's critique of Briffa's work is correct or not. Even Briffa's co-author professes ignorance. There is one person they could approach who could "shed light on the McIntyre criticisms of Yamal." But they don't do it. Why? Because "he can be rather a loose cannon and shouldn't be directly contacted...." In other words, his loyalty to the cause of climate alarmism may not be absolute. This is much like the case noted here where Michael Mann, one of the recipients of the above email, warns against sharing information with a scientist named Andy because he is "not as predictable as we'd like."

Despite having no idea what the facts are, the alarmists don't hesitate to formulate a position. Thus, on the next day, September 30, Osborn writes:

Keith's temporarily come in to get a handle on all this, but it will take time. Likely outcome is (1) brief holding note that no cherry-picking was done and demonstrating data selection is defendable by our time tomorrow; (2) longer piece with more evaluation etc. in around a week. No point is posting something that turns out to be wrong.

That's good enough for Osborn's fellow alarmists. Michael Mann replies:

great--thanks Tim, sounds like we have a plan. in our post, which we'll target for tomorrow as well, we'll simply link to whatever CRU puts up and re-iterate the sentiment of the temporary short response (i.e. that there was no cherry-picking, a careful and defensible selection procedure was used) and we'll mostly focus on the broader issues, i.e. that any impact of this one series in the vast array of paleoclimate reconstructions (and the importance of the paleoclimate reconstructions themselves) has been over-stated, why these sorts of attacks are not legitimate science, etc.

Note that the alarmists are willing to denounce McIntyre's work as "not legitimate science" even though, at this point, they still have no idea whether his analysis was right or wrong. That is not, however, what they tell the outside world. On September 29, Andrew Revkin, environmental reporter for the New York Times, wrote to Mann asking about McIntyre's critique:

needless to say, seems the 2008 pnas paper showing that without tree rings still solid picture of unusual recent warmth, but McIntyre is getting wide play for his statements about Yamal data-set selectivity.
Has he communicated directly to you on this and/or is there any indication he's seeking journal publication for his deconstruct?

Mann, ignorant of the facts, responds by slandering McIntyre:

Homing in on the Yamil Tree Ring study...and searching f:

*************************************

Exact match results

You searched for Keiller.

There were 1 results for the exact phrase Keiller., see below for more results.

Wednesday, 28 October 2009 20:04:00 : Filename: 1256760240.txt*********************************EXCERPTS*********************************

From: Phil Jones To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: FW: Yamal and paleoclimatology Date: Wed Oct 28 16:04:00 2009

Keith,

There is a lot more there on CA now. I would be very wary about responding to this

person now having seen what McIntyre has put up.

You and Tim talked about Yamal. Why have the bristlecones come in now.

[1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7588#comments

This is what happens - they just keep moving the goalposts.

Maybe get Tim to redo OB2006 without a few more series.

Cheers

Phil

******************************snip****************************

Subject: FW: Yamal and paleoclimatology

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:39:48 -0000

From: "Keiller, Donald"

Dear Professor Briffa, I am pleased to hear that you appear to have recovered

from your recent illness sufficiently to post a response to the controversy

surrounding the use of the Yamal chronology;

([5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/cautious/cautious.htm)

and the chronology itself;

([6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/)

Unfortunately I find your explanations lacking in scientific rigour and I am

more inclined to believe the analysis of McIntyre

([7]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7588)

Can I have a straightforward answer to the following questions

1) Are the reconstructions sensitive to the removal of either the Yamal data

and Strip pine bristlecones, either when present singly or in combination?

2) Why these series, when incorporated with white noise as a background, can

still produce a Hockey-Stick shaped graph if they have, as you suggest, a low

individual weighting?

And once you have done this, please do me the courtesy of answering my

initial email.

Dr. D.R. Keiller