Look, I’m all in favor of verifying studies and claims. However, when I do this sort of exercise, I try to carefully quote whatever it is that I’m analyzing and to replicate their analysis as best as I can as part of the commentary. I quote extensively and carefully from the original study.
In contrast, Arthur Smith makes strong and untrue allegations against Climate Audit here without providing any citations from Climate Audit to support his allegations. Smith:
What’s definitely not legitimate is presenting a graph that is specifically stated to be showing one thing, but actually showing another. That might happen just by accident if somebody messed up in creating the graph. But the ClimateAudit discussion and Mosher/Fuller book appeared to claim that in one figure in the 3rd IPCC report (TAR WG1 figure 2.21, 2001) and in one figure in the 4th report (AR4 figure 6.10b, 2007) there was a real instance where “the scientists had actually substituted or replaced the tree ring proxy data with instrument data” deliberately, for the purpose of “hiding the decline”.
Smith does not bother to link to the ClimateAudit discussion, but, from the context, it appears to me my same-day commentary of March 31, 2010 on the Parliamentary Committee report.
Like Brian Angliss, Arthur Smith has gotten a little punch drunk from different versions of tricks from the Team and has incorrectly presumed that I have been wrongfooted by the Team. I don’t, for a minute, wish to suggest that it’s easy not to be wrongfooted by the Team. They’ve wrongfooted me on a number of occasions. However, in this particular case, I’ve had a pretty good idea what to look for and am confident that I haven’t fallen prey to any of the errors alleged by Arthur Smith.
Smith would have saved people considerable effort if he had bothered considering the analysis in my Heartland presentation, which I reported here as my most systematic exposition of the Trick so far.
But let’s help Smith (and Angliss) along a little by showing the versions of the Trick side by side, showing the different versions currently being discussed. On the far right is a plot of the Briffa reconstruction in the style of AR4 using the data from the October 1999 Climategate Letters (up to 1960, it matches AR4 data archived here at CRU.) Second from the right is re-plot of the actual AR4 smoothed data (using CRU versions) colored to more or less synchronize with TAR colors; second from the left is Angliss’ version of the TAR diagram zoom ( a zoom first shown in May 2005 at Climate Audit); on the left is the WMO 1999 diagram re-scaled to match the others.
Figure 1. Trick Versions. Left – Jones’ WMO 1999 discussed in the trick email; second – Mann’s version in IPCC TAR (2001); third – Briffa’s version in AR4 (2007); right – Climategate version (1999), smoothed as in AR4.
Going from right to left, the Trick becomes increasingly layered. However, in each Team version, actual data is replaced by something else.
Using non-truncated data (as preserved in the Climategate emails), the 1980 value of the Briffa reconstruction is -0.41 (anomaly deg C ), obviously not very close to the actual temperature.
The data used for AR4 is identical to Climategate data except for the deletion of post-1960 values. Having deleted actual data, to effect the smooth shown in AR4, Briffa padded values from 1960-1975 with the 1945-1960 mean and smoothed using a gaussian smooth; then he truncated back to 1960. Had he used actual 1960-1975 values, the truncated curve would have ended in 1960 at -0.22 deg C. By padding with 1945-1960 values instead of actual values, the closing endpoint in 1960 was raised somewhat to -0.15 deg C. (Inconvenient post-1960 values were, as is now well known, not shown.) The first two drafts of AR4 did not report the deletion of post-1960 values; no climate scientists objected to this. However, I had rather vehemently objected and Briffa grudgingly mentioned it, a reference that they are now rather glad to have.)
If you look at the TAR (Mann) and AR4 (Briffa) versions of the same Briffa reconstruction, you can see that Mann’s done something different. Post-1960 data have been deleted, but Mann’s done something else as well. In TAR, the 1960 value of the smoothed Briffa reconstruction is about -0.03 deg C or so, as opposed to the -0.15 deg C in AR4. Mann used a different filter (40-year hamming rather than gaussian), but this, in itself, is not enough to account for the difference. TAR itself doesn’t even disclose the deletion of the data, so it is little help in reverse engineering what Mann actually did. A couple of different alternatives have been experimented with by Jean S, UC and myself, each of which involves padding 20 years of something else from 1960-1980 instead of actual data. Jean S and UC have got pretty good replications using variations of (a) actual instrumental data; (b) average instrumental data 1961-1990 (zero by definition of the reference period). After replacing/substituting actual Briffa data with something else, Mann then smoothed and truncated back to 1960. Whatever Mann substituted, it resulted in higher closing values in 1960 than Briffa’s gaussian smooth with mean padding used in AR4.
Jones’ WMO 1999 on the left (discussed in the Trick email, which in turn is discussed in the UEA submission to the Parliamentary Committee) is a more extreme version and does something that Mann said had never been done by any climate scientist – Jones deleted post-1960 reconstruction data, replaced it with instrumental data and smoothed them both, leaving a rhetorical impression that all the reconstructions did a pretty good job.
In my various descriptions of the Trick, I’ve adhered closely to the above understanding. Obviously, I haven’t re-capped the analysis in every post, especially in posts that are commentaries on contemporary events, such as the Parliamentary Committee report.
With this in mind, let’s turn to spitballs from the confused Arthur Smith. Smith:
The first discussion point in Angliss’ review of the claims and in the ClimateAudit back and forth is the meaning of the “trick” to “hide the decline” phrase found in the stolen emails. This has been adversely interpreted in a couple of different ways but the actual meaning has been clearly identified as the process of creating graphs that do include tree-ring-based temperature “proxy” data only up to 1960, or 1980, a point where they start to diverge from temperatures measured by instrumental thermometers. There is nothing scientifically nefarious or “wrong” about this – the “divergence problem” has been extensively discussed in the scientific literature including in the text of the most recent IPCC report. If you have reason to believe a particular collection of tree ring data is a good measure of temperature before 1960 but for some still uncertain reason not after that point, then it’s perfectly legitimate to create a graph using the data you think is reliable, particularly if these choices are all clearly explained in the surrounding text or caption.
Smith provides no authority for the doctrine that it’s OK to delete data that doesn’t do what you expect. It is not a statistical procedure that is recognized in legitimate science. Even the Oxburgh inquiry said that it was “regrettable”. However, Team supporters, having now acquiesced in this vice, now are unoffended by it. Alexander Pope’s words apply to the Trick:
“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
we first endure, then pity, then embrace”
However, the fact that Team supporters are unoffended does not show that any actual Climate Audit statement was unfounded.
And by the way, the truncation of the Briffa data was NOT “clearly explained in the surrounding text or caption” in TAR. Quite the contrary. It wasn’t even mentioned. Nor was it mentioned in the TAR citation. It took careful parsing back and forth of the diagrams in 2005 to figure out that the data had been deleted.
Next let’s parse Smith’s paragraph quoted above.
What’s definitely not legitimate is presenting a graph that is specifically stated to be showing one thing, but actually showing another.
I agree with that but obviously do not agree that Smith has presented any examples or evidence of this occurring at Climate Audit.
Smith continues:
That might happen just by accident if somebody messed up in creating the graph. But the ClimateAudit discussion and Mosher/Fuller book appeared to claim that in one figure in the 3rd IPCC report (TAR WG1 figure 2.21, 2001) and in one figure in the 4th report (AR4 figure 6.10b, 2007) there was a real instance where “the scientists had actually substituted or replaced the tree ring proxy data with instrument data” deliberately, for the purpose of “hiding the decline”.
Contrary to Smith’s allegation, to the best of my knowledge, I have never asserted that AR4 figure 6.10b, 2007 involved the replacement of actual data with instrumental data. My criticism of the AR4 graphic was based on the truncation of data. Smith provided no citation or reference supporting this allegation. (If someone can find evidence otherwise, I will defer to such evidence.) As to the TAR diagram, as noted above, the mere fact that it differs from the AR4 diagram shows that something else has been substituted. Based on Jean S and UC’s reverse engineering, I am convinced that instrumental data (either annual or reference period mean) for 1960-1980 was used instead of actual data for the TAR smooth and have reported this on various occasions. However, to be clear, this is based on reverse engineering; the actual methodology has never been disclosed, but clearly differs somehow from the AR4 padding. It would have been nice if one of the inquiries had actually inquired into the trick and taken this unknown off the table.
Smith continued:
As Angliss cited, McIntyre definitely uses the word “substitution”, and Fuller highlighted a portion of the Mosher/Fuller book using the word “replaced”. McIntyre later clarified that his claim was not related to these IPCC figures but rather something else.
Once again, Smith is confused and presumes that I share his confusion. In the post in question, I was commenting on a statement by the UEA which was about the trick email, which in turn was about the WMO 1999 diagram, in which instrumental data was clearly spliced with proxy data.
While it is my strong belief (as noted above) that the TAR diagram involves the substitution of 1960-80 instrument data (either annual or reference period mean) for actual proxy data, this substitution is only a rhetorical tweak , with the main effect deriving from the deletion of data – a point made on many occasions at CA.
Angliss didn’t understand that the UEA submission referred to the WMO 1999 diagram (though this was well known to CA readers) and somewhat acknowledged his error relatively promptly. But only somewhat. Angliss had originally stated:
If the scientists had actually substituted or replaced the tree ring proxy data with instrument data, then McIntyre and Fuller would have a valid claim of fraudulent behavior by Phil Jones et al. However, nothing was substituted or replaced.
Confronted with unequivocal evidence that Jones had “actually substituted or replaced the tree ring proxy data with instrument data”, Angliss deleted the above paragraph. (As noted on many occasions, I don’t use words like “fraud”.)
In my opinion, Smith was correct in one observation – that, in comment #7 on Angliss’ article at June 8, 2010 at 12:34 pm, Mosher slightly mis-described the padding method in AR4 -Mosher said that this diagram also used instrument padding, rather than 1940-1960 proxy mean padding. (To my knowledge, this point did not arise in CRUTape Letters – I didn’t see any mention of this detail in a quick peruse this morning.) Here is part of Mosher’s comment #7:
The TAR is the third Report. We are talking about the FAR. figure 6.10. But I can make the same point with the TAR was with the FAR. You clearly don’t know how the trick works. Let me explain. The tree ring data POST 1960 is truncated. That is step 1. That step is covered in the text of chapter 6 ( more on that later ) The next step is to SMOOTH the data for the graphical presentation. The smoothing algorithm is a 30 year smooth.
and later:
So still, after all this time people do not understand the trick because they have not attended to the math.
1. the series is truncated at 1960.
2. a smoothing filter ( typically 30 years) is applied.
3. To compute the final years of the smooth ( half the filter width) the temperature series is used.That procedure is the trick. in a nutshell. If you want directions read Jones’ mail.
Mosher’s comment here is not correct for all versions of the trick. As noted above, the AR4 version of the trick pads with 1945-1960 mean values rather than instrumental values and thus differs somewhat from what Mosher described above. Mosher can perhaps clarify this for himself.
All Smith has shown here is that a Climate Audit reader somewhat mis-described one of the versions of the Trick in a comment at another blog. He demonstrated precisely nothing about statements made by me at Climate Audit. Smith’s insinuation that Climate Audit had somehow been associated with “presenting a graph that is specifically stated to be showing one thing, but actually showing another” is totally unjustified.
Climate Audit 
335 Comments
Well, done, Art. Your turn. 🙂
[With so many different flavors of tricks being played (padding, truncating, layering) in so many venues, how can there NOT be a consistent, systematic” attempt to deceive? Borrowing from the language of Oxburgh.]
#
Richard T. Fowler
Posted Jun 22, 2010 at 10:21 PM | Permalink | Reply | Edit | Paste Link
I posted, about six hours ago on the page of Smith’s that Bender linked, a response to the following comment by Smith from yesterday:
———-
But the bottom line is this: I can’t see how the claim that Mann deleted the post-1960 portion of the Briffa series and then “padded” it with post-1960 instrumental values can possibly hold. And by the way, McIntyre has also made that very claim.
———-
My comment was reported to be “queued for moderation by site administrators and will be published after approval.”
Six hours later, and nothing.
Unfortunately, I did not remember to copy this particular comment, so I have lost the exact text. But the main point of it was, I had looked at the Briffa 2000 paper, and copied Figures 1 and 5 into a graphic program (MS Paint, sorry, it’s all I have), and compressed the time axis of Fig. 5 to match that of Fig 1, and compressed the y-axis just a little to match up the 2-sigma-range in each direction, and before compressing I had highlighted the smoothed trendline of the tree-ring average on Fig. 5 so that when I compressed it, it would still be distinguishable. And when you line up the two time series with each other, it is painfully obvious that Fig. 1 used instrument temperature data in place of tree ring data.
I asked Smith if he could not see this. But since he won’t allow my comment to post, he has an excuse for not answering.
I guess the central point I was driving at was, if the Briffa 2000 paper contained a series with grafted instrument data, and Mann just copied that, then Smith could be technically correct that Mann did not delete “the post-1960 portion of the Briffa series and then” pad it with post-1960 instrumental values. Fine, Smith, but even if you’re right, how could anyone argue with a straight face, after climategate, that Mann should be given the benefit of doubt as to whether he knew what he was copying? Especially with _both_ the real _and_ the false data available in the same paper, within a few pages of each other?
And Smith’s argument still amounts to little more than saying that the Briffa 2000 data doesn’t go down — an assertion that can only be true if you define “the Briffa 2000 data” to mean the data plotted in Fig. 1, i.e., the data that are truncated at 1960 and replaced with temperature data!
So … whoop-de-doo. The “Briffa 2000 data” don’t go down. (Not!) But what have you accomplished, Smith!? You’re openly defending the use, in a number of spaghetti charts, of two series THAT BOTH CONTAIN THE SAME TEMPERATURE RECORD, IN THE SAME TIME RANGE!
Charts in which both of those two series are factored (in one way or another) into various assessments of overall temperature trends — and in which the real, declining tree-ring data from Briffa (which represents, not just new data from Briffa, but all of the northern boreal forest series that he selected for inclusion in his hemispheric average).
How can any honest auditor possibly think that such a spaghetti chart is in any way valid, either scientifically or for use in policy-making?
RTF
#
Richard T. Fowler
Posted Jun 22, 2010 at 10:29 PM | Permalink | Reply | Edit | Paste Link
Correction:
Charts in which both of those two series are factored (in one way or another) into various assessments of overall temperature trends — and in which the real, declining tree-ring data from Briffa (which represents, not just new data from Briffa, but all of the northern boreal forest series that he selected for inclusion in his hemispheric average) are excluded.
RTF
#
MikeN
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 12:21 AM | Permalink | Reply | Edit | Paste Link
He was looking at AR4, for which Briffa is the editor. I started to review it, but after seeing the figure in question, I find it highly unlikely that they tried to hide a decline on that chart. It makes no difference. It looks like a different visual trick entirely.
I can also see no thread on ClimateAudit that contradicts his post, which focused on AR4.
#
Richard T. Fowler
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 1:28 AM | Permalink | Reply | Edit | Paste Link
Yes, what I’m trying to say (have been on a couple of threds, actually) is that if data were copied (to AR4, to TAR, to WMO, to _wherever_, it simply doesn’t matter) FROM — pay attention now — FROM, Briffa 2000, Fig. 1, and if Briffa 2000, Fig. 1, contains an instrument graft or splice (which is an idea I originally got by following the subtext of Steve’s comments on the “desmogging” posts), then that means Briffa was the original source of the false data. This is confirmed by comparing Fig. 5 with Fig. 1 in Briffa 2000.
Does that clear up anything for you?
Further, I am not saying that McIntyre has explicitly written this anywhere (though I certainly don’t rule it out). I’m just saying that the proof is right there in Briffa 2000 by comparing the two figures. It doesn’t take any scripting or any blown-up screen shots. All you have to do is compress Fig. 5 so that it can be compared on the same scale with Fig. 1. And it’s totally obvious. A high-school student could see it, for God’s sake.
This is all so simple. The other issues, while not unimportant and not unworthy of discussion, are surely secondary to this.
RTF
#
Bill Stoltzfus
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 7:04 AM | Permalink | Reply | Edit | Paste Link
I believe that the quote was “no one in this field has ever spliced…”. And that always makes me wonder what ‘field’ he is talking about. If they can claim that at the time of that statement they were talking about some field other than dendroclimatology, the statement is true, however intentionally misleading it otherwise is.
#
anonym
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 8:29 AM | Permalink | Reply | Edit | Paste Link
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
A beguiling statement, but it’s never been true.
#
Amabo
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 9:06 AM | Permalink | Reply | Edit | Paste Link
An interesting example, anon, but it does not support your statement. I’d say it probably does the exact opposite.
#
bender
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 11:17 AM | Permalink | Reply | Edit | Paste Link
Arthur Smith’s ongoing committment to auditing is indeed highly welcome. It’s his ad hoc editorializing and unbalanced rhetoric that is not welcome.
#
bender
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 11:26 AM | Permalink | Reply | Edit | Paste Link
So that we are all able to follow along, we are talking about this paper when we refer to Briffa (2000)?
Click to access Briffa%20and%20Keith%202000.pdf
#
bender
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 11:42 AM | Permalink | Reply | Edit | Paste Link
Briffa (2000) hypothesizes:
“The empirically derived regression equations upon which our reconstructions are based may be compromised if the balance between photosynthesis and respiration is changed by DIFFERENTIAL HEATING IN THE LIGHT AND DARK.” [caps mine.]
The suppression of divergent data could be justified if it could be proven that there is some substance to this hypothesis – differential day/night CAGW causing an imbalance in respiration/photosynthesis (such that a linear calibration model is a poor choice of model for reconstructing the 20th c).
But in the absence of any such evidence it would seem very difficult to justify such a distortion of the record. Then or now.
#
bender
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 11:51 AM | Permalink | Reply | Edit | Paste Link
RTF says:
“if Briffa 2000, Fig. 1, contains an instrument graft or splice…”
But – gross visual inspection – nothing in those Fig 1 data suggests to me a splice of this nature. The data, on the surface, appear to be exactly what the caption says.
#
bender
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 12:02 PM | Permalink | Reply | Edit | Paste Link
… although the density index in Fig 5 crosses below the horizontal axis in the mid 1950s, whereas in the Fig 1 it stays above that line throughout the 20th c.
This does merit a harder look.
#
bender
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 12:09 PM | Permalink | Reply | Edit | Paste Link
Let’s ask Art to investigate.
#
Richard T. Fowler
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 12:23 PM | Permalink | Reply | Edit | Paste Link
Bender,
Keep looking. The rise in Figure 1 matches the temp line in fig. 5 perfectly.
I have confidence in you. In fact I believe McIntyre is already on to this, and probably working on writing it up. But I felt that I needed to share it as soon as I found it.
RTF
#
Richard T. Fowler
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 12:24 PM | Permalink | Reply | Edit | Paste Link
Smith will not allow my comment to post.
I don’t know the man at all; I’m just sayin….
RTF
#
Richard T. Fowler
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 12:26 PM | Permalink | Reply | Edit | Paste Link
Bender,
Yes, of course.
RTF
#
bender
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 12:30 PM | Permalink | Edit | Paste Link
Yeah, I see that now. The Fig 5 data for NHD1 match the original 1998a paper to which they are attributed. The problem appears to be Fig 1. The 20th c. match is striking.
#
bender
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 12:33 PM | Permalink | Edit | Paste Link
What do you get when you average series a-g in Fig 1? They look like they would produce h. So is that how he gets the match to instrumental – by post-hoc selection of the sites a-g? How do the sites a-g map to those in NHD1 of Fig 5? Is there cherry-picking going on?
#
bender
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 12:36 PM | Permalink | Edit | Paste Link
The uptick at the end of series h in Fig 1 appears to be attributible solely to none other than Yamal’s “stay thirsty” tree.
#
bender
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 12:40 PM | Permalink | Reply | Edit | Paste Link
RTF says:
“when you line up the two time series with each other, it is painfully obvious that Fig. 1 used instrument temperature data in place of tree ring data”
Nothing is ever “painfully obvious” to me until I have the proof code running on my machine and it does exactly what you say it does. I look forward to Arthur Smith releasing your post from the moderation queue, so I can see your graphic (which is still short of a painfully obvious proof). Please let us know when that happens.
#
Richard T. Fowler
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 12:40 PM | Permalink | Edit | Paste Link
I’m not a professional researcher, so I’m not going to rush to judgment. I’ll let you and others comment on this first. I have my belief, but that’s not necessarily the only explanation.
RTF
#
bender
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 12:43 PM | Permalink | Edit | Paste Link
You don’t need to be a “professional researcher” to make a spreadsheet that averages 7 time-series. You don’t need to be a “professional researcher” to compare two lists of sites to see how they match up.
#
Richard T. Fowler
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 12:46 PM | Permalink | Reply | Edit | Paste Link
Bender,
Your caution is appropriate, even though it seems clear to me what I’m seeing.
I’ll let you know _if_ it happens. If I’m right about what happened with the study, I’d be surprised if Smith would be willing to do a full airing — absent forcing from SM.
RTF
#
Richard T. Fowler
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 12:48 PM | Permalink | Edit | Paste Link
I understand that, Bender. I just want to wait a little while and see if anyone else sees what I see. I’ll be happy to do more analysis in a little bit. I’m just asking for a little break. I don’t even know if I’m the first to plow this ground yet.
RTF
#
bender
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 1:00 PM | Permalink | Edit | Paste Link
According to the B2000 Fig captions, Fig 1 uses both temperature recons and ring width series. Whereas Fig 5 is based on mxd density chronologies. So you are effectively comparing apples and oranges. The two series shouldn’t match exactly – and moreover the modern divergence that you point to is precisely what concerned Briffa, motivated him to suggest not using this proxy after 1960.
#
Richard T. Fowler
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 1:05 PM | Permalink | Edit | Paste Link
Bender,
I don’t know what verbiage you’re looking at. What I see in the Fig. 1 caption is,
———-
The bottom curve is the average of the other data sets after rescaling to give equal mean and variance (over the common period 1601-1974), also plotted as 50-year smoothed values.
———-
RTF
Sounds like apples-to-apples to me. Other than the fact that you have said that Fig 5 was old data, which I did not understand. Still, adding in the new Briffa data obviously could not cause the change we’re looking at, so it’s still pretty close to apples-to-apples, in my view.
RTF
#
Richard T. Fowler
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 1:19 PM | Permalink | Edit | Paste Link
Bender,
I think I see where you are going astray. The Fig. 1 caption begins by saying, in relevant part:
———-
The curves show selected reconstructions of [. . .] temperatures or temperature-sensitive tree-ring chronologies.
———-
Clearly, this must have been intended to mean, not an averaging together of instrumental data with reconstructions, but rather that “temperature-sensitive tree-ring chronologies” is _synonymous_ with the term “reconstructions of temperatures.”
Does that clear up the matter of contention about apples-to-apples comparison, in your view?
RTF
#
bender
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 1:40 PM | Permalink | Edit | Paste Link
RTF,
read p. 90, para. #2.
#
bender
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 1:44 PM | Permalink | Edit | Paste Link
“The other three regional series in Fig 1 (e-g) …”
I’m not going astray.
#
bender
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 1:48 PM | Permalink | Edit | Paste Link
And note the last sentence in that paragraph:
“It is notable that …”
So the caption doesn’t tell the full story. Which is standard for a “Review” type article, where details are often left buried in the original material being reviewed.
#
Richard T. Fowler
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 1:48 PM | Permalink | Reply | Edit | Paste Link
Bender,
Please note I did not post my graphic in that post. I don’t have a blog or other site to post that to … but I note that you have indicated above that you see the divergence and how Fig. 1 matches with the Fig. 5 temperature curve in the 20th century.
I was rather hoping to prompt Smith to create such a graphic himself, if he’s such a good and serious auditor.
Also as I stated somewhere earlier, I believe McIntyre is on to this, and if he is, he must be working on his own assessment of it. Let’s remember that in this Heartland presentation, he implicitly accuses Briffa of having produced the first known truncation of tree-ring data, in Briffa & Osborn 1999:
———-
For the first time, values after 1960 were deleted. In retrospect, this article was the first bite of the poison apple of hide the decline.
———-
RTF
#
bender
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 1:59 PM | Permalink | Reply | Edit | Paste Link
You say the 1999 deletion was “posion apple”. To them, it appeared justified. Until the cause of the divergence between ring width and ring density is ascertained (see Fig 1e.f) it is a judgement call as to how to interept and present and contextualize divergent observations. There are no hard and fast rules as to how scientists should respond to requests from policy makers to simplify/clarify a narrative. So they winged it.
#
Hu McCulloch
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 2:01 PM | Permalink | Reply | Edit | Paste Link
I think a post by Mosh or Steve on CA replying to Smith’s post would be very helpful. If Mosh did make an error, I am sure he would admit it, and if not it should be easy to clarify where Smith is confused (or confusing).
#
bender
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 2:05 PM | Permalink | Edit | Paste Link
This is precisely the topic that was under discussion the night climategate broke. What is responsible for the spike up in Yamal ring width when the density data show the opposite trend (Fig 1f). Note Briffa’s 2000 supposition – that it is the density series that are anomalous. The alternative hypothesis is that it is the ring width data that are anomalous.
(Of course, the two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.)
#
Richard T. Fowler
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 2:10 PM | Permalink | Edit | Paste Link
Bender,
Interesting. So, is it your hypothesis that Briffa “cherry-picked” ONE SINGLE SERIES for his late-19th-century “average” curve in Briffa 2000, since you apparently believe that he would have had an easier time getting away with _this_ than with just grafting on an instrument record?
I’m not sure I accept that your hypothesis would have been an easier hack than mine. You could be right! But (just rolling it around in my mind for the first time) I’m still skeptical.
Thank you very much for your clarifications on the details of the datasets.
RTF
#
Richard T. Fowler
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 2:11 PM | Permalink | Edit | Paste Link
Oops … “late 20th century”
RTF
#
bender
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 2:17 PM | Permalink | Edit | Paste Link
RTF,
Be sure also to read the last paragraph beginning on p. 96. This may help clarify for you where you are going astray.
#
Richard T. Fowler
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 2:17 PM | Permalink | Reply | Edit | Paste Link
But Bender, you yourself just said a little further up the thread that the only series that went up during that time was _one_ of the Yamal series.
So how can you now argue that the density average diverges from the ring-width average?
I’m confused. The issue seems clear to me, but the fact that you disagree so strongly has me wondering what else I don’t yet know about this subject.
RTF
#
bender
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 2:22 PM | Permalink | Edit | Paste Link
I don’t have a “hypothesis”. I do suggest you start by understanding the difference between ring width and ring density. As Briffa makes clear, THIS is the source of divergence between Fig 1 and Fig 5.
Next question. Why does Fig 1 move upward in mid-late 20th c.? This is a good one. Is it because of cherry-picked Yamal? well, all the rw series kinda go up. But Yamal rockets up. Was there a biased selection of sites? I believe that was established in the days preceding the release of FOIA.ZIP.
#
bender
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 2:25 PM | Permalink | Edit | Paste Link
I didn’t say that. They all go up more-or less, in that Fig 1 (certainly relative to the density series in Fig 5). But Yamal *rockets* up.
How many cherries do you need to sell an apple pie as “cherry”?
Re: Briffa 2000 Fig 1 vs Fig 5 divergence
According to the B2000 Fig captions (actually the main text on p. 90), Fig 1 uses both temperature recons and ring width series. Whereas Fig 5 is based on mxd density chronologies. So you are effectively comparing apples and oranges. The two series shouldn’t match exactly – and moreover the modern divergence that you point to is precisely what concerned Briffa, motivated him to suggest not using this proxy after 1960.
RE: Briffa 2000 Fig 1:
All the series go up from ~1870 to ~1930. After that they vary, but general drop down (though not so much as they rose). Net effect is an overall 20th c. rise. Key point: It is the uptick from ~1960 onward in (h) that appears to be extremely dependent on the anomalous Yamal (f).
For this reason I have no reason to buy into RTF’s “instrumental padding” hypothesis for Fig 1.
I decline to continue with this line of inquiry at this time, because I have had a plurality of my posts disappear from the other page after Bender had responded to them, and other posts have been mixed up out of their original order and deposited at the bottom of the page.
Thus, if I am in fact correct, I have no confidence that the ultimate record of the conversation will reflect my comments accurately and within their original context.
This is very disturbing to me.
RTF
Steve: They are all moved to this thread where they are topical. No slight intended.
RTF,
We were OT. That’s the risk. What’s Steve to do? He can’t be spending all day grafting branches onto trees. We can summarize here, now, if you like.
Steve: They are all located on this thread here if you look. It takes me a few seconds to
insert tags but zero seconds for people to complain.
Steve,
I’m not blaming you. But I’m sure there were a couple of posts that had disappeared. Maybe they’ll come back.
I need to take a break from this. I’ll return later.
Thank you Steve for copying what you did and moving it over here. I am very honored.
RTF
RTF:
Look book at the Kelly thread. There is one branch and a few orphans that got left behind. Nothing has been deleted.
Bender
When I quoted you here:
where is your comment that I was quoting?
Furthermore, that permalinked message is NOT found on this page.
So the conversation is very mixed up as it stands. Again I’m not blaming anyone at CA. But it is what it is.
I think I need to wait and see what else develops from this before I continue commenting.
RTF
I agree that I said those words. (I am guessing they are encapsulated in teh graft above.) I responded twice, first by explaining why a clarification is requried and second, by clarifying more precisely what exactly I meant.
Here, again, is my clarfication:
“All the series go up from ~1870 to ~1930. After that they vary, but general drop down (though not so much as they rose). Net effect is an overall 20th c. rise. Key point: It is the uptick from ~1960 onward in (h) that appears to be extremely dependent on the anomalous Yamal (f).”
The time stamps are preserved above. You have nothing to fear from me in terms of re-writing or distorting the record. I just think you got wrong-footed not recognizing that Fig 1 was largely based on ring width and Fig 5 based on density. What’s the shame in admitting the oversight?
Steve: actually, the large population density corresponding to Figure 5 declines as well – though it’s only noted in passing in the 1998 articles. Figure 1 shows selected sites known to go up – an average of all available sites would show the decline.
What RTF wants to know is whether this “selection” (the sites represented in Fig 1) has been discussed previously. I don’t recall. He referred to “my” “cherry-picking” hypothesis. But I can’t even remember if that is the hypothesis. I would think so …
Someone should try to get things back in the subthreads they were in, because we had two main subthreads going on at the same time, and now they’re all folded in together on the SM comment above. The way it is, it’s almost impossible for ME to see what exactly was being discussed with whom. Obviously someone else who just comes in and reads it for the first time will be totally lost as to what I was thinking and what Bender was thinking. And how will they be able to compare Bender’s idea with mine?
It’s like some court case is in progress, and then someone comes in an throws all the evidence papers AND the transcripts of the proceedings up in the air, re-collects them in a single box, and then plunks them down in front the jury. Ya’ think it might affect the verdict somewhat??
RTF
RTF,
If it’s that bloody important to you, let’s recapitulate it here.
You thought there was some padding happening in Briffa 2000 Fig 1h because it deviated significantly from his Fig 5. I pointed out that Fig 1 is from a set of sites that may not map to those in Fig 5 and, more importantly, that the two quantities were different: rw vs mxd. Moreover Fig 1 itself illustrates rw vs mxd divergence at two key sites: Yamal & Tornetrask. You then asked if I hypothesized cherry-picking for the sites in Fig 1. I responded that it was not *my* hypothesis. But it’s the kind of thing that the Team likes to do, so I would not be too surprised. (Although Briffa is not nearly as bad as Mann in that regard.) Steve has suggested ther eis in fact some cherry-picking going on because a larger-scale average would not show the rise that this sample does.
Does this not accurately capture our exchange?
Bender,
This is not a completely fair summary of the arguments I made. However, going with this for the moment….
You said, “The *degree* of uptick appears to be heavily dependent on one tree.”
You are referring apparently to one of the two Yamal series.
This is the only series that goes up after 1950.
The main point I was making (repeatedly) was that the “average” data go up dramatically post-1950, whereas every other series besides that Yamal one goes down post-1950.
After that, you said that post-1930, “[. . .] they vary, but general drop down (though not so much as they rose.”
In actual fact, they don’t just “generally” drop down after 1950 … they ALL drop down after 1950, EXCEPT for the one Yamal series. You have yet to acknowledge this. I want credit for having said it before, and having been CORRECT about that fact … because it is key to my hypothesis that Fig. 1h contains instrument data.
The other points that have not been tied up, I am content to leave to others to address, and perhaps I will jump in at that time with my two cents.
RTF
Steve: Figure 1h does not contain instrumental data. This is not worth discussing.
Steve,
Then, do we have the data for that figure?
Do you take the position that series must have been cherry-picked?
I would argue that an undisclosed weighted average that overweights the one rising Yamal series post-1950 and underweights every other series in the average is tantamount to picking one single cherry.
If I am unjustified in that argument, I certainly can’t see how.
RTF
Steve: http://www.climateaudit.info/data/briffa/briffa.raw.txt is collation of data that used to be on Briffa’s website. I’ve got other things to do right now.
Steve,
Sorry, I hadn’t seen your response below at
If what you describe is true, that sounds like a pretty bad trick to me.
I can’t help but wonder what the avg. curve would look like if it only went to, say, 1980 or 1985.
RTF
Thanks for the data!
RTF
“-based temperature “proxy” data only up to 1960, or 1980, a point where they start to diverge from temperatures measured by instrumental thermometers.”
For the record, do they start diverging from the actual measured record? Or, just from the value-added record?
I’ve kind of wondered about that myself. Perhaps a look at the local temperatures could shed some light on this.
Angliss followed up later with
Furthermore, there remains some question about whether it was the raw instrument data that was used for padding or the mean of the instrument data in the case of the WMO. I’m going to do some more reading on that and see if I can find the data to crunch my own numbers before I say more about it, however.
raw or mean – sure, it “matters” – but it’s still a splice.
“Mosher’s comment here is not correct for all versions of the trick.”
Right. In other words Mosher’s “full of it”.
So, Art, what are you full of?
Can you not forgive Mosher, given how many different version of the trick that are being played?
Steve: Mosher’s commentary on the trick is 98% right – a far higher percentage than Angliss or Smith
I forgive him the 2% miss rate.
Mosher claimed the same thing for WMO as well. Not just in the blog post, but also in the CRUTape book. So for 3 charts he has described a method, and this method only applies to one of the charts. I think his overall commentary in the thread is very accurate, but this particular claim is a bit off.
Steve: I would have written the details differently, but the overall characterization of the Trick in CRUTape Letters sheds light on the problem. What sentences are you objecting to? Here’s a relevant excerpt:
The bolded sentence “Very simply, the trick consists of deleting a portion of a tree ring series, appending real temperature data to this truncated series, and then smoothing it” seems fair enough in respect to the WMO graphic.
Re: WMO
How is Mosher wrong here? What does he assert, and what was actually done? Let’s clarify your understanding before I go making accusations.
MikeN? Where you be at?
MikeN?
Wow someone’s in a hurry. I’ve already messed up a few times, I thought I’d check the source materials to see if I’d screwed up again.
Turns out Steve has quoted the error I saw in the book. It’s right there at the beginning, Jones cut off at 1960. I asked Steven Mosher about this at S&R, but by that time he had left that thread.
Steve – the book language is inconsistent in places on some of these nuances. Later in the paragraph the WMO version of the trick is described correctly. I re-read this chapter. There are definitely some points that need to be revised slightly, but it is a much more accurate take on the Trick than you see in realclimate and the inquiries.
Well yes of course I agree with that. I give Mosher 98% overall, but the discussion seems to focus on the part he got wrong. Hmmm…
Apologies, MikeN, for the impatience.
Plus don’t end a sentence with a preposition, so it should have been where you be at !@#$%^^&?
Nice writing style Mosher, I am immediately going to Amazon to get a copy
of the book.
A curiosity to me, is that the Mann TAR figure seems to have the Briffa data with completely different scaling from all of the others. The smooth also appears more aggressive than the figures to it’s left, but not as strong as that in the WMO graph, which appears to use the strongest smoothing.
It’s amazing that anyone could think presenting data in such a way is a good idea.
If they were aware of what they were doing (hard to imagine them not being aware) they must have known people would spot the discrepancies. If they weren’t, they ought to have left the graphing to people who knew what they were doing.
What were they thinking?!?
“they must have known people would spot the discrepancies”
But “people” DIDN’T spot the difference. Only Steve did.
Ah, C’mon! You know what I meant. Don’t be so pedantic (Ironic coming from someone as pedantic as I am!).
However, that it wasn’t noticed by anyone sooner and closer to the entire process, does suggest that “people” aren’t scrutinizing these things the way they should.
Steve was an IPCC reviewer. He caught what was going on. So at least part of the process works. The part that appears to work less well is when the authorities over-ride the dissenter and pretend there is no dissent.
.. and the implications of this answers timetochooseagain’s question “What were they thinking?!?” Not, it turns out, just a rhetorical question.
“What were they thinking?!?”
that they know best & can fool some off the people etc..
Padding, Smoothing, Truncating …
choose your operators and parameters at will.
What you have here is a formula for
a full taxonomy of trickitude.
Nay, said the spider to the mere human who sees and indeed conceives of only his three primary colors. Padding, smoothing, truncating, those are indeed beautiful shades of trickitude. But you cannot conceive how sad it is for us to know that your souls pass this world limited to perceiving only those colors, unable to appreciate a fuller spectrum including such colors as the lambent shade of data presented upside down and the vibrant hue of simulation presented as experiment.
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_spider and be sure to note the expression of sorrowful reflection on the spider face at the upper right.)
Thanks, Steve — I think I’m getting it straight now. 🙂
However, I was confused at first by your reference to the “Climategate” version of the graph. It took me a while to figure out that this is a redo of the AR4 graph, using the complete version of the Briffa data, that was only disclosed in one of the Climategate e-mails. Also, in the caption to Figure 1, panel 4, why “(1999)”?
Steve- I’ll clarify that point.
I’m also confused about the Climategate AR4. The actual AR4 graph shows many more proxies. Is the Climategate version an update of the TAR version that was later added to?
I think this makes a difference because in my opinion, hide the decline has little effect on the AR4 chart, as it uses a different visual trick of having all the proxies disappear under the instrumental temperature.
I think that the line in the inevitable movie will be ‘You had me at WMO-99…’.
Bender,
I’m not backing away from the _idea_ that it seems clear to me that it’s instrument data in fig. 1h. I was eating my dinner, so I didn’t check back too often.
I said already that you could be right that it is a single cherry-picked tree. But to me, the issue is: which is the easier hack or “trick”: cherry-picking a SINGLE TREE and having no one catch it before publication, or preparing a graph that’s accurate, then substituting at a late date one that contains instrument data, and getting away that.
That’s the question for me: which seems more plausible?
Whichever one SEEMED more plausible to Briffa, reasonably (in my view) would have been what he did.
The notion that the one rising Yamal series could have accounted for all of that rise in the study-wide average seems to me to be implausible simply because the rising curve exactly matches the Temperature on Fig. 5. Also, that Yamal series goes up by about 1SD, whereas there are two series, Northern N. America and Talmyr, that each go down by the same amount in that period.
So unless the ONE Yamal series was given extraordinary weighting (which would be tantamount to picking that one cherry and leaving the others out), I’m comfortable with my hypothesis. Can I prove it, no, I suppose not at this point without a digitizer and perhaps a successful FOI. But I have this going for me: you’re the one defending the integrity of Briffa. And I don’t see him rushing to set the record straight.
RTF
Steve: You’re wrong. There’s another possibility that you haven’t allowed for. The number of series with values declines. Yamal continues on longer than the other series. There are only one or two series in the closing uptick and Yamal swamps the average disproportionately.
You see now, RTF, why I cautioned you against reckless speculation?
Bender,
But I uncovered what seems to me to be cherry picking extraordinaire. Has this been discussed before?
If you’re saying I should be worried about hurting Briffa’s feelings, I can assure you that I don’t care.
RTF
I can’t remember. Read the threads referencing “YAD”. Above, Steve mentions the problem of declining sample size. Hard to imagine that would not have been discussed at CA.
It was.
As Mosher has argued, Briffa’s “trick” is not at all comparable to Jones’s or Mann’s. Briffa doesn’t do instrumental padding. (Briffa’s big mistake lies entirely elsewhere.)
Bender,
But Briffa set the stage for the other tricks, using a method that, if SM is right, could not possibly have been statistically significant.
If _you_ are right that the rising Yamal series contains only one tree, a question I am just hearing for the first time, then THAT means that the majority (if not the entirety) of the “foot” part of the hockey stick in Briffa 2000 was a single tree. But Briffa wanted everyone to believe that it represented — what, hundreds, or thousands, of trees? Certainly, at least hundreds.
And a lot of people _did_ believe it, which set the stage for their belief in the results of subsequent tricks.
Diabolical.
RTF
What does this mean that Briffa “set the stage” for others? You mean you think he tried to goad Jones and Mann into performing their tricks? Good luck finding evidence for that unlikely theory. Briffa gave his best guess as to the source of the divergence, and, given that guess, offered up truncating the data as a solution to the uncertainty*. Nowhere did he ever suggest grafting instrumental data onto the proxy record. It seems you are trying to tar him with the Jones-Mann brush. I wouldn;t go there. Briffa has enough to worry about re: the handling Wahl.
What I would have done was analyze the data both ways (deletion and inclusion of the divergent portion) and go on the record that the policy makers should not favor one over the other, given the uncertainty as to the source of the divergence.
Bender
We got into this originally because I mistakenly thought that all of the “Desmog/Angliss” controversy was over Briffa 2000. I now understand that it’s over something else, though I’m not exactly sure what. (Briffa 1998?)
Since that’s been cleared up, I don’t want to belabor any of this. But since you’ve misunderstood me with your latest post, I should say the following.
No, I do not mean that I think Briffa tried to goad Jones and Mann into performing their tricks. I mean just exactly what I said: “[A] lot of people _did_ believe it [i.e. what Briffa wanted them to], which set the stage for their belief in the results of subsequent tricks.” That means that when the opportunity was taken to engage in those subsequent tricks, the tricks were more effective because the people who were intended to see the tricks were more likely to find them believable.
You are misreading me somewhat when you say “It seems you are trying to tar [Briffa] with the Jones-Mann brush.” I am not, at this time, arguing that Briffa might have used instrument data. We have moved past that.
But with due respect, there is still something you seem to be missing WRT Briffa 2000.
We have heard testimony (from you, no less) that the aberrant Yamal series is only one tree. Is it safe to say that Briffa knew this when he decided to use it in the manner that he did?
And if the answer is yes, then is it safe to say that if it is a single tree, then its use as its own, independent series in this study is not legitimate for reconstructing average northern boreal temps across a hemisphere?
And if the answer to that is “Yes, it is indeed not legitimate”, then the next question must be: What was Briffa’s reason for using this tree in the manner that he did?
We have also heard McIntyre report that this Yamal series is abnormally weighted in the last few years of the series. In fact, having now seen the data myself and having made a crude plotting of it minus that aberrant series …
(crude ONLY because I do not know exactly how to “rescale” the data sets as Briffa refers to in his Fig. 1 caption) …
I can confirm this information that McIntyre reported.
And I can tell you that without the aberrant Yamal series, the 50-year smooth in the “Northern” Chronology Average appears to me to have its 20th-century peak in the 1940’s, and to fall steadily and dramatically from that point until 1988, which was as far as I felt the smoothed curve could reasonably be plotted. (I plotted the underlying averages up to 1993, after which point there were only three series remaining).
So I must now (without having originally set out to do so) ponder the questions: Exactly how divergent ARE these two sets of trees in the late 20th century, if you remove the aberrant Yamal series? And, if there is a divergence during that time, is it statistically significant?
And I regret that these are two questions I am quite unqualified to answer.
And with that, may I suggest that we suspend for now, for fear of getting snipped again.
RTF
Briffa did not ask or force anyone to believe his hypothesis. He set no “stage”. People made their own ill-advised choices.
You were never “snipped”. Our conversation was *moved* to where it would not be OT.
I know that! But I saw you get snipped once without comment from Steve, during our conversation. 🙂
RTF
I don’t recall ever being snipped in any exchange with you.
If it’s that important to you…
Your response to this:
appeared and then disappeared.
There is evidence for this.
In my post here:
I was responding to the comment that got snipped. I hit “post”, and then didn’t see my post. For a minute I thought _I_ had been snipped, but then I realized my post had been put at the bottom, because _yours_, which I had been replying to, no longer existed.
In your snipped post, you agreed (upon my request) that I had said that all the other series besides the one aberrant Yamal series went down post-1950. You also gave me credit for having said that before, which I had asked for because the record was somewhat disordered.
RTF
Maybe. But that I might have got snipped does not imply an equal probability that you would get snipped. Your tone is very civil. Whereas I sometimes go a bridge too far. I don’t get too worked up if Steve snips me.
Did you read all those Yamal links I posted for you?
I am currently in “break mode” from dendroclimatology. I will return shortly and finish the reading. I want to approach this with a clear head.
The citations are much appreciated.
RTF
I’m sure that Arthur is greatful for being corrected by Steve. You are, aren’t you, young man?
Your silence is worriesome though. You’re not in a huff are you? You shouldn’t be, Steve, by himself, is an awesome intellect. Alongside Bender he’s unbeatable! Listen and learn, young un!
.
I thank Steve McIntyre for drawing traffic to my modest blog.
However, his direct statement that I made an “insinuation that Climate Audit had somehow been associated with “presenting a graph that is specifically stated to be showing one thing, but actually showing another” is totally unjustified.” is itself totally unjustified.
The quoted comment highlighted by Steve McIntyre about what is “definitely not legitimate” was *not* referring to any graphs presented by ClimateAudit. In fact, in that post I was generally not interested in ClimateAudit at all, and certainly not interested in any statements made by Steve McIntyre, I have no complaint about what Steve has said other than perhaps he has confused some of his readers (such as Mosher).
For those who read the paragraph, you will note that the only graphs referenced are 2 IPCC graphs, figure 2.21 in the TAR, and 6.10 in AR4. That is precisely what I would have called “definitely not legitimate” if they show data that differs from what the captions and surrounding text claim.
Mosher asserted his claim about what “the trick” was very specifically and clearly. I am glad Steve McIntyre has clarified somewhat how Mosher was wrong on this. It was certainly not obvious to any of us, or to Mosher himself apparently, before my investigation of the claim.
But I have no claim that any graph presented by McIntyre at ClimateAudit is “not legitimate”. I never said that. I expect an apology. Thanks.
Steve clarifies. Art declarifies. For this Art expects credit? 200 quatloos from the Artless One.
He he, blogging sucks.
Chopped up plots are different from grafted plots. AR4 was chopped, other plots were grafted. HMMMM. Which ones show the data??? Which are correct?
It’s the climate science verson of where’s waldo?
Yup, Steve Mosher is clearly the badguy..
Re: Jeff Id (Jun 23 18:59),
It is so very typical of Arthur and his ilk.
Not a word of disapproval for actual tricks. But Mosher made a slight slip in a comment #7 and Arthur is out to scourge Mosher as though this was a worse offence than the Trick itself.
Nor has Arthur acknowledged that the doctrine of deleting inconvenient data is not recognized by anyone other than the Team. Think frightful mien, Arthur, frightful mien.
Steve, I speak plainly, I hope you will do me the courtesy of responding in kind, despite the tendencies of your reader-commenters.
I started from the premise that Mosher could well have been right. His assertion was strong and specific. He started his statement with a claim that “[Angliss] did not understand the trick”. If it was correct, it was another instance of the IPCC very directly messing up, and this time in AR4 WG1, rather than WG2 where the Himalaya error occurred. That was why I made that very strong comment about “not legitimate”. Even though I consider the end-point issue a very nit-picky one, the figure caption specifically commented on end-point handling, and if Mosher was right the caption was wrong. This was a significant claim.
So I investigated this one claim. Some of the other comments you quote are statements I provided for reference to the context of Angliss’ “Scholars and Rogues” discussion, but they are background material, quite beside the point to whether or not Mosher was right about Figure 6.10b in AR4 WG1.
And I found Mosher was wrong. You appear to agree with me on that, for which I’m glad.
The reason I didn’t “present [..] any examples or evidence of this occurring at Climate Audit.” was that I wasn’t talking about Climate Audit! I expect you to correct this post with my clarification, at the least.
Steve: Puh-leeze. If you weren’t talking about Climate Audit, why did you use the terms “ClimateAudit” and McIntyre a total of eight times?
“Steve, I speak plainly, I hope you will do me the courtesy of responding in kind, despite the tendencies of your reader-commenters.”
Well Arthur, let me help you (a bit) with my plainness..
Your implied accusations of “intentional” misstatements by Steve Mosher and CA disgust me. I’ve watched these people for some time now with a skeptical eye, and have done more double checking and confirmation than you have the wherewithal to pull off.
How is that for plain enough?
And beyond that reasonable criticism of your approach, how about some criticism based on the plots shown in EXHIBIT A, otherwise known as FIGURE 1.
Let’s end with a nice quote from your enlightening post.
But the tricky cases are those who are much more subtle in their nonsense. Making stuff up is easy.
I work hard not to vent at CA, but…..
You are the one who needs to apologize.
Climate science does also..
Sorry Steve, that’s very strong language for CA, snips are understood.
As I said, all references to CA were background summarizing the Angliss post and where I was starting from. That was not the substance of my post and I made no statement that any graph at ClimateAudit was wrong, as you falsely claim in this post. Read the comments section and you will see I specifically stated I had not investigated any of your statements, only one of Mosher’s.
I can forgive you misunderstanding my meaning if you only gave my post a quick read. But if you persist in this willful misinterpretation despite my clarification and after actually rereading what I wrote, I will find your behavior much less forgivable.
Angliss corrected his post quickly after your clarification to him, I only expect the same treatment.
Steve: I remain unclear as to what in my post you believe to be inaccurate. Please identify specific sentences.
Angliss’ corrections remain very incomplete. Other parts remain uncorrected.
Also as noted in my post, some of the changes billed as “corrections’ were self-serving in any event, such as his self-serving change of view when he realized that Jones has actually spliced instrumental and temperature data.
Steve, you state right at the top that I “make strong and untrue allegations against Climate Audit” and then quote the paragraph that I have just repeatedly explained was *not* about graphs at ClimateAudit, but about graphs produced by the IPCC – specifically the two graphs I mentioned. I made *no* strong allegations, true or not, “against Climate Audit”.
Steve: Arthur, I immediately quoted your exact words so that readers could judge for themselves. Readers could decide whether your words fit the bill. Other than you, no one contested the characterization.
Or should I have just said of your article:
If you’d prefer that I use that language to describe your work, I guess we can reach a compromise.
Read the paragraph again, this time remembering that I speak plainly, not in the insinuations you imply. My implication is clear, the “not legitimate” refers specifically to the 2 IPCC graphs, not anything at your site.
Who, other than me, has commented here? Bender? Jeff Id?
Your comments concern my state of mind, my psychology, my intent. Those comments were false, and they are certainly not implied by my post.
How many times have you changed your response to my comment here?
The substance of my post concerned Mosher and IPCC AR4 Fig 6.10b. You agreed with my conclusions. I have no idea why you are so worked up about the introductory bit – especially why you are so completely misreading the “not legitimate” comment.
Steve: You used Climate Audit in the same breath as the following: “What’s definitely not legitimate is presenting a graph that is specifically stated to be showing one thing, but actually showing another.” I take pride in presenting things accurately and to the best of my ability and resent you sliming my integrity.
So Mosher’s evil. What’s that make Jones & Mann? Stop dodging the questions, Art.
If you want a list of the things you got wrong in this post, here they are:
(1) Arthur Smith makes strong and untrue allegations against Climate Audit
(I did not)
(2) Smith does not bother to link to the ClimateAudit discussion
(I did link to one ClimateAudit discussion discussing the TAR at the appropriate point – but I was never claiming it was wrong, it was a reference point)
(3) Arthur Smith has gotten a little punch drunk from different versions of tricks from the Team and has incorrectly presumed that I have been wrongfooted by the Team.
(Your psychological analysis is amusing but completely false. I am perfectly aware of your discussion of many different “tricks”. I was investigating a very specific claim of what “the trick” was, as put forth by Steven Mosher. Mosher’s statement was clear, and I was extremely clear-headed in my discussion and analysis of his claim. I did not presume any “wrongfootedness” on your part, nor did I investigate any specific claim or statement by you).
(4) I haven’t fallen prey to any of the errors alleged by Arthur Smith.
(I never alleged you had fallen prey to an error. Name an instance where I did!)
(5) With this in mind, let’s turn to spitballs from the confused Arthur Smith.
(Again with the psychology. I was, in the quoted paragraph, paraphrasing Angliss with a few side comments. That paragraph was never the central content of my post, and your focus on it is unwarranted.)
(6) However, the fact that Team supporters are unoffended does not show that any actual Climate Audit statement was unfounded.
(I am not a “Team supporter” whatever that is supposed to mean. As I said at the start, I half-expected Mosher to be right and this to uncover a serious (though nitpicky) error by the IPCC. I was very disappointed at the waste of time the effort to verify Mosher turned into. And again, I *never said any climate audit statement was unfounded*!)
(7) obviously do not agree that Smith has presented any examples or evidence of this occurring at Climate Audit.
(I never claimed to be presenting any examples or evidence of it at Climate Audit. The investigation was of the IPCC (and Mosher’s claim regarding those figures), not Climate Audit!!)
(8) He demonstrated precisely nothing about statements made by me at Climate Audit.
(And I never intended to! Show me anywhere in my original post where I said I was investigating Climate Audit!!)
(9) Smith’s insinuation that Climate Audit had somehow been associated with “presenting a graph that is specifically stated to be showing one thing, but actually showing another” is totally unjustified.
(Once again, I did not insinuate any such thing.)
Steve: Your post starts:
and then proceeds to discuss Climate Audit and you now claim that you intended no actual criticism of an actual statement at CA. Now it seems that your motives were much worse -merely to slime CA. I’ve responded accordingly.
IIRC Art Smith claimed that McIntyre was the source of Mosher’s error. That it’s somehow McIntyre’s fault that other people make mistakes. This is the specious sort of claim that we’re used to seeing from the industry-funded denialosphere. But – irony aside – please, Art, tell us here and now about how Steve misleads people. (And how you don’t.)
Arthur,
Your argument strains credulity. You repeatedly mention Climate Audit and McIntyre in your post but claim now that this was only for “background” purposes. This does not seem credible. You directly follow the paragraph about “making stuff up” with references to Climate Audit. If you did not intend to tar CA with this accusation, then your wording was reckless at best. The insinuation is clear and any claims about speaking “plainly” are just laughable. The morally correct thing to do would be for you to clarify your post and apologize.
You are adding to your false statements. I did not immediately proceed to talk about ClimateAudit. I immediately proceeded to talk about Monckton!!! That was my background. Then I talked about Angliss talking about climategate.
Steve; You only spent two sentences on Monckton. You barely paused for breath. Angliss’ post was about CLimate Audit – a post full of misconceptions and misrepresentations that you praise rather than criticize.
What I said about Climate Audit there was that allegations had been made “at the website” – I didn’t specify by you, but I did specify Mosher and Fuller, who have written a book on the subject. I specified that you personally had clarified things for Angliss.
Steve: You said: But the ClimateAudit discussion and Mosher/Fuller book appeared to claim that in one figure in the 3rd IPCC report (TAR WG1 figure 2.21, 2001) and in one figure in the 4th report (AR4 figure 6.10b, 2007)… “. If you didn’t want to include Climate Audit in your allegations, then why mention it?
You really are completely misreading my comments. I fail to understand it, is it willful, or too much haste? What’s the problem? Just read what I wrote without over-interpreting.
Honestly, I did not mean to disparage you in anything like the way you claim. But now I’m wondering if I should have put more effort into doing just that. Maybe next time.
Steve: I’m reading what you actually wrote. You talk about “defending science”. But be sure that you’re not trying to defend Team phrenology.
Are you honestly saying that AR4 Fig 6.10 has never been discussed at ClimateAudit? As I said, I was basing much of my discussion on Brian Angliss’ post and the following commentary. I was not investigating CliamteAudit. If ClimateAudit has never discussed the Briffa curve in AR4 Fig 6.10 before today then I will gladly remove “ClimateAudit discussion” from that phrase.
Although I believe the phrase is *still* accurate since it also refers to IPCC TAR fig 2.21 – which you appear to be claiming here still involved exactly what is at issue, use of instrumental data: “(a) actual instrumental data; (b) average instrumental data 1961-1990 (zero by definition of the reference period)”.
But if you can assert that the ClimateAudit “discussion” or “website” has never claimed IPCC AR4 Fig 6.10b to have used anything like the trick Mosher claimed, then I’ll remove ClimateAudit from that phrase. But even so, you are misreading it, the “not legitimate” has nothing to do with CA, it’s IPCC that’s at issue. Really.
Arthur
I find it quite shocking, and distinctly tribal, that while you appear to accept that Steve has accurately described a whole range of tricks perpetrated by a group of climate scientists at the heart of the IPCC process, with considerable influence on political and public opinion, you are more concerned to establish that Steve Mosher has mischaracterised one of the tricks than with the original bad science. Indeed you described my observations to this effect as “off topic” in your comments thread. If this is not the case, I will be delighted to withdraw my criticisms, but nothing in the presentation of your post on Mosher supports your last sentence.
Just what we need: yet another blogster with a heavy editorial hand defending team science.
Oops – looks like 6.10 has been discussed here at ClimateAudit since about when it came out, and specifically on the topic of “Mann” doing smoothing:
Was this later retracted? Or perhaps I have misread this post?
Steve: Arthur, are you incapable of reading? I didn’t say that Mann or “Mann” did the smoothing in the AR4 figure- (while I didn’t discuss the precise author, I presumed that it was Briffa or maybe Osborn.) I showed the impact of deleting data using AR4 smoothing methods – a plot that closely matches what I just did. As you observe, the post discusses AR4 Figure 6.10 and shows a clear grasp of the smoothing and truncating used in that Figure. The post does not support your allegations that Climate Audit discussion contributed to misunderstanding on the point. Quite the contrary.
In addition, in my Heartland chronology, I observed that spaghetti graphs in Briffa’s post-TAR articles used a different version of the trick than Mann’s TAR trick. The method in these spaghetti graphs looks similar to the AR4 version of the trick.
Brandon, Arthur failed to respond to Steve here. He appears to have misunderstood the post that he cites.
Arthur,
You are tying yourself in knots here. Where did Steve use the word “immediately”. He said “you proceeded” which you most surely did.
Particularly offensive is your comment: “What I said about Climate Audit there was that allegations had been made “at the website” – I didn’t specify by you”. Steve is intrinsically associated with the website. If you were not referring to Steve, you had an obligation to say so. You still now haven’t clarified your comment and are trying to hide behind ambiguous language. As someone who says he “speak(s) plainly”, why don’t you do so here. Were the allegations at the website made by Steve? If not, by who?
There are three major context points in the introduction of Smith’s piece.
1). The title. “Steven Mosher: Even Fuller of it”. Nothing about McIntyre or CA there.
2). The “skillful plausible nonsense” bit. Clearly aimed at Moncton as the example par excellence (in his view), but also clearly setting the context for the examination to follow. Is the claim(s) examined “skillful plausible nonsense” or not? By adding “skillful” to the mix there, it brings willful misrepresentation into the matter. Always a dangerous thing to do. But still, no McIntyre/”Official CA Post” context yet.
3). The link to the Angliss piece. I suspect Smith will say that was still in the context of his pursuit of Mosher. Perhaps, but since Angliss piece pursued Mosher *and* McIntyre, Smith had a responsibility to make it clear at that point the Mosher was still the only game in his sights. He’ll likely point at the title of the piece to say that should have done it. I would argue that having linked Angliss he should have done it again right there.
So at that point I see at least a venial sin.
The rest of the discussion after that point –well, if he was after Mosh, and basing it on what Mosh had said on a comments thread at CA, what’s he to do?
Steve has many times said he is not responsible for the content of the comment threads other than his own personal contribution to them (and a good-faith effort, doomed to imperfection by the nature of the internet and lack of time, to keep the comments thread civil and on topic).
But Mosh is a big boy and a public figure on this matter in his own right. Smith has every right to pursue and point at his public statements wherever they are made, including here.
Answer the question, Art. Why eight times?
Reviewing the article now, there were 5 references to ClimateAudit, and 3 to McIntyre (plus one in the quote of Mosher quoting Angliss). 2 of the McIntyre’s and 1 ClimateAudit reference were in a *positive* context, of McIntyre clarifying where Angliss had gone wrong. 2 more ClimateAudit instances were very generic “website ClimateAudit”, “ClimateAudit back and forth” describing the discussion of climategate, and a third “ClimateAudit discussion and Mosher/Fuller book” (still somewhat generically) on the specific allegations regarding “the trick”. The last “ClimateAudit” reference was the link I mentioned to a discussion of endpoint padding in (I think) the TAR graph. The last “McIntyre” was in describing Angliss’ discussion, where I mentioned “McIntyre definitely uses the word “substitution”,” before describing that this was clarified by Angliss to McIntyre.
Nowhere in there do I directly state any fault on the part of Steve McIntyre, and while I find the “website” and “discussion” to have been likely the source of Mosher’s false statement one way or another, I didn’t blame that on McIntyre either in the text of the article.
Please explain your chain of reasoning that links Mosher’s mistake to erroneous discussion at CA. Or are you just making stuff up?
Mosher is a commenter here and this is a place where the “hockey stick” and Briffa curves are frequently discussed. But as I said, I never investigated the ClimateAudit side of things at all, my mention of ClimateAudit was entirely based on Angliss’ post. If anybody here can prove ClimateAudit had nothing to do with it (for example, never mentioning figure 6.10b in AR4) then I’ll gladly update my post with the correction.
Translation – just making stuff up.
Hey, that’s the way they do things in the belief-o-sphere.
Re: Arthur Smith (Jun 24 06:10),
I think it is up to you to prove your claims, otherwise reading your words is just a waste of time.
From the thread in question
No, I didn’t look into any specific claims by McIntyre. He seems to be more careful to be accurate, albeit very frequently ambiguous or confusing.
I’d like to hear Mosher’s explanation for why he was so certain on something that is evidently quite wrong. Did McIntyre’s posts confuse him too?
—
* I’m guessing Mosher based his conclusions on this statement, but aside from not verifying whether Mann’s statement applied to the AR4
—
end quotes
I had missed Mann’s admission that he did use instrumental temperatures to append to the record. So now Brian Angliss has both Mann and Jones guilty of fraud in his mind.
Re: MikeN (Jun 24 06:18),
Nope McIntyre’s posts did not confuse me. I got this wrong all by myself.
Wow. Seems the only thing Mosher’s “full of” is humility and decency.
“But the ClimateAudit discussion and Mosher/Fuller book appeared to claim…”
“…and in the ClimateAudit back and forth…”
“…then McIntyre and Fuller would have a valid claim…”
“But the ClimateAudit discussion and Mosher/Fuller book appeared to claim…”
So Arthur, have you tried looking up the words “insinuation” and “associated”?
And Steve, please do apologize to poor agrieved Arthur. After all, he could have twisted his ankle when he tried to stomp on your foot.
Team Supporters seem a lot like Athletic Supporters. They protect another man’s junk.
OK, that was funny.
The other mistake Smith makes is that he uses the temperature series from jones 99, whereas AR4 uses Crutempv2b. since he posted code that was pretty easy to see. I sent him a comment a while back but it didnt make it through moderation go figure. CRU have crutempv2, archived from 2006. its not clear what v2b is.
It would be nice if the code and data used to produce charts for Ar4 were archived. That way Arthur could have avoided all that work with the wrong temperature dataset
Smith’s input File:
1: Jones et al. (1998) Holocene
2: Mann et al. (1999) Geophys Res Lett
3: Briffa et al. (2001) J Geophys Res
4: Briffa (2000) Quat Sci Rev
5: Overpeck et al. (1997) Science
6: Crowley & Lowery (2000) Ambio
7: Observed temperatures from Jones et al. (1999) Rev Geophys.
Notes to AR4 figure 6.10
CRUTEM2vb 1781–2004 Land-only temperatures for the NH Jones and Moberg, 2003; extended using data from
Jones et al., 2003
Steve: actually both the underlying and smoothed AR4 data for figure 6.10 is online. See embedded link in my post.
Mosher, perhaps I have your attention and you could actually answer some questions.
* Why did you make that strong assertion at Angliss’ site about what the trick was?
* Why did you not respond on the subsequent thread where I repeatedly asked if you had any evidence for this claim?
* Do you agree that you got it wrong on this AR4 graph?
PS I have *never* seen a comment from you at my website – if you have made such a comment, send it again, please.
Also, I was not trying to reproduce the entire AR4 graph – obviously I didn’t have even have of the curves. The difficult thing was reproducing the Briffa curve in the NCDC graph, not the AR4 graph. The data I used was from the NCDC and did have all the pieces there. And are you seriously claiming that it makes a difference for the end-point smoothing if you use Crutempv2b vs Jones 99 as the instrumental series?
Re: Arthur Smith (Jun 24 06:02),
Hi Arthur, sure I will answer some questions. We will do this round robin
I will answer one of yours then you will answer one of benders.
But first, you can call me Steve. So, which question would you like answered first and do you promise to answer questions back in the same straightforward fashion.
And if the crowd thinks you are as straight forward as I am then we will
proceed to your second question.
“Steve”, sure I’ll answer any specific question you want. But I don’t have a lot of time to waste further on this right now – “round robin” will necessarily be slow. If you really want to drag this on for days, I suppose that’s fine with me. I’ve got more questions for you after the above three if you actually answer. Start with the first:
* Why did you make that strong assertion at Angliss’ site about what the trick was?
Great. And my reciprocal question for Art is: will you admit that the title of your post – about Mosher being “full of it” exhibits a lack of balanced judgement? And will you rectify this by comparing Mosher’s mistake to, say, the egregious tricks played by the people who created this mess in the first place? Or will you just leave everything as is: slime everywhere?
Bender, first, that is 3 questions; I’ll answer the first.
And first, on your side, please get my title right. I said Steve was “Fuller of it”, not “full of it”. He could be as white as snow up to now, but I found one instance of him making something up, and that would make him “fuller”. Or perhaps he was “full” to start with, but that wasn’t my claim, my claim concerned only one specific statement he had made that was wrong. My title is accurate. And punny. And evidently succeeded in its purpose. I have no intention of changing it.
Ok, I guess that answers all 3 of your questions anyway (except that slime has nothing to do with it).
“My title is accurate.”
That is debatable, to say the least.
Art: that’s one question with three ways of clarifying what I consider a responsive response. But have it your way. Call it three if you insist.
Re: Arthur Smith (Jun 24 11:41),
Why did I make such a strong assertion? I imagine part of it has to do
with drawing attention to the issue. There is always this struggle between
making a nuanced statement ( its not entirely clear what xyz did) and making a clear statement that can be refuted. When you make nuanced statements ( like Jones isnt technically guilty of fraud, but he does seem to be prone to exaggeration) you tend to get conversations that devolve into definitions of terms. And you get conversations where people start counting angels on the heads of pins. so, I will on occasion try a bolder approach. Fully aware that I could be wrong. But I’d rather, on those occassions, say something that can be proven wrong and take my lumps. So that’s the “rhetorical” motivation. Say something clear.
The other motivation.. that’s more emotional. I was pissed. The evidence I was considering was marginal. I knew the WMO stuff fairly well, the TAR less so, and the FAR hadnt really recieved much attention. looking at the AR4 figure untangling the spagetti , it didnt appear to be the result of “mean padding.” So, pissed, careless and driven to get some movement in the discussions of the trick, I made a definitive statment. Unwise. After I posted the comment (june 8th), I started to question if what I had said forcefully was actually defensible. I wrote steve (June 12th) and asked if the trick was the same in every case. The idea behind the question was to do an actual guide to the trick in all its forms so that people ( including me) would not get wrong footed in discussing the trick and confuse the various versions. In the mail to steve i asked if the trick could be distilled into one “version”
“1 A series is truncated
2 A temperature series is added.
3. A smooth is applied
4. The result is truncated.
Is that true for all versions of the trick..
It also strikes me that we have not looked at detail in briffas lines in Ar4.. the decline is hidden, but was the trick
performed.”
To which steve replied (June 12th)
1. his best exposition is the heartland presentation. it only covers the WMO
2. Not every version of the trick involved a temperature series splice.
briffa doesnt splice temps.
3. WRT to AR4 his focus was not on untangling the spagetti, but rather on
his review comments to Briffa.
your post appeared on June 18th.
So, chronologically, I made the statement on June 8th. After making the statement ( which was rather definitive.) I began to question whether that statement was in fact defensible, since I was aware that I had made a rash emotional decision to write a comment. So, I wrote Steve, noting that AR4 was something that had not been covered at CA and expressing my own doubt about briffas action in Ar4. Steve replied the same day as described above. That’s the storyline. So if people are arguing that somehow steve or CA have mislead me, the record is somewhat at odds with this. I made a definitive statement. Then I questioned whether that statement was actually defensible. I wrote steve, noting that he had not covered the trick in AR4 ( actually doubting if it had been performed) he responded by saying the WMO was the clearest case he had presented, and in AR4 his focus was on Briffa’s decision to hide the decline. In short, The mistake is all mine.
next question?
Re: steven mosher (Jun 24 15:41)
> The mistake is all mine.
You and Arthur Smith presumably know exactly what “the mistake” does and doesn’t refer to. Could you offer a succinct summary of this error? That would help those of us who are less conversant with the details of how the data behind the paleotemperature traces were handled in the graphs at issue.
From the body of this post, those are (left to right) the WMO figure (1999), the IPCC TAR figure (2001), and the IPCC AR4 figure (2007). (The graph to the far right, labeled “AR4 Climategate,” is meant to show what a plot of Briffa’s circa-1999 data looks like if plotted with a straightforward smooth.)
OK, then Mosher, you confused me.
AMac I’ll give it a shot.
WMO graph has post 1960 data deleted, temperature data used for years after 1960 and smoothed. Mosher’s error was to say it was the same trick, with the data cut off at 1960. No data is cut off.
TAR graph cuts off at 1960, and is believed to be smoothed with instrumental data. Mann has admitted doing something like this in MBH papers.
AR4 graph is where Mosher made his primary error, in claiming it is the same method as TAR. Instead, there is no temperature spliced on and smoothed. It is created by taking the data, dropping post 1960 data, then smoothing, and repeating the data from before 1960 in place of the post 1960 data, when smoothing.
Re: MikeN (Jun 24 16:27),
Looking at Arthur’s code, I’m not entirely sure that his mean padding is doing what you describe
Hmm. That would be interesting. Some dis interested person should check arthurs code to see if mean padding is implemented correctly.
Re: AMac (Jun 24 16:01),
“You and Arthur Smith presumably know exactly what “the mistake” does and doesn’t refer to. Could you offer a succinct summary of this error? That would help those of us who are less conversant with the details of how the data behind the paleotemperature traces were handled in the graphs at issue.”
The mistake was my statement that Briffa appended a temperature series and did the smooth.
The actual series of proxy data continues downward after 1960. SteveM asked briffa to show this data. Briffa’s previouse publications had taken this approach. he showed the data, then he offered ‘explanations” why this data should be truncated at 1960. When I looked at the AR4 curve you see a flat zone at the end. Reading the description in the legend the legend says that the smooth is done by mean padding. My assumption was that mean padding would preserve the slope through the end. Since the slope wasnt preserved, I assuumed that briffa had appended a temp series. Arthur demonstrated that IF you append a temp series (jones 99) the slope goes UP, not flat. So, I was wrong.
I’m not sure the message left by a curve that flattens is 100% accurate. But thats a very minor point. The heart of the Ar4 matter as Steve notes is briffa’s refusal to show the data in it entirety. I suppose somebody could argue that briffa should runt he data out to the end, smoothed and then truncate to 1960. The endpoint matter is VERY contentious. Now arthur wants to argue that this region is 1.5% of the total curve. On that logic, if you had a flat line for 1 million years and had the last 10 years plotted absurdly wrong, the error would be minor. On that logic it makes just as much sense to use the proxy beyond 1960 since it is such a small portion.
So, now the issue of the rhetorical implications of endpoints can be discussed. IF they dont matter when they go up in a slightly misleading fashion then they dont matter when they diverge down in a slightly miselading manner, or go flat. So why ( this is basically my question) did briffa make the editorial decision to Truncate and explain rather than show the data and explain?
Perhaps Arthur can ask that question.
Re: steven mosher (Jun 25 00:08),
This thread continues, de-indented, here.
Now *that’s* disclosure. You rock me, mosh. Art can’t ask another til he answers mine. I have two now in waiting, as you have now answered two of his.
No, wait, three. you’ve answered three of his, He’s answered none of mine. Despite his agreement to the terms of engagement.
I’ve answered 2 of yours now Bender. Was there a 3rd?
Artless, yes, it’s the question you’ve been asked by more than just me: who’s more “full of it”: Mosher or MannJones?
Steve, thanks for that frank admission. It is somewhat disturbing however, on several fronts. Why should any of us trust you in future, if
“I will on occasion try a bolder approach. Fully aware that I could be wrong. But I’d rather, on those occassions, say something that can be proven wrong and take my lumps.”
and
“pissed, careless and driven to get some movement in the discussions of the trick, I made a definitive statment.”
Since you’ve answered 3 of mine (Bender claims, I have to find the other 2) I’ll need to find Bender’s questions to respond. But here’s next question for you then:
* How do you plan to restore your credibility after this incident?
Re: Arthur Smith (Jun 24 20:27),
I don’t see that Steven Mosher has lost any credibility. OK maybe a thimbleful. Perhaps it will pass to you and then you can gain that much. However, everybody makes mistakes and at least to me Steve Mosher has lost so little that he still still stands head and shoulders over his detractors.
This discussion has clearly deteriorated to be being a waste of time. Perhaps there are better ways to spend summer evenings than picking spitballs off walls — to use a phrase I have heard here before.
Say goodnight Arthur.
Dodge Artist. What’s your balanced assessment of Mosher’s error in relation to, say, the errors by Mann and Jones?
I will assume this is your *third* question.
I have not made a “balanced assessment” of the “errors by Mann and Jones”. The only thing I have assessed in the entire tree-ring hockey-stick business is the end-point smoothing of the Briffa curve in IPCC AR4. If I have time and feel motivated, maybe I’ll look at more. The discussion on this site does not seem to be motivating anything further at this point though.
I found that the Briffa curve in IPCC AR4 Fig 6.10b was not adjusted with instrumental temperatures as Mosher had claimed. But if it had been, that would have been a real error. The magnitude of that error could have been such as to have some impact on the visual appearance of the ending roughly 15 years, from 1945 to 1960. Given that the entire scale of the graph was 1000 years, that’s a potential error over roughly 1.5% of its length.
So even if Mosher had been right, it was a 1.5% effect. Steve McIntyre generously credits Mosher’s wrongness at 2%. So by that metric, Mosher was more wrong than Briffa would have been if Mosher was right.
So, again, what IS your balanced assessment? Please make one. Stop playing foolish games, and put Mosher’s “error” in context.
Re: Arthur Smith (Jun 24 22:10),
Calibration period.
“1.5%” seems to display a lack of knowledge of this concept, and of its importance to the overall meaning of the “trick(s).”
That’s a problem, if a serious critique is intended.
I agree with this comment. The existence of divergence does not just affect the post 1960 period but the entire field of temperature reconstruction using tree rings.
1.5% and 1000 years comments entirely miss the point. it defeats teh purposes of science in enabling a candid and dispassionate evaluation of the evidence
Yes it was statements like this that led me to believe Arthur was a novice, and I went into detail how this AR4 represented replacing proxy data with instrumental, echoing Steven.
I’m seeing plenty of team apology here. Perhaps a cursory look at TAR chart, and then declaring I only looked at AR4.
Steven Mosher’s statement referred to WMO, TAR, and AR4. There was an extensive look at one of the two IPCC charts, total ignorance of the chart where the evidence of the trick is obvious.
Here, let me help get you started. Mosher’s error was an honest mistake for which he has apologized. (You yourself recognize the difficulty in dissecting these these tricks that have been perpetrated.) In contrast, Jones + Mann’s original bag of tricks constitutes a swindling of the climate policy process. That the nature of the swindle was so difficult to diagnose is what led to Mosher’s error.
(That’s why it took a dump of 1000 emails to piece it all together. A systematic series of attempts to deceive, and then cover up the deception.)
If Mosher bad then MannJones evil.
Briffa?! Briffa??! I’m not asking about “Briffa”! Relative to MannJones, Briffa’s tricks are nothing. I asked *specifically* – three or four times – about *MannJones*. Why reply with Briffa?
Stop dodging the story, Art, and start telling it. Or does your audience not demand truth?
Here is the problem, bender. He has no knowledge of any errors by Mann or Jones. He has evaluated a claim of an error made by Briffa, part of the Hockey Team(or JV team at CRU). This claim was made by a member of Team ClimateAudit, the JV edition. He evaluated the claim, and found it false. Makes him less likely to evaluate other claims.
But, MikeN, I asked Art specifically if he could undertake an assessment of Mosher’s error in context of those of Mann & Jones. That was his opportunity to reply that he lacked the capacity to undertake such an assessment. I’m glad you have replied in his place – and maybe you’re right – but I would think it more meaningful were it to come from him.
But you see the asymmetry here? He asks a loaded question and Mosher answers in full. Hundreds of words. Detail. I ask a simple question and get brushed off – in violation of our terms of engagement. He has no right to ask any more questions of Mosher.
I think in the end the record will speak for itself. One of the things I have consistently complained about is the teams willingness to even admit the SMALLEST of errors. The undecided will view my responses to Arthur and his responses to you. They will judge. They will also note that unlike mann and jones I submited to questions from my opponent. And answered without weaseling. And they will see that my “tribe” cared more for the whole truth. While their tribe cared only for a scalp.
Steven Mosher, your point would probably be made better if you corrected your mistake on the site you made it.
1. His mhe mistake was made in the book. That’s where it needs to be corrected.
2. How and when and where do Mann and Jones correct THEIR mistakes?
“He evaluated the claim, and found it false. Makes him *less* likely to evaluate other claims.”
When a real auditor finds a mistake, he digs for *more*. Why doesn’t Art try that with Mosher? Is it because he’s happier to go 1-for-1 than 1-for-17? (baseball season)
Re: Arthur Smith (Jun 24 20:27),
Arthur,
I do exactly what I suggest CRU do:
1. I admit my mistake clearly.
2. I take full responsibility
3. I submit to questioning from my opponents.
Now, I could have instituted an investigation board of myself and
A. selected my defenders as investigators
B. Narrowed the topic to what I wrote about the WMO and not the real issue.
C. supplied my defenders with the wrong papers and claimed that an independent body picked them.
Does my approach work? not always. But, it’s the right thing for me to do. I can hardly argue that its right for jones to submit to questions from his opponents and not practice that myself.
Re: Arthur Smith (Jun 24 20:27),
I would add, that you would be fully justified in never taking another thing I say seriously. And likewise I’m sure that you will agree with this. If Jones argued that he was driven to do foolish things in the Holland FOIA, because of a flood of FOIA requests.. if Jones argued that, and if the flood of FOIA came after the holland affair, would you trust phil Jones? Dont answer that, answer benders questions.
Re: Arthur Smith (Jun 24 20:27),
Arthur Smith, that’s a compound question. I think compound questions should be avoided in cases where emotions run high and people are trying to sort through issues. Do you agree or disagree?
In this nearby comment, Steve Mosher describes his mistake in exact terms. Do you think this description is clear and complete?
In this neighboring comment, Steve Mosher writes,
Do you agree or disagree with Steve’s self-description?
Getting back to credibility. From best to worst —
1. Don’t make a mistake.
2.
3. After you make a mistake: own up to it, clearly and promptly.
4. After you make a mistake: refuse to engage on the issue.
5. After you make a mistake: obfuscate and misdirect, employ logical fallacies, encourage teammates to do the same.
Note that I have left one slot empty. Do you have any response in mind that would fit in position #2?
Re: Arthur Smith (Jun 24 11:41),
no need to put my name in quotes, Arthur, you can just use Steve.
Re: Arthur Smith (Jun 24 06:02),
“* Why did you not respond on the subsequent thread where I repeatedly asked if you had any evidence for this claim? ”
I made my comment and haven’t returned since. Even to this day. I prefer to have discussions at sites where I know my comments will not be deleted, or filtered, or disemvoweled.
Steve,
your claim that “I made my comment and haven’t returned since” is in fact not true either.
The comment in question here was comment #7 on the “Scholars and Rogues” post:
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2010/06/08/climate-scientists-still-besieged/
But comment #10, #11 and #13 were also from “steven mosher”, discussing various other points. The comments range in date from June 8 12:34 pm (#7) to June 8 5:00 pm, so it is true they were all in the same day.
But that means 4 posts of yours went through – did you really think it was a site where your comments would be “deleted, filtered, or disemvoweled”?
Also this response seems rather inconsistent with your above claim that one reason you made the comment was that you were
“pissed, careless and driven to get some movement in the discussions of the trick, I made a definitive statment.”
If you made a claim trying to “get some movement” then surely you should have returned to see where that movement went!
As it was, you left several commenters on the Scholars & Rogues thread out to dry trying to defend or at least understand you: MikeN (who actually questioned your assertion before I did), Skip Smith, Ted Carmichael, Layman Lurker, mikep and Glen Raphael. I suspect at least some of them are disappointed that you made up the statement they were defending.
Re: Arthur Smith (Jun 24 20:41),
“But comment #10, #11 and #13 were also from “steven mosher”, discussing various other points. The comments range in date from June 8 12:34 pm (#7) to June 8 5:00 pm, so it is true they were all in the same day.”
Sorry if I lacked precision. I made comments on one day, have not been back since. It’s not atypical for me on blogs i rarely visit. for example I made a comment the other day at Peilke. Havent been back since. Make comments occassionaly at Tom Fullers’ and will rarely check back. Make comments at RC and almost never check back. I know I made a couple comments at Barts site during the VS thread. never checked back. Made a couple comments at Kloor site recently, checked back once or twice.
For extended dialogs I mostly hang out at Lucias site and here, Jeffid’s as well. But you knew that.
“But that means 4 posts of yours went through – did you really think it was a site where your comments would be “deleted, filtered, or disemvoweled”?
It’s my experience that this behavior doesnt happen until well into the discussions. If your experience is different then that is your experience.
But I don’t see what your experience has to do with my experience.
““pissed, careless and driven to get some movement in the discussions of the trick, I made a definitive statment.”
If you made a claim trying to “get some movement” then surely you should have returned to see where that movement went!”
Nope. Don’t have to. It’s the internet.
“As it was, you left several commenters on the Scholars & Rogues thread out to dry trying to defend or at least understand you: MikeN (who actually questioned your assertion before I did), Skip Smith, Ted Carmichael, Layman Lurker, mikep and Glen Raphael. I suspect at least some of them are disappointed that you made up the statement they were defending.”
I would not and did not characterize it as “making up” As I said,
“looking at the AR4 figure untangling the spagetti , it didnt appear to be the result of “mean padding.” So, pissed, careless and driven to get some movement in the discussions of the trick, I made a definitive statment.”
Looking at the curve, it didn’t appear to be mean padding. I would have expected mean padding to be pointed straight down. so that little flat part was what I was going off. As I said, after writing that, I began to wonder. Were you really fair in that steve? some other life matters intervened and returning to the issue a couple days later I thought what this issue really needs is a definitive
“how to guide” Trickology 101, to get it all right for once and all.
that was the 12th.
on the 19th, I was sent a mail from friend who said that you had a post up.
my response:
“Glad they are finally looking at the smoothing issue”
WRT people who defended me. I’m heartened that you feel their pain.
Imagine the people who defend Mann for this:
Do you feel their pain? Do you feel the pain for people who defend Jones for how he handled Hollands FOIA.
Dont answer those questions. You’ve got questions from bender pending.
Now understand, I will continue to answer every one of your questions. When you avoid bender’s questions, it will be obvious. So ask away.
Art’s still dodging the first two questions:
1. What is your balanced assessment of Mosher’s error in the context of Mann + Jones errors?
2. If your article was not a slimepiece, then can you counter that meme by saying something nice about CA? For example: what do you think of the blog’s author? Isn’t he diligent, classy, humorous?
I’ll not be asking a fourth until he answers those two in the depth that you have answered yours from him.
Re: steven mosher (Jun 24 16:00), My comment at Arthur Smith’s blog was also deleted. Anybody else?
Here we see another example where Arthur Smith deliberately pretends to misinterpret things. It’s quite clear that Mosher here is not referring to the original S&R thread – in fact even from Smith’s comment, since he says ‘subsequent’, but then goes back to talking about the original thread.
It is crystal clear that Mosher is talking about a comment that he posted at Arthur Smiths blog, that Smith deleted, as stated in Mosher’s comment at 11.07pm.
Smith knows this, but feigns confusion to fabricate a mistake by mosher. There is only one word I can think of to describe Smith’s behaviour. It begins with d.
After spending a some time with arthur’s code, I can offer this. It appears that briffa did not append Jones 99 data. That is what arthur tested. Inserting crutempv2, (archived at CRU)
The curve still looks wrong. so we canprobably rule out briffa appending this version of crutemp
Arthur here: crutempv2 (NH land only ) from 2006. ( so you don’t have to go hunting)
obs30yr =c(0.032,.078,.129,-.2,-.163,-0.12,.001,-.044,-.026,-.051,-.185,-.209,.036,-.231,-.112,-.27 ,.047,-.043,.05,.088,.241,-.013,.193,-.039,-.09,.073,.22,.268,.198,.416,0.309)
crutempv2b? ( the source cited in AR4 ) I dunno. AR4 doesnt have a code and data repository to make these things checkable
“Hu McCulloch
Posted Jun 23, 2010 at 2:01 PM | Permalink | Reply | Edit | Paste Link
I think a post by Mosh or Steve on CA replying to Smith’s post would be very helpful. If Mosh did make an error, I am sure he would admit it, and if not it should be easy to clarify where Smith is confused (or confusing).”
I tried to post to Arthur’s site but it didnt show up. That happens for whatever reason. Anyways, I downloaded his code. Saw that he used
Jones 99 temp data. rechecked AR4 , saw the reference to a different data series. went and found crutempv2. ran that. still not a match.
wondered about crutempv2b.
So it certainly looks like I was wrong. If I had briffa’s code and data I could prove I was wrong. So, based on the evidence I see ( arthurs code and my runs of his code with crutempv2) I would say that I am nearly certain that I was wrong.
My best guesses at the moment are:
TAR: Mann’s lowpass (Butterworth); Briffa +0.0645 zero-padding*, MBH99 with the Nature trick**
AR4: FIR***; MBH99 -0.12, pad with mean of adjacent 15 year recon data, Briffa +0 pad with mean of adjacent 15 year recon data (but don’t accept post 1960 data),
Maybe we need to add IPCC figures in here http://www.mathworks.com/contest/overview.html to see who get’s the best match 😉
* I need to start zeros from 1957 to get the best match, so I might have something wrong
** It is Nature trick, GRL trick is (almost) the same but MBH98 get’s the prize for being first ( https://climateaudit.org/2010/04/01/code-the-trick/ )
*** sigm=(5);
w=exp(-(-45:45).^2/(2*sigm^2));
w=w/sum(w); % filter(w,1,data) + shift data 45 for zero-phase
Art, see how UC has to guess at methods? Just like you? Mosher made an error but Mann + Jones climate science is unreplicable. So who’s the bad guy?
UC can you check arthur’s “mean padding” calculation. I’m not sure that it does what mean padding is supposed to do
Just what we need: another blogster with a heavy editorial hand defending team science. Echo your posts to CA so we see what they’re not allowing through.
Guys,
You are very close to agreeing on something very important. Please don’t throw this opportunity away by playing gotcha instead.
Arthur Smith says he wasn’t trying to smear Climate Audit, but only trying to show that Mosher was wrong in Mosher’s claim about what type of smooth AR4 was applying. Although it looks to Steve McIntyre (and to others reading this blog including me) that this point could have been made more explicit in Smith’s original post, I urge us all to take Smith at his word. Mosher has admitted that he is probably wrong in the particular way that the data was smoothed for AR4, so OK! Science oves on.
We don’t need anyone to be the nasty guy! What we want is the TRUTH! To that end, I think we would all benefit from two posts.
The first would be from Arthur Smith, saying
1. he wasn’t trying to impugn McIntyre but only trying to show that the particular way the smoothing was done in AR4 was not done exactly as Mosher had suggested
2. it does appear that in A$4, there was deletion of data after 1960 and that this data was replaced with SOME type of smooth (though not the smooth that Mosher was talking about).
3. that McIntyre has pointed out that the padding may be with 1945-1960 mean values rather than instrumental values (as suggested by Mosher) but that it would certainly be better if Briffa himself could confirm this.
4. that the particular way of replacing post-1960 data is not really as important as the fact that the data itself was replaced with something that “looked better” than the post-1960 data,
5. that though Steve Mosher was incorrect about which type of smoothing replaced the post-1960 data, he is clearly not “full of it” since he understands the bigger picture of data-deletion and substitution.
The second post would be from McIntyre saying
1. that a careful re-read of Smith’s original post combined with Smith’s comments at this post have led him to undertand that Smith was focussing on an error by Mosher on which type of smoothing replaced the deleted post-1960 data and NOT on trying to smear McIntyre
2. he retracts the accusation that Smith was trying to smear McIntyre.
3. he thanks Smith for making clear that the particular smoothing method employed by Briffa was not as Mosher had stated but was something different
4. that this something different is not the big story, but rather a detail getting in the way of undertanding the “hide the decline”.
Mosher’s done his part. Would Smith and McIntyre now do theirs?
dont expect a clear statement of “i was wrong” from any team defenders,ever. They seem to have spent a great deal of on a comment written at a blog, but not so much attention on the WMO stuff or the TAR stuff. But if my mistake focuses the discussion then thats good.
Now, will they put the same vigor into looking at the TAR and WMO as they did into my comment. (Is jones full of it?). will they condemn a scientific paper witht he same vigor that they exhibited about a comment.
I need to get bender to peer review my comments.
I also found it enlightening the way they try to tar steve with the mistakes of others.
Further, I think I did more than say I was wrong. I also point out the ‘right’ temperature data to use. That makes his case Stronger against me. go figure. Again, dont know why such a post wouldnt appear on his site.
The nice thing is you get to see this vast skeptic conspiracy fighting to defend my mistake. Not. You get folks saying, if mosh was wrong he will say so. Yup. I was wrong.
maybe arthur could go look at this
Phil Jones wrote:
> > > Mike, Gavin,
> > > On the final Appendix plot, the first and last 12 years of
> > > the annual CET record
> > > were omitted from the smoothed plot. Tim’s away, but when he did
> > > this with
> > > them in the light blue line goes off the plot at the end. The
> > > purpose of the piece
> > > was to show that the red/black lines were essentially the same.
> > > It wasn’t
> > > to show the current light blue smoothed line was above the
> > > red/blue lines,
> > > as they are crap anyway.
> > > The y-axis scale of the plot is constrained by what was in
> > > the IPCC
> > > diagram from the first report. What we’ll try is adding it fully
> > > back in or
> > > dashing the first/last 12 years. The 50-year smoother includes
> > > quite
> > > a bit of padding – we’re using your technique Mike. The issue is
> > > that CET
> > > has been so warm the last 20 years or so.
You expect Art to retract a header like “Mosher is full of it”? Good luck. Art is not criticizing a specific statement by Mosher. He’s trying to chip into his credibility. To attach slime to his book. The same way he is trying to slime Steve. And Andrew wonders about the tribalism.
As with so many of the faithful, none of the proposed methods presented by Arthur’s post have any validity yet there is no critique by him for any of it. Whatever the method used it’s obvious rubbish for reasons that when they are so blatantly ignored are not worth further discussion. What is wrong with people.
As Ron Cram states:
Arthur, when describing the trick you wrote this:
“There is nothing scientifically nefarious or “wrong” about this – the “divergence problem” has been extensively discussed in the scientific literature including in the text of the most recent IPCC report.
You claim to want fairness and directness, you need to retract this obvious [self snip]. Whether you believe that it’s nefarious or not, it is clearly wrong. Very very wrong.
Wrong enough to be nefarious but of course there is no proof that the kids ate the cake on purpose.
Also, I take exception to “extensively” because of the timeline and the presentation of the graphs by the IPCC lobbyists. I learned of it some time before climategate, but hide the decline happened well before the ‘extensive’ discussion.
Agreed that Art must address this point. I have tried to help clarify that the disclosure of the problem (Art’s favored point), and the hiding of it, were conducted by two different camps. I would not blame Briffa were he to throw Mann and Jones under the bus. Am I being “tribal”? Or just judgemental?
Steve: as just noted, Briffa deleted post-1960 data in a version prior to Mann.
Briffa did not pad with instrumental. Truncation is a separate issue.
I think it’s worth it to bring up the Bodge here.
Ed Cook asked if Briffa had bodged the data back in a 99 publication by Briffa. You can tell from his comment that not only was he initially surprised at the missing decline in the trend, he was well aware of what clipped or bodged meant ethically.
Also, there is no evidence for a decline or loss of temperature response in your data in the post-1950s (I assume that you didn’t apply a bodge here).
Cook assumes a bodge was not applied by Briffa. On that premise Cook asks what accounts for the lack of decline (a decline being what he expected to see).
-What exact paper was Cook referring to?
-Did Briffa reply?
chopbox – thanks, however, you are yourself wrong on several of your specific points for me:
1. I will gladly do this.
2. The “deletion” and “smoothing” in AR4 were exactly as described in that report, nothing mysterious about it.
3. Again, the smoothing is exactly as described in AR4 (McIntyre just restated what it was, which was identical to my conclusion on the matter).
4. I’m not sure what you mean by “important”. Once the decision had been made to drop post-1960 in the Briffa curve, the choice made in AR4 was one of very few reasonable ones, and it was applied there to *all* the curves (or at least they say it was, I’ve only checked Briffa). On whether it was a good decision to drop post-1960, I really don’t know enough to make a comment. I would happily state this. My concern was whether AR4 had mis-stated something in their graph. They did not, as far as I can tell.
5. I haven’t investigated any of Mosher’s other claims. I investigated one, and found it completely false. If you take issue with my title, take a look at some of Lucia’s lately.
Arthur, having read the comments section of your blog, I can believe you if you wish to assert you didn’t mean to imply Steve and CA were involved. What you need to realise, though, is that you *did* imply that you were criticising CA. If you didn’t mean to, I doubt you’ll have a problem with accepting that everyone here perceives that you did, and apologising for giving a false impression.
A simple clarification at the top of your blog that despite perhaps seeming to, you are not actually implying a connection to CA would seem reasonable and uncontentious unless it’s actually untrue.
I would add an investigation of TAR and WMO as that is the complete Steve Mosher statement.
So what are the sources for the TAR graph, particularly the Briffa data and temp series?
Arthur Smith, I don’t understand you. You are demanding an apology from Steve McIntyre when you should be offering one. It is clear you are complaining that McIntyre’s writings have misled Mosher. Yet you come here and admit McIntyre is right about all the important points of science. Then you wants to pick a fight with McIntyre rather than criticize Jones and Mann.
Arthur, let me give you some advice. Quit throwing sand in people’s eyes. Agree with the people who are mostly right. Criticize the people who are mostly wrong. Admit that Mosher is more right than Jones and Mann. Finally, apologize to McIntyre and Mosher for majoring on minor points.
Arthur, when describing the trick you wrote this:
“There is nothing scientifically nefarious or “wrong” about this – the “divergence problem” has been extensively discussed in the scientific literature including in the text of the most recent IPCC report. If you have reason to believe a particular collection of tree ring data is a good measure of temperature before 1960 but for some still uncertain reason not after that point, then it’s perfectly legitimate to create a graph using the data you think is reliable…”
For that bit of writing you need to apologize. It is blatantly untrue and unsupportable. I challenge you find on statistical text that would recommend such an action.
Re: Ron Cram (Jun 24 01:29), Correct. That paragraph is complete nonsense. If something is so well known, why try to hide it? It is not ‘perfectly legitimate’ to hide data that doesn’t support your theory. This is so obvious, I cannot see why anyone attempts to defend it.
ron you’ve given me a great idea. will explain later
The pea in the thimble, Ron. Briffa fully disclosed the divergence problem – as Art correctly mentions. But Mann and Jones, independent of Briffa, did the padding, smoothing, and truncating – attempting to justify it on Briffa’s science. Art fails to mention this. Briffa tried very hard to keep the key facts in play. But Mann and Jones were interested in a far less complicated narrative. They needed a trick.
Steve: Briffa’s role is not quite so clear as you say here. Read my Heartland chronology. Briffa was the first person to delete post-1960 data – in his Science 1999 article with Osborn, already, it seems, trying to make his reconstruction cohere with Mann’s.
I don’t disagree that Briffa/Osborn truncated. I don’t disagree that their truncation “set the stage” for later truncations.
Bender,
Thank you.
Would you now agree at this point that the trunctation you refer to also set the stage for the later cherry-picking of a single tree — and the use of that tree in such a way that a declining ring-width average was “transformed” into a “rising” ring-width average post-1950?
RTF
Hunh? No.
Please stop trying to put words in my mouth about cherry picking one tree until you’ve read all of the Yamal threads. THEN I will be willing to discuss.
Bender,
I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth. You had said that that Yamal series was one tree. You called it the “stay thirsty” tree.
So I was saying something that I thought you’d be ready to agree with. My apologies.
Going off to try to find and read the Yamal threads.
RTF
Good show. That’s the spirit.
start here:
Then here:
Then here:
Then here:
(Look at the dates of these posts relative to climategate.)
Next:
Which leads rather directly to climategate 5 days later. On this thread:
What I do disagree with is the idea that Briffa’s “trick” “set the stage” for later tricks (by others). The tricks need to be decomposed into their component operations to determine who set a precedent for what operation. This is the only way to fairly compartmentalize the blame. e.g. Who was the first to truncate? Who was the first to pad with instrumental? etc.
Okay, fair enough.
RTF
Actually, Steve, you’re right: I concede that Briffa’s role is not as clear as I’ve made it out to be. I would say the divergence issue was fully disclosed by Briffa … to the scientific community in the specialist literature. I would guess – and this is only a guess – that the same level of disclosure did not occur in the policy-making forum. Briffa may have done his due diligence in raising the concern, but it appears any such concern must have been subverted somehow.
Osborn’s role in all this is worrisome. He is to be involved in AR5. [Tim, my friend: brush up on your Brown & Sundberg. Get the papers out NOW, before the fact.]
Smith is very clever associating CA with “Making stuff up is easy. Making stuff up that on the face of it looks somewhat plausible does take a bit more skill.” and then strongly denying that he meant CA with that, asking for an apology, probably thinking offense is the best defense. Leaves me wondering is Smith a lawyer?
If Art’s so “clever”, how come his trick is so transparent? Steve doesn’t mislead with demonstrably false statements, yet his blog somehow misinforms people. Right. Maybe Mosher can tell us how exactly people other than Steve at CA misled him?
Just as lawyers always do, trying to affect the jury by muddying the water and deflecting the attention from the clear and present evidence. “Irrelevant, guilt by association, your Honor!”
I had the same guess bender. It is clear that ClimateAudit is a source for Mosher. Indeed in the relevant section of CRUTape, ClimateAudit is one of two sources for the graphs. Then we see an incorrect statement on the subject. It’s not CA’s fault, but Mosher’s error is indeed confusion from reading CA.
Same thing happened to me. When reading Mosher’s statement, I only asked about WMO, and didn’t notice the part about FAR. Just assumed that it was using the trick. So I got confused by ClimateAudit and Mosher.
And you *weren’t* confused by the original work? Let’s keep some perspective here.
CA was certainly a source for me in my contributions to the book. And I feel bad that Steve got caught in the crossfire from Mr. Smith, although he didn’t seem to have too much trouble dismissing him. But it’s time he could have spent doing something more enjoyable, such as avoiding mosquitoes…
Tom were the sections Steve quoted a collaboration, or the work of one of you?
Re: MikeN (Jun 24 16:31),
Lets see. The relevant pages. pg 152-162. Those pages would have been authored by me.
of those 10 pages.
152- 159 covers the divergence problem, briffa’s old papers, WMO.
AR4 is covered in the following:
“Even in this abbreviated treatment [ the 264 words in chapter 6 of Ar4] of the [divergence] problem it’s clear that the problem raises issue with one of the principle tools of climate reconstruction. And so the issue of hiding the decline comes down to this. The graphic presented in Ar4 ( and various other versions ) presented this as the consensus record, a busy chart that has come be known as a spaghetti chart
( 6.10)
And it [ch06] discussed the truncation of the green lines with 264 words. Those words, however do not discuss the magnitude of the decline, they downplay its importance in the whole field. and they do not discuss potential issues with the Russian temperature data, and lastly they don’t discuss how temperature data is appended to the series prior to smoothing.”
After reading Arthur’s work I would change the text to read.
“And it discussed the truncation of the green lines with 264 words. Those words, however do not discuss the magnitude of the decline, they downplay its importance in the whole field. and they do not discuss potential issues with the Russian temperature data, and lastly they don’t discuss how the final years of the curve are smoothed.”
to put the argument in context. My point was thsi. briffa had a choice. SHOW the decline and explain it. or truncate and explain it.
he choose the latter. And I’m explaining what those 264 words do not explain.
pg 160-162 cover the graphs AFTER climategate. So the mistake about figure 6.10 is basically in the paragraph above.
And just to clear Tom of any mistake. This is wholly my mistake.
It’s our book. It’s our mistake. I proofed and copyedited the parts Steve wrote and had every opportunity to catch the goof.
Yea, but on this subject it is much more likely to happen in the other direction.
What a thundering bore. How many people give a rat’s ass about this any more?
Because ground once claimed in this fight cannot be ceded unless it crumbles under the weight of scientific evidence– not innuendo and smear.
You see how much energy it takes to both audit and protect auditors from innuendo and smear? It’s 24/7.
There’s a new drive-by troll assigned here each week or two. Immense patience by the host and moderators. Thank you, Steve, bender, Mosh etc.
Here’s Arthur Smith’s idea of an “audit”.
Isn’t this all too typical of how the Team and their supporters do things?
Yes, it is typical. Their fact-checking stops at the belief-o-sphere.
Note that Smith identifies himself with Abrahams:
“Prof. John Abrahams is the latest of us to take on Monckton’s fabrications, … ”
Who is “us”? Surely no one on the Backlist.
But I’m the one accused of “tribalism”. Nice.
Once again, Steve, you are entirely uncomprehending of the points I have repeatedly tried to make on this:
***** I WAS NOT AUDITING CLIMATEAUDIT *****
I was auditing IPCC, and Mosher’s claims specifically on Figure 6.10b. That is all.
When I choose to “audit climateaudit” then I will do such an investigation. Or if somebody else takes it on, they will. In this post, I was not. ClimateAudit arose in my post only for context, and was then dismissed. There is no discussion of ClimateAudit or McIntyre in my piece beyond the intro paragraphs, except for the link to a CA discussion.
If I was auditing ClimateAudit I would certainly have investigated it. Since I was not, I did not.
Steve: Arthur, you say: “There is no discussion of ClimateAudit or McIntyre in my piece beyond the intro paragraphs, except for the link to a CA discussion.” Excuse me, you state the following well after your intro – a paragraph that contains a pastiche of errors:
You refer here specifically to “McIntyre” claims. As I observed previously, you refer to “CA discussion” without linking to anything. To make matters worse, the quote – which appears to be a “McIntyre” claim is actually from Angliss; it is not my wording. I have no idea where you get the idea that “CA discussion” “appeared to claim” that the AR4 trick involved substitution of instrumental data for deleted data, when I’ve said on several occasions that the AR4 trick relies on the deletion of data.
Nor is your characterization of my “clarification” correct. In the post in question on the issue raised by Angliss, I was commenting on the UEA submission, which referred to the trick email discussing the WMO submission and observed that Angliss had incorrectly illustrated his discussion of this point with the IPCC graphic, rather than the WMO graphic.
While the main effect in the TAR graphic derives from the deletion of data, based on analyses by Jean S and UC, it is my belief that Mann spliced instrumental temperatures after 1960 to the Briffa series, then smoothed, then truncated back to 1960. This is a different point than the one that you allege that I am resiling to – and is entirely consistent with many other posts at CA.
Re: Arthur Smith (Jun 24 11:47),
Ok it was an audit once removed. Second hand as it were. I see your point.
If you did not use innuendo with intent to smear (choke) then why not say something real nice about what goes on here?
Art, this question is for you. Answer it and you get to ask Mosher another one.
Bender – I would be happy to say something nice about what goes on here if I saw something nice going on here. I’ve been on ClimateAudit off and on in the past. You may be interested in this post for a past instance of my visiting ClimateAudit and not receiving the warm welcome I expected for my wonderful powers of prediction…
I also admit I am upset with Steve McIntyre for not preserving the phpBB3 board in some fashion – there were some great discussions on there.
But point me to something you really think is nice about this site, and if I agree, I’ll happily praise it.
um, ok, Steve McIntyre. Everything about the guy. Diligence, class, humor …
Art, please consider a different angle on this dispute. Leave aside, for the moment, your motivations, and consider the real world consequences of your actions. Regardless of what you were trying to convey, the import of what you wrote gives me, at least, the impression that you were lumping Steve in with Mosher. In fact, if I knew nothing else, I’d have assumed you did so out of the sort of “tribalism” you mention.
Now, you can try to argue that it’s unfair for people to draw that conclusion, but, at some point, if your real interest is in advancing understanding, rather than obfuscation, the correct response is to clarify your remarks so that no one else becomes confused, even if you honestly believe only really dumb people would be.
On the other hand, refusing to do so would show that, whatever your motivation, it is not to be a partner in the pursuit of truth. In which case, it’s immaterial whether you’re right or wrong about any particular point.
That paragraph was part of my intro. The main post doesn’t start until I quote Steven Mosher.
Steve, this reply is ridiculous. I don’t think it deserves much more in the way of response. Don’t lower yourself to that level.
RTF
No, it is not ridiculous. Click to the main page of my site, and you will see that this entire section, up to the end of that paragraph, before the Mosher quote, is “above the fold”. That’s intro. Substance is always below.
It’s my site, that’s the way I do it. If you don’t like it you can ignore it. I’m surprised Steve McIntyre even saw fit to draw any attention to my post. It’s very odd.
It’s not about liking. You are trying to misdirect attention from McIntyre’s entire comment that you were responding to.
You are not helping your case. The people here are smart enough to go back and read what you were responding to. No one with a modicum of honesty will ascribe an iota of credibility to your travesty of a reply.
I have not looked at the page to judge what is intro and what is “substance”. And I won’t. It’s beside the point. The point is your reply to McIntyre’s comment was nonresponsive and your excuse for not responding (i.e., that the truth or falsehood of McIntyre’s comment is irrelevant because the alleged falsehoods were below the fold) is ridiculous. At first I thought you were just trying to be provocative and provoke more vitriol. Now I have to wonder if you even realized how ridiculous your reply was.
RTF
No, I was responding here only to the claim that McIntyre made that it was well after my intro. It was not.
I have responded to his other claims based on Steve Mosher’s admission that the responsibility is his alone with some edits to the original page. Now I wonder if McIntyre will correct any of the many mis-statements he has made here?
I’ll speak very slowly so you can understand:
McIntyre made claims that you made false statements. You ignored them. And now you want to get credit for having “answered” McIntyre’s claims.
You answered only one of them — the claim that false statements were made after the intro.
You did not answer the claims that the statements were false.
Now you want people to pat you on the back and say, “Oh, well done, Smith. You’re right, you have no responsibility to disprove or even respond to claims that you have published false statements.”
Like I said, ridiculous. We’re all past childhood.
RTF
So you have an intro full of errors. They’re still errors. What difference does it make whether it’s an intro? It’s still part of the article.
Re: Jeff Alberts (Jun 24 21:48), but if you count the wrong words its only 1.5% of the total
Arthur Smith made a claim, “There is no discussion of ClimateAudit or McIntyre in my piece beyond the intro paragraphs, except for the link to a CA discussion.” Steve McIntyre strongly disagreed, saying, “Excuse me, you state the following well after your intro – a paragraph that contains a pastiche of errors:”
Smith responded by saying the paragraph McIntyre quoted was part of his introduction. Reading his post, this is obviously true. McIntyre was wrong.
There is nothing wrong with Smith’s post, and your criticisms of him are unfounded. The dispute was over one specific issue, which is all Smith was responding to. I am person who not only “will ascribe an iota of credibility to [his] travesty of a reply,” but agree with it in full.
I think I am an honest person.
In the comments to his post (comment by “apsmith” at 1:41 p.m. on 6/19/2010), Arthur Smith says:
It thus now seems a little silly for Dr. Smith to assert that he never accused Mr. McIntyre of making any claims and that he was only addressing claims made by Mr. Mosher. Sure he softened his accusation against Mr. McIntyre by using the word “apparently” but it is still an accusation that no one who values their reputation would leave without a response.
Brandon Schollenberger,
Whether McIntyre was wrong or not about where on the page the alleged false statements were made is not what is at issue here.
What is at issue here is whether Smith responded to the claims made by McIntyre in McIntyre’s previous comment — claims that Smith had published false statements about McIntyre.
What is wrong with Smith’s post is that it is nonresponsive to the most important claims that McIntyre made in his previous comment. Smith chooses to respond to a minute claim (the claim that the alleged false statements were placed after the intro), but chooses to ignore the huge claims (the claims that the alleged false statements were false).
That is not “nothing wrong” with Smith’s reply. That is “something wrong” with Smith’s reply. Something “hugely wrong”.
If I accuse you of kicking me in the back and then running to hide behind a tree, and you respond, “I didn’t run and hide behind the tree. I hid behind that building over there,” that reply is nonresponsive. But more than that, it is RIDICULOUS.
So let’s see how honest you are. Are you honest enough to swallow your pride and admit the patently obvious?
RTF
Heh heh. I like you.
First Richard T. Fowler, a minor point. My name does not have a “c” in it.
Second, you say, “Whether McIntyre was wrong or not about where on the page the alleged false statements were made is not what is at issue here. What is at issue here is whether Smith responded to the claims made by McIntyre in McIntyre’s previous comment — claims that Smith had published false statements about McIntyre.” This particular thread of conversation started in with:
In it, Steve said nothing of what you mention. Arthur Smith responded with a post summarized as, “There is no discussion of ClimateAudit or McIntyre in my piece beyond the intro paragraphs, except for the link to a CA discussion.”
The first time the issue of these “false statements” was raised in McIntyre’s inline response. In his inline response, McIntyre did two things. He first disputed Smith’s claim. He then raised the issue of false statements.
So Arthur Smith made a claim. Steve McIntyre dispute the claim and brought up other issues. Smith responded to the issue being discussed and disputed, not other issues.
Sticking to the original point made in a thread, and not digressing into other issues, is not something which should be condemned. It is perfectly reasonable to resolve one point before moving onto another.
Brandon,
You said, “It is perfectly reasonable to resolve one point before moving onto another.”
Not when you choose to “postpone” accusations of false statements in order to focus instead on where the allegedly false statements were placed on a page. That is patently ridiculous.
Besides, Smith did not say he was going to come back to them. He claimed (surreally) that they had already been addressed.
You’re not going to win this one, Brandon. It was a valiant effort, but it’s over. It is time to concede that Smith owed, and owes, Steve a response to the claims. A statement that a response would be forthcoming would not have been acceptable to me. But there was no such statement, which can only mean that Smith had no intention of responding.
RTF
I’m sorry … I meant “WOULD have been acceptable” ….
RTF
Richard T. Fowler, it turns out the criticism you raised is even more unfounded than I suggested. You say, “Besides, Smith did not say he was going to come back to them. He claimed (surreally) that they had already been addressed.” Before you had said, “What is wrong with Smith’s post is that it is nonresponsive to the most important claims that McIntyre made in his previous comment.”
Now then, I had taken you at your word initially. I assumed he hadn’t responded to the issue of “false statements” at all. However, your latest comment said he claimed to have responded already. Upon seeing that, I went back and read his post again. This is what I found:
“I have responded to his other claims based on Steve Mosher’s admission that the responsibility is his alone with some edits to the original page.”
So your complaint is Arthur Smith did not respond to certain claims, but did respond to a minor claim instead. The reality is he responded to the “minor” claim here, and edited the post on his website to respond to the rest.
Now then, I’ll admit I messed up in my response to you. I should have caught your mistake right away.
Now then, will you admit your chiding of Arthur Smith was completely unfounded? To be specific, I am talking about this post of yours:
Brandon Shollenberger,
No I will not. If Arthur Smith has conceded defeat on the claims of making false statements, then a reply to Steve’s claims, admitting as much, should be here. Why should I have to go over there to see the response?
I really don’t care what Arthur Smith said over there, because the only relevant thing he could have done is remove the statements McIntyre was complaining about. The present debate is not over the matter of whether the statements have or should have been removed. It is over over a different matter: the question of whether the statements were true.
If the statements were false, then Smith should have either 1) said as much IN HIS REPLY HERE, or 2) at least said, “My reply to McIntyre’s other claims is at my web page.” Absent one or the other, it is nothng more than a slap in the face for Arthur to restrict his reply to the question of how the statements’ location is properly described. That is why I used the term “ridiculous”.
I persisted in debating you in order to put to the test your claim of honesty. I have now said all I am going to say about this.
RTF
I believe it will be very instructive to see if and how Mr. Smith adjusts or amends his postings on both his own blog and others where he has commented to reflect this discussion.
I think the same can be said of Steve McIntyre.
Re: Brandon Shollenberger? (Jun 25 00:16),
Emotions run high (duh). Antagonism is stoked by certain phrasings used by people on the ‘other side’ (duh). As far as illuminating the issues at hand, it would be best if everyone would follow Steve Mosher’s lead and “adjust and amend” postings to best reflect their current understanding and current position.
I don’t know why they even bothered with data at all. They could have modelled exactly what they want to show and got away with that too. Everyone else does it.
Toby:
A thundering bore? Not for me, as I am hugely appreciative of CA exposing how we the people have been, and are being manipulated by “scientists” on the subject of CAGW.
Why do a few scintists play tricks? I don’t know. It is anyone’s guess.. ego?
We’re not supposed to speculate on motive. But I think Jones and Mann believe they are justified in their actions – that the padding, smoothing and truncating serve to clarify a truthful narrative. They did what the policy guys asked – they provided a simple glossy story with the ugly wrinkles (uncertainties) all smoothed out.
Why is not the main point and criticism of “hide the decline” continually and near exclusively presented and thus allowing the chips to fall where they may? I would judge that the thinking person understands that the existence and even the conjecture about the reasons for the decline post 1960 in the temperature proxies was neglected by the authors of these graphs and further that that neglect has its roots in the advocacy positions of the authors and is not at all typical of a purely scientific approach.
The only point worth discussing is what that decline means in terms of the validity of the proxy pre-1960s and secondarily how well the post 1960 data can be considered out-of-sample.
In my view engaging in food fights with what would appear to be uninformed, but well trained, food fighters, is a major waste of time and gets way off topic and point. When the food fights turn to how the food fights are being conducted we have a total waste of time.
Probably because that would be repetitious and boring. Food fights are a waste of time. But I don’t see any food-fighting going on here. I see increased understanding of hte nature of these tricks, which can only lead to a clearer judgement of whether they are “clever arithemtical devices” or egregious deceptions. And becasue there are a range of tricks that were played, one judgement does not fit all. Hence the need to parse exactly who did what operation: pad, smooth, truncate. Some are more justifiable, and received more disclosure, than others.
It ain’t about the food fight. It’s about figuring out exactly who did exactly what.
… and that helps explain why the Oxburgh inquiry was too blunt a tool to srike at the heart of the problem. If you think that’s not useful … then say so.
“It ain’t about the food fight. It’s about figuring out exactly who did exactly what.”
I disagree. It is about what was what exactly, or inexactly, not done. You can smooth it or you can splice it or you can hide it or confuse it, but without an emphasis and explanation, and in detail, of the consequences of the decline, it ain’t science, but rather advocacy and marketing.
Do you really think these fine details have any a bearing on the general perception of what hide the decline means? I am assuming here that no one is interested in claiming that the instrumental record was spliced onto the prematurely terminated proxy record in a fraudulent manner, but rather in discussing the implications of the authors’ avoidance of revealing and discussing the all important issue – which is the decline itself.
Do you think I really care about “general perceptions”?
Wow! Five years of trying to justify (or excuse?) absolutely horrible science! Will it never end?
It will end when there is total capitulation.
When companies are found to be either truncating, arbitrarily smoothing, or mixing, historical data, in order to hide declines, how long does the debate last?!
Bender, I must say, that means it will never end. GW is belief. Will keep it at that to stay vaguely on topic.
Until the null hypothesis is proven false, this science should have stayed in literature and miles away from policy makers. “Hide the decline” is just one small part of the problem, it shows that the scientists either intentionally or un-intentionally have allowed bias to cloud their judgement and thus make the results unreliable. This is what I harp on over and over again. Science has to be open sourced. Science has to be open about concerns, and about issues that might deviate from what the hypothesis is saying. And more then anything, bias has to be reduced as much as possible to prevent the bias from ruining the work.
If you look at science in medicine, you see double-blind experiments that mostly get rid of the observer bias effect. No where in climate science do we see anything even resembling this. This is easy to do too.
From the beginning, we should have had un-biased people in the data-mining business doing the modeling. With no idea on what variables actually were in the training process, the results would be more reliable. It doesn’t take education in climate studies to model them. This is a misnomer that has polluted the entire process, and although I applaud Steve’s efforts and others like him, this will not end until someone actually funds an un-biased group to figure out if its even possible to model climate.
That goes without saying that there are other ways to remove bias, and with such a complex system as climate, it is a theory of mine that there are many ways you can model it to remove bias.
But I will say this: no one knows what the future holds. You can not extrapolate data into the future and be confident it “might” be right, because unknown events can ruin your assumptions.
And the one comment I still remember from my first data mining course in college: “you can interpolate data and extrapolate data to get better results, but if you combine these two tactics, your individual bias and interpolationg errors may lead to unreliable results. The more complex the system, the more this strategy is not sound and its highly recommended to use both as sparingly as possible.”
I may be paraphrasing what he said a little (its been awhile) but the gist is that interpolation errors can and will ruin models…
By “total capitulation” I mean, very specifically:
(1) Mann and Jones admitting their errors and correcting them,
(2) Briffa admitting his, and ensuring it doesn’t happen again in AR5 under Osborn’s watch, and
(3) the belief-o-sphere finally giving McIntyre the respect that he surely has earned by now.
Such a simple and narrowly focused wish list should not take “forever”.
If they haven’t happened already it’s hard to conceive how 1) and 3) will ever come to pass, barring someone taking the old road to Damascas. AR5 should have been delayed to allow proper reformation of the IPCC, as Richard Tol has argued, but it’s not in my nature to rule out positive changes there, until it’s published. We’ll have to stay vigilent. But you’re 100% right to spell out what would be just. And growing public understanding of these issues will transform the scene in the end.
Should have posted a correction at S&R once you knew about it.
Here’s another example of Smith’s misleading content. After discussing Angliss, he says:
CA readers know that Angliss conceded that his first point against CA was incorrect and withdrew these paragraphs. Smith failed to report this point.
A more accurate summary would be the following:
Brandon, go look at Art’s site how he responded to this concern of Steve’s. Tell us if it is adequate, the odd strike-out here and there. How does it match against what Steve wrote here?
Can I change the focus slightly and say how much I appreciate this addition to the English language: to slime as a transitive verb. There’s something about the precise way Steve and friends have been treated that fully deserves the neologism. The architypal sentence being
Respect, everyone.
“Can I change the focus slightly and say how much I appreciate this addition to the English language: to slime as a transitive verb. ”
Ghostbusters, it’s been around for a while.
What an interesting comment thread! One of the reasons I love the blog.
I realised I might be making public my ignorance of current usage, even of recent movies. But the phrase “slimed by a drive-by troll” was too much to resist. Hilarious language. Horrible reality.
* Do you agree that you got it wrong on this AR4 graph?
Yes.
“The data I used was from the NCDC and did have all the pieces there. And are you seriously claiming that it makes a difference for the end-point smoothing if you use Crutempv2b vs Jones 99 as the instrumental series?”
no I think to be clear you have to say what you showed.
What you showed was this. If you take briffas reconstruction from NCDC ( which is calibrated against jones 99)
and if you appended jones 99, then the chart does not look like Ar4.
If you take briffa ( calibrated to jones 99) and mean pad that curve looks “more like” AR4.
You can say that that emulation evidence overwhelmingly
suggests that it was mean padded and not temperature spliced. Actual code and data would settle it with certainty. But, I dont need
that to say ‘I was wrong’. Is that logical distinction clear?
I looked at the AR4 charts and they sourced Crutempv2b. So I ran your code with that data ( for post 1960)
and your results were “confirmed” Then it occurred to me that appending temps from one series ( crutempv2)
to a proxy series calibrated against Jones 99, was still not a definitive test. The best test would briffa’s actual code and data. But still adding the test of crutempv2 is more evidence that I am wrong.
So I’m not arguing that crutempv2 changes things in MY favor, I’m saying the opposite. Like so to keep it simple:
Arthur looked at the problem using jones 99, that’s the wrong data, but if we put in the right data
( which is slightly different during the relevant period) we see that his conclusion is confirmed.
That’s kinda why I pasted in the data for you above to HELP you in your case against me. The more clear you are in your explanation of what briffa did or didnt do in Ar4, the more credibility you will have when you move onto the WMO issue and the TAR issue. So which is the next one?
I just made a post at Arthur Smith’s site which appears to have gone through moderation, and I wanted to follow it up here.
I don’t agree with Steve McIntyre in this topic. His interpretation seems horribly incorrect. Reading Smith’s site, and his comments here, it is extremely clear he did not make his post to criticize McIntyre. Simple statements of fact have been taken as insinuations of wrongdoing by McIntyre, when in reality they are just simple statements of fact. Inclusions of “ClimateAudit” were incidental, and not meant to imply anything.
As I said on Arthur Smith’s site, the tone of his post was horrible. It was basically begging to be misinterpreted, which is exactly what has been done here. Arthur Smith’s posts here express genuine confusion, as he doesn’t seem to realize the tone of his post. So what we have is a situation in which neither side understands the reasons of the other side.
Given McIntyre’s history with baseless criticisms, both his misinterpretation and immediate reaction are understandable. However, it seems nothing other than stubbornness can allow one to still think Arthur Smith was intentionally slighting McIntyre. My comment at Smith’s site can be found:
http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/mcintyregate#comment-9330
Please provide examples. Or retract that remark. You’re doing Art one better. Smear with unsupportable innuendo.
bender, this is exactly the sort of thing which caused Steve McIntyre to misinterpret Arthur Smith’s post. What in my post suggests anything negative of Steve McIntyre? Nothing. I said he made a mistake, but that is all.
So we are faced with one of two possible meanings when I say, “Given McIntyre’s history with baseless criticisms….” The first possibility, is the one you jumped on. This possibility is I could have meant, “McIntyre makes baseless criticisms all the time.” Of course, the second half of the sentence would make no sense then. I said, “[B]oth his misinterpretation and immediate reaction are understandable. Obviously someone repeatedly making baseless criticisms would not justify misinterpreting something or reacting in a defensive manner.
So we have a second possibility. This one actually makes sense. This possibility is I meant, “MyIntyre has had to deal with so many baseless criticisms….” This interpretation clearly justifies his mistake, and his defensive reaction. It also falls perfectly in line with the rest of my paragraph.
You assumed malfeasance because you expected it. You came up with a ridiculous interpretation of my post because of your expectations. This is exactly what I said Steve McIntyre did, only on a worse scale.
Re: Brandon Shollenberger? (Jun 24 17:24),
@Brandon: Interesting example. But I don’t think that’s what’s happening with this particular food fight. At least, in his responses here, Smith doesn’t seem at all interested in correcting-addressing his post that started the whole thing. He doesn’t seem to be interested in working at really understanding the issues. He seems more intent to simply prove that one specific issue that Mosher wrote was WRONG (a point which Mosher has already acknowledged). The reality is that this specific instance of Mosher’s misunderstanding was actually an extraordinarily minor point in this, ummm, debate.
The real test of Smith’s character and purpose is that he isn’t doing anything to call out the authors of the original studies… those who bear the real responsibility for this entire mess. If the procedures in the studies were fully documented, if the data and programs were properly archived, if the researchers chose to engage others interested in their work (even if those other folks happen to disagree with the researchers conclusions), none of this would be happening.
Bruce
There are a couple of problems with this comment. First you say, “Smith doesn’t seem at all interested in correcting-addressing his post that started the whole thing.” As I already pointed out, Arthur Smith simply seems oblivious to the problem in his post. While you can fault him for writing a bad post, how can you fault him for not addressing the problem with it? Nobody ever said what the problem was.
Everyone here was criticizing him for things which weren’t true, and he tried to correct them. In return, all he got was trash thrown at him. He posted here in good faith, and look at how he was treated for it. When I actually posted what the problem was, I got attacked too.
You go on to say, “The real test of Smith’s character and purpose is that he isn’t doing anything to call out the authors of the original studies…” Why should this be true? Are you seriously suggesting we should use the demonization of particular instances of bad behavior as a litmus test for honesty? Should everyone have to become fully informed on all the myriad issues which are problematic in order to participate in the conversation?
Suppose for a moment we are going to use your standard. Why didn’t you condemn bender for making a ridiculous and offensive interpretation of my post? Why didn’t you condemn Steve McIntyre for the nonsensical responses he gave to Arthur Smith? You seem to think people should condemn bad behavior, yet you aren’t doing so.
The reason is simple. We shouldn’t conflate things. A person has every right to say, “Steven Mosher was wrong on this issue” without being dragged into a dozen other issues.
Well put, Brandon. E.g. when Team supporters have used their mind-reading powers to announce my motives for posting about… that other issue… they’ve been 100% wrong. That’s just an average human performance in an emotional situation. For figuring things out, “we shouldn’t conflate things” is sound strategy.
Re: Brandon Shollenberger? (Jun 24 18:21),
As in all things, context is important.
Steve (and bender and mosher and others) have been called out and vilified countless times by both other bloggers and the “scientists” involved in the actual issues. The post by Smith is another example of the attempt to paint a specific picture. Smith is showing by his actions that he doesn’t appear to be interested in looking into the REAL issues. He seems solely interested in tearing apart individuals and obscuring the poorly done work by select climate “scientists”.
Or, put another way, why would Smith choose to criticize a blogger, who happens to be commenting on specific issue in a specific scientific paper? Why go to the trouble of looking at the details in the technical discussion in question without actually addressing the PROFOUND scientific problems that started this whole mess? Again, seems more than a bit disingenuous to me.
Am not suggesting that he ought to have completely read through and digested all of what has been written here and elsewhere when it comes to “climategate” before posting anything on the topic. It’s his blog, he can say whatever he wants!
However, I AM suggesting that it’s curious that he’s drawing attention to one very, VERY minor issue in the overall scheme of things while ignoring the real, major, fundamental problems with the dendro science being discussed. I AM suggesting that if he were really interested in correcting the record or in setting things straight or just simply trying to understand what all the fuss is about, the place to start is most logically by looking at the “science”… meaning, what specifically was done in the studies, were the methods and analysis appropriately described so as to be reproducible, were the methods and analysis used appropriate for the type of study, are the results available, etc., not by proceeding to attempt to disprove one teeny part of what one blogger has written about that “science”. Seems rather selective, doesn’t it?
Of course, I could be totally off base. Perhaps Mr. Smith is a swell guy and a snappy dresser. Perhaps he’s really now in the process of going through the multitude of issues that are present in the dendro-literature being discussed and is preparing to post more on the problems that Steve and Mosher and so many others have sussed out. We’ll see.
Bruce
My bad. You’re right: I should have read more carefully.
But come now: Arthur says he speaks plainly, but then says Mosher is “full of it”? This is plain talk? That is trash talk!
I don’t get this response. First, Arthur said he was speaking plainly long after he made the post on his site. He made it in response to Steve McIntyre reading all sorts of insinuations into very simple statements. Arthur Smith said he spoke plainly to try to get McIntyre to read what he wrote, not something else.
Second, you have set up a false dilemma. You say, “This is plain talk? That is trash talk!” This implies it is impossible for something to be both plain talk and trash talk. Obviously, that is untrue.
Finally, while you admit your interpretation of my post is wrong, you make no comment as to whether or not I was right overall. Rather than try to advance a resolution of this petty behavior, you encourage it by making provocative posts.
Three people made three different mistakes. One person has admitted it. If the remaining two can admit their mistakes, this nonsense can end.
So you think, based on Artless rhetoric, that Mosher is “full of it”? Then you are a sad person.
Nothing in anything I have said could possibly be taken to mean what you say here. This is the second time you have flagrantly misrepresented me.
The behavior in this topic is almost as reprehensible as it is unbelievable. If I was new to ClimateAudit, this thread alone would be enough to ensure I never came back.
I can’t believe I am asking this, but bender, would you please read what I write, not some delusional-fueled troll bait?
For the most part, I agree with Brandon. However, there was definitely a tone of attacking McIntyre along with the other names mentioned, Monckton, etc. Later in the comments, Arthur says that ClimateAudit is much more careful.
I didn’t “misrepresnt” you. I asked you a question. Say, if you’re so frequently misunderstood, maybe you should write less ambiguously? Just a thought. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
This is nonsense bender. You said, “So you think, based on Artless rhetoric…” This is not just asking a question. This is asking a question in order to imply a point, just like the question, “So have you stopped beating your wife yet?”
Adding a question mark does not free your comment of implication. This is especially true as you followed that sentence with, “Then you are a sad person.” Not, “If so, you are a sad person.”
Would you please stop with the nonsense?
Sort of like asking what to do about restoring your credibility after this incident? Thanks for the clarification. I didn’t realize I was only mimicking Art.
Steven Mosher made a bold claim which was incorrect. He then left the conversation despite, by his own admission, to be uncertain of his claim. This caused a number of people to defend him on false pretenses.
His credibility was hurt by that. Asking how he intends to restore it may be in bad taste, but it is in no way inappropriate.
Yeah, Art has a penchant for statements in bad taste. He should fix that.
The “if” was implied in the construct, Dr. Lexical. It is only required if you do as you just did, take the question mark out. Please stop this nonsense.
If you have zero tolerance for the odd bit of imprecision, I’m not sure the blogosphere is the place for you.
Oh, and please answer the question, Brandon. Is Mosher “full of it”? Who is more “full of it”: Mosher or the guys that Mosher was auditing – Mann & Jones? Thanks for staying focused on the questions that matter.
Oh my god. Did you really just use the, “His mistake ‘doesn’t matter'” defense?
I am getting very tired of this nonsense. How can anyone seriously suggest we shouldn’t talk about Steven Mosher’s mistake because other people made bigger mistakes? Why are you people conflating things so much? This constant attempt to change the subject is ridiculous.
Why should I be expected to talk about Mann or Jones? Are you just using that as a litmus test for people you will listen to? Fine.
But fine, I will answer that question if you agree to you admit Steve McIntyre’s responses to Arthur Smith have been rubbish. Tit for tat, if you admit McIntyre’s mistakes, I’ll comment on those of Mann and Jones.
The, “Fine” in the third paragraph, and the second “you” in the fourth paragraph should obviously be stricken. They were extraneous words left over when I edited that post.
Ok, just as soon you stop beating your wife.
Yeah, that’s one way to dodge a question. Condition it on some unacceptable precondition. Clever trick. But transparent.
Re: Brandon Shollenberger? (Jun 25 11:15),
Brandon… bender… Consider taking a breather? Steven Mosher is willing to talk about his mistakes. It’s an informative conversation, so far.
One thing at a time. Doesn’t mean that something else is not important.
I wish I had the opportunity to have a focused exchange with a team supporter on … that other issue. Hasn’t happened yet. Steve is showing that it can be done, good for him.
Well, Brandon, it seems like there are several voices that agree with me that, in Art’s post:
there was definitely a tone of attacking McIntyre
So I think that I do not need to apologize; I think that, overall, you are wrong. Art’s feigned neutrality was shallow enough that a seasoned reader (I guess you’re not one) can see through it. So shall we agree to disagree, and move on to more subsantive issues? Why waste your intellect on me, when you can apply it to Mann and Jones?
Re: bender (Jun 25 10:42),
Art is playing the troll. That’s why I’m not getting into it even to the extent of reading the original material. Somebody PLEASE post a real thread ASAP!
I’m done. Takes a lot of effort to really prove a guy’s a troll.
Wow, you’re really an expert hairsplitter. Even to the point of splitting your OWN HAIRS! Amazing!
Basically I agree with Brandon Shollenberger? yet his remark “Given McIntyre’s history with baseless criticisms” can very easily lead to misinterpretation. Not sure if this has been done by Brandon intentionally, but in view of the subject of this thread (misinterpretation) he should have put that in another way.
I’ve read some of Brandon’s messages on Deep Climate and he comes over as being unbiased and certainly not as a McIntryre basher.
This whole debate is polluted with deep feelings of mistrust by both camps and certainly does not improve the quality of it. That’s why I welcome messages by a “neutral” person like Brandon Shollenberger?.
That’s what I thought, but I wasn’t going to say it.
I don’t get how anyone would misinterpret that sentence. The only way it can be confusing is if you cut off the second half of the sentence. I had said:
“Given McIntyre’s history with baseless criticisms, both his misinterpretation and immediate reaction are understandable.”
Short of just not reading what I said, how could anyone misinterpret that?
Because I didn’t read the full sentence. I saw the premise and it pushed a button. How many times do you want me to apologize for that? I’ve already promised to read your comments in full before replying to any one part of your comment. What more do you want?
In return, what I ask of you is to not dodge my questions.
You just did it again bender. Nothing in my post asks you to apologize again. Hoi Polloi said my comment could easily be misinterpreted. I disputed that. The response had nothing to do with you.
As for dodging your questions, I just came on the site a little while ago. This was the first post from you I have seen today. I can’t think of a reason I wouldn’t answer questions, though I won’t make any promises.
I never said that you asked me to apologize. I said that I feel no need to apologize. Because you are basically wrong.
Although Art’s article does not rise to the level of a CA “smear job”, it had some slime in it targetd at CA. But its main purpose was to smear Mosher. A campaign which continues, with ridiculous remarks like “after this incident, what are you going to do to restore your credibility?”
Re: bender (Jun 25 11:10),
Re: Brandon Shollenberger? (Jun 25 11:02),
These rapid-fire back-and-forths are making the central themes of the post harder to follow, for some, in my opinion. For those in the audience (like me) who don’t come with a firm understanding of the nuances of “hide the decline” that Arthur, Steve, and Steve are discussing.
I recognize that each of you is quite annoyed, and that there are grounds for such irritation, in each case. But still.
FWIW.
What your suggested solution, AMac? You see the problem? Once started these fights are hard to back out of. He accuses me of pettiness, yet he replies with the exact same.
“Given McIntyre’s history with baseless criticisms, both his misinterpretation and immediate reaction are understandable.”
Short of just not reading what I said, how could anyone misinterpret that?
Easy to read as “history OF baseless criticisms…”. Particularly while observing slimeballs.
Re: Brandon Shollenberger? (Jun 25 10:44),
Here’s how. You left some things unsaid, and what was left unsaid is left to the reader to fill in.
Two possible readings:
“Given McIntyre’s history [of responding to] baseless criticisms, both his misinterpretation and immediate reaction are understandable.”
“Given McIntyre’s history [of creating] baseless criticisms, both his misinterpretation and immediate reaction are understandable.”
Both are valid readings of “with”. One provides a positive light, the other, negative.
Yes, Mark F got it right. I was focused on slimeballs at the time and when an unfamiliar name came in my negative filter was dominating. [But, at the same time, doesn’t this nonsense about “admitting McIntyre’s errors” justify my negative spidey sense? Why’s the guy so keen to – like Art – avoid the real story here?]
Of course you don´t get it, you wrote it and you know the meanings behind it. I just don’t understand why you get your knickers in a twist by this misinterpretation. Otherwise I agree with your message(s), so let’s call it a day. Beer anyone?
Brandon,
It seems to me that you are really trying to be an honest broker but you are coming over as rather naive. You are missing the big picture and getting caught up in narrow formalistic issues. Arthur is well known as one of the more tribalistic commentators – he never criticizes mainstream AGW proponents; he has never had anything positive to say about skeptics. You are bending over backwards to give him the benefit of the doubt when his past actions provide no justification for this.
You really overplay your hand when you say: “His (McIntyre’s) interpretation seems horribly incorrect. Reading Smith’s site, and his comments here, it is extremely clear he did not make his post to criticize McIntyre.” On the contrary, having read Art’s piece a number of times, this is not clear at all and I think a truly objective person (which I concede is not me) would side with Steve. You not only take Art’s side, but move all the way “it is extremely clear”. That is, at best, a horrible overstatement. In the context, Art’s post appears to me to be a rather standard “smear by association” piece. There was absolutely no reason to mention Steve Mc or CA anywhere and one has to question why it was done. You gravitate to the most innocent reasons, but I hope you understand why others feel you are mistaken and naive.
SOI, you seem to have ignored part of what you quoted me saying. You start your disagreement by saying, “On the contrary, having read Art’s piece a number of times, this is not clear at all and I think a truly objective person…” However, you quoted me as saying, “Reading Smith’s site, and his comments here.”
You didn’t say anything about Arthur Smith’s replies on this site, so you have completely missed my point. Even if one were to believe the most horrible interpretation of Smith’s original post possible, his posting here clearly shows such an interpretation is wrong.
The only way to hold Smith’s post was a smear job is to claim he has repeatedly lied on this site.
-Art’s post wasn’t just a “smear job”. It was 95% misguided attack on Mosher and 5% CA smear.
-Art’s responses here have been unresponsive. Why lie when you can dodge?
I keep seeing people say he has been unresponsive. How do you figure?
If you’re so curious to know, why’d you PO RTF? He was in the process of narrating for you the nature of Art’s dodge.
Why did I “PO RTF”? I’d imagine the reason is because Richard T. Fowler made something up. He claimed Arthur Smith didn’t respond to something, but Arthur Smith had responded.
It seems pointing this out makes me dishonest, and “PO’s RTF.”
Whether a “response” is responsive is a subjective question, not black-and-white. I would stop short of accusing anyone of “making things up” until I understood what they were really saying. I think you chose to debate minutiae with RTF rather than getting to the basis of this question of responsiveness. Why you chose that route, I don’t know. But Art has been less than responsive, both here and at his own site. Mosher, in contrast, has been wholly responsive.
Examples of Art’s unresponsiveness:
(1) Asked if he would change the title of his post (something like: “mosher fuller of it”) he declined. He asserted its entertainment value but failed to justify it as accurate. So his article is a smear job.
(2) Asked for a balanced assesment of mosher’s error in context of Jones + Mann’s tricks, he replies with a cute, but flawed numbers game involving Briffa
(3) Art has not replied to Steve’s suggested text edits above, here. Instead, he tried to minimize the CA smaer by striking out some text at his site. This is a minimal response, to say the least.
(4) Asked if he could clear up any residual stink of his attempted CA-smear by saying something nice about CA, he claimed he couldn’t find anything nice to say. When I specifically mentioned the author and his qualities, there was no response forthcoming.
How many more do I need to list before you are convicned his responses are unresponsive?
If people want to discuss whether or not Arthur Smith’s edits in response to McIntyre’s claims were sufficient, they are welcome to. I don’t intend to, as I have already put far more effort into this situation than I ever wanted to.
However, your characterization of the situation seems off to me. Richard T. Fowler flatly accused Smith of not responding to claims. One example of this is, “McIntyre made claims that you made false statements. You ignored them. And now you want to get credit for having ‘answered’ McIntyre’s claims. You answered only one of them — the claim that false statements were made after the intro.”
It turns out this was completely untrue. Arthur Smith did respond to McIntyre’s claims. Richard T. Fowler made a simple claim which was clearly untrue.
Regardless of why it happened, he obviously made it up.
Art’s “responses” were IMO effectively non-responses – a pattern of unresponsivenness that appears to be core part of his MO. But I desist and will let RTF carry on with his argument. He doesn’t strike me as the kind to just “make things up”.
It seems strange to say he does not strike you as a person who would do something when I clearly demonstrated he did it. Is it really so difficult to say, “What Richard T. Fowler said was incorrect”?
For all the harping on Arthur Smith to admit the errors of people like Mann, nobody here seems willing to admit the errors of anyone here.
With that said, I am done jumping around to respond to things. It is too much effort to post in five different threads to respond to one person.
“nobody here seems willing to admit the errors of anyone here”
That’s quite a generalization for a guy who should know well the perils of such induction.
Are you joking!?
The claims of publishing false statements ARE NOT RESPONDED TO.
Please quote from the response, if there is one!
There is no response that has been shown to me. And now you accuse me of making something up.
RTF
Brandon, now it is you being “petty and provocative”.
You have not responded to my (3), which directly addreses RTF’s concern. Art responds where it pleases him, and in a minimalist way, rather than here, in a substantive way. Sure, it’s a form of “response”. The unresponsive kind.
Hell, Art hasn’t even responded to Brandon’s own critical assessment: “horrible tone”, “easily misinterpreted”. A proper (i.e. responsive) response would go something like this:
“Yeah, Brandon’s right. I kinda went overboard. In my next post I’ll be sure to avoid that. Sorry, Msoher and CA, for the accidental smear.”
Or:
“I stand by what I wrote for the following reasons …”
MIA is a kind of response. I guess.
Bender,
No it isn’t. Let’s be clear. “Reply” means any statement said or written as a result of a previous one. “Response” means a statement that is actually responsive to some other specific statement.
While I occasionally used the word “response” above in a manner inconsistent with this definition, if anything it imputed more credit to Arthur Smith than was deserved, and certainly more than I was trying to suggest.
It is now clear to me that Brandon Schollenberger did not understand the meaning of the word “surreally” when I used it.
That is apparently the reason why he is throwing this grenade.
Brandon, your words are very ill-informed and unfortunate. I hope you do drop this. Even if there is a response, it has not been posted in the proper place. And that is the only place where I have looked, and the only place where I _should_ have had to look.
But I will be quite surprised at this point if there is any response out there to be quoted from.
RTF
It is now 45 minutes since I demanded that Brandon Schollenberger quote from the supposed response that he has alleged to exist, and over 2 and 1/2 hours since he first made the false claim that I had made up the claim that McIntyre’s claims were not responded to.
This is a hit-and-run personal attack of the lowest order. If the man who made it cannot quote from the alleged response, then the attack is reprehensible, and should be retracted.
RTF
I think that’s the problem, RTF. You want a quotable reply as a response. Brandon seems to think that an action is a suitable response. I personally think Brandon is wrong here, and that’s why I pointed out that “response” is not a black-and-white issue, and why I wouldn’t start by accusing people of “making things up”.
The reason a quotable reply is necessary, Brandon, is so that bloggers and journalists can report to the public without being accused of “making stuff up”. They’re just trying to do their job. So I think RTF is right to ask for a quotable reply as a response. If Art chooses to decline that request, then, fine, that is what needs to be recorded.
RTF says:
“It is now 45 minutes since I demanded that Brandon Schollenberger quote from the supposed response that he has alleged to exist, and over 2 and 1/2 hours since he first made the false claim”
RTF, I think you’re going to have to be more patient htan that. Because Brandon previosuly said:
“I am done jumping around to respond to things.”
He’ll come back. He has too much invested in this argument to just walk away.
Can we all agree that it would be helpful for Art to be more responsive here at CA? That he’s to some degree obliged to do some community service here over the weekend?
Changing a statement on your website is not a response to a claim that the statement is false.
By merely changing the statement, Smith in fact has pointedly avoided commenting about the truth or falsehood of it.
THAT’S the reason it has to be quoted: because if there’s nothing to quote, THEN THERE IS NO RESPONSE IN EXISTENCE.
Other than that, I agree with the words Bender has just written.
RTF
Brandon says:
“It seems strange to say he does not strike you as a person who would do something when I clearly demonstrated he did it.”
1. I obviously dispute the clarity of your “demonstration”. For the reasons mentioned earlier – that “responses” and “replies” are different things.
2. I do not judge someone’s proclivity to “make things up” on the basis of one incident. In the past few say, RTF, has taken pains to AVOID putting words in my mouth – even when I accused him of doing so. Almost as a journlist who makes effort to get the story straight so that he is not accused of “making things up”. So I sense a pattern of behavior rather opposite to your judgement.
RTF says:
“By merely changing the statement, Smith in fact has pointedly avoided commenting about the truth or falsehood of it.”
Yep, that’s the problem with unresponsive responses. No admission of guilt. Moving right along. contrast with Mosher.
Who’s taking the credibility hit now? Who’s got the more scientific MO?
Brandon,
When I explained to Art that I posted at Angliss site and then did not return to check comments, he accused me of lying. he even did this after determining that all my comments were made in a five hour period. Now, I believe I have been very candid. I think his charge that I am lying about this is unsupported by ANY evidence.
What is your considered judgment on the evidence in that matter, the charge that Smith made and its supportablity. You can call me steve
I obviously would not agree you lied about that. However, I am not immediately familiar with the comments in which Arthur Smith said you lied, so I can’t really comment. If you can point me to where he said it, I will give a more full answer.
Are you reading this thread? Or just your bits?
As I have already explained, it is difficult to keep up with conversations when they are scatter all over the place. Is it really surprising I cannot remember one specific comment made amongst all this mess?
There is a reason I wanted things to be more organized.
Why can I follow and you cannot? You’re obviously a smart guy.
Brandon,
You insinuate Arthur’s tone is causing a misinterpretation of the content of his piece. I disagree. I believe the tone was deliberate and was meant to ridicule not just Steve Mosher’s error but those in his “make up nonsense” camp.
It seems Arthur was offended when Steve Mosher said, “you clearly don’t know how the trick works”. And figured since Steve was incorrect in his own description, he was entitled to a lashing of fools in the public square. But the lashing was too severe and Arthur tied other people to the whipping post.
If Steve Mc is not germaine to the content, why is he included? I say because Arthur includes him in the “make up nonsense” camp.
Angliss is positioned as someone who has “put a lot of effort” into refuting Climategate claims. Angliss believes Steve Mc propogates many of those claims and Arthur knows it. So he uses Angliss against Steve Mc. Notice that Steve Mc is not credited with “putting a lot of effort” into his work.
Arthur uses the “us against them” characterization for the first four paragraphs. Neither Steve Mc nor Climate Audit are presented on the “us” side.
The explanatory section would have done well on its own and the setup could have been omitted. But that’s not good theater and it doesn’t define whose team you are on.
Keith Herbert, if you have any specific comments made by Arthur Smith you think criticize Steve McIntyre, please post them. If you have any comments made by him which contradict my explanation, please post them. If you know of any comments made by Arthur Smith which cannot be explained by careless tone, post those.
If all you have is idle speculation of motives, this site is not where you should post your thoughts.
Brandon,
Well there you go, “idle speculation”? I suppose that’s your idea of not conflating?
I have two posts that clearly delineate my position. I think most readers can discern what Arthur means to impart.
These are the bad guys:
Joe Barton
Gerhard Kramm
Tom Fuller
Christopher Monkton
Steve Mosher
Steve McIntyre
Climate Audit
These are the good guys:
Arthur Smith
Prof. John Abrahams
“the latest of us”
Brian Angliss
IPCC report
Deltoid, DC, Real Climate, Tamino
That is how the article is constructed. It’s unfair of you to attribute that to my “idle speculation of motives”. It is very clear where the positve language is and where the negative language is. You can ignore it or declare it “careless tone”, but it is still there.
Please take your own advice and don’t proffer offensive posts. Merely telling someone to shut up doesn’t make you right.
generally I remain calm, but you’ve gotten my ire up.
you wrote,
“Inclusions of “ClimateAudit” were incidental, and not meant to imply anything.”
Where do you get that? It is not only idle speculation, but grossly inaccurate. The piece is set up to demonize, yet you attribute no relevance to the inclusion of ClimateAudit!
Yes, exactly. The tone was horrible. And I know I took his bait. I wanted him to go on the record about what he thinks about the broader issue. So Mosher made an error. What does this mean when stacked up against the activities of the guys that Mosher was auditing? Drop the context and you’ve lost the story. So Art is missing the boat. That’s fine. It’s his audience that suffers.
Arthur,
We rely on the tenor of the writing to discern the intent.
Your setup is unmistakable for its mockery and to characterize others as fools: “Even Fuller of It”, “spouting nonsense”, “trouble with logical coherence”, “subtle in their nonsense”, “some of these actors” and “skilled in creating plausible nonsense”. We are alerted from this setup the writer will define some foolish actors for us, and we are on the lookout for them.
You claim at this site you were only addressing the “hide the decline” claim by Steve Mosher and Tom Fuller, but you also impugn Steve Mc and Climate Audit. Your setup and writing draw distinctions between the good guys and the bad guys and we will only discover one or the other.
Frankly, all that is fine for blog writing, but you had better be prepared to get comments based on the tenor of the piece and not just the factual content.
So for factual writing you would say, “Angliss stated, ‘McIntyre…'”. To imply you agree with someone’s assessment you write (as you did), “AS Angliss cited, ‘McIntyre…'” Subtle distinctions set a very different tone and your writing is good enough that you certainly know that.
Yes, other bloggers often use a negative tone. You refer to Lucia, but she doesn’t deny the original premise. She takes on challengers based on her assessment. You want it both ways. You want an edgy nastiness but no responsibility.
Problem in this case is Steve Mosher agreed he made an error and Steve Mc wasn’t party to it. That deflates the tenor of your piece but you want to keep blowing it back up.
Wait, so let me get this straight.
This whole kerfluffle was about a guy who started a thread about a comment made on another thread by a guy who comments at ClimateAudit, who in one posting on the first thread mentioned, attributed to a particular figure from an IPCC report the wrong type of trick, i.e. grafting the temperature record vs. attenuating or padding or lord knows what else, all of which were done in various other figures in some form or another, although no one can tell exactly how.
Still following this?
So then, having struck this massive blow for science, it becomes somehow conflated with Monckton in a strange non-sequiter, and then repeated name dropping of Steve McIntyre, whose blog the guy originally referenced posts on.
Still with me?
And then the other guy states that because the title of the thread includes the pun “Fuller” of it, that means that he did not imply that the other guy is actually “full” of it, but because he confused the particular byzantine trick used in a particular figure with another particular byzantine trick used in another figure, he could then, with proper semantics, be construed as having said that the other guy might have an unblemished reputation before, but now is properly referred to as being “fuller of it” than he previously would have been.
He then dances off the field like he had scored the winning goal in a world cup match.
Kind of reminds me of the ending of the film “Burn After Reading”.
That, Ozark, is why I insist Artless put his assessment of Mosher’s work in context.
FYI Amac
http://drop.io/GlobalTemp
in the first doc you will see the following:
1. AR4.
2. Using arthur’s code, what it looks like if you use only the proxy data, Smooth and truncate at 1960
3. arthurs code, what it looks like if you use Mean padding. The legend in ar4 says “mean” padding. need
to double check that arthur calculated this correctly ( I assume arthur did this right)
4. What it looks like if you append and smooth with Jones 1999 data.
I’ve also included a PDF of what it looks like if you use CRUtempv2 (ar4), called mosher PDF
This one is what you get if you use the temp data that I posted for Arthur above. It makes Arthur’s case against me stronger.
Then you will see a file called cruv2. This is what you get if you Splice and use crutempv2, BUT make a simple error in how you do a splice.
[I’m making a new comment to de-indent a subthread that’s important, I think.]
Steve Mosher said on Jun 25, 2010 at 12:08 AM —
Note: Here, Steve Mosher appears to be discussing his analysis of the Briffa reconstruction in particular “spaghetti graphs” in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (AR4, 2007). Some of these issues may also apply to the Third Assessment Report (TAR, 2001). These are the two graphs discussed by Arthur Smith in his “Steven Mosher: Even Fuller of it” post. These two graphs are the two center panels in the figure that illustrates this ClimateAudit post.
Along with the TAR and AR4 figures, the Mosher/Fuller book also discusses a similar spaghetti graph featured in a 1999 World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report (the leftmost panel of the figure illustrating this ClimateAudit post). Concerning the WMO graph, Steve McIntyre claims that for the Briffa tree-ring trace, “instrumental data was clearly spliced with proxy data”. Similarly, the book says,
UC offered his best guesses as to the handling of the Briffa series endpoint in this comment of Jun 24, 2010 at 1:15 AM. Padding, not splicing, for the TAR (2001) and AR4 (2007) graphs.
My take at this juncture:
1. Steve Mosher identified dodgy graphing practices in three presentations of the Briffa tree-ring series: WMO (1999), TAR (2001), and AR4 (2007).
2. For the WMO graphic, Steve claimed that the post-1960 instrumental record was spliced onto the pre-1960 Briffa tree-ring record. He stands by this claim. “WMO” goes unmentioned by Arthur Smith (MikeN and Spence_UK bring it up in Arthur’s comments).
3. In the Mosher/Fuller book, Steve claimed that WMO-like splicing was performed in the TAR and/or AR4 graph (I’m not sure if it’s one or both). In his post, Arthur claims that splicing can be ruled out for TAR and AR4. In the comments to this ClimateAudit post, Steve agrees that Arthur is correct on this point, and thus that he (Steve) was wrong.
4. Arthur believes that not showing the post-1960 decline in the Briffa series is okay.
(I think that this fashion of presenting data is red-flag deceptive, but that’s neither here nor there at the moment.)
5. Arthur amended his post late on June 24, in order to take into account those of Steve McIntyre’s complaints that he (Arthur) thought were legitimate.
Steve Mosher, is this summary correct?
Arthur Smith, is this summary correct?
1. Steve Mosher identified dodgy graphing practices in three presentations of the Briffa tree-ring series: WMO (1999), TAR (2001), and AR4 (2007).
“yes, the BULK of my words on the matter address the DELETION
of the data and briffa’s prior publications. Behind that I focus on the
WMO. after that the focus is on jones comments AFTER climategate.
and somewhat in passing I refer to the temperature splice in WMO
and CONFLATE ( wrongly and imprecisely) the methods of “splicing, padding” in TAR and FAR. Its rather like this, after a 7 page discussion of divergence, and briffa prior publications and the WMO and jones temperature splice, I say ” and they did the same trick in the TAR and FAR. imprecise as stevemc notes. Wrong, as arthur notes.
2. For the WMO graphic, Steve claimed that the post-1960 instrumental record was spliced onto the pre-1960 Briffa tree-ring record. He stands by this claim. “WMO” goes unmentioned by Arthur Smith (MikeN and Spence_UK bring it up in Arthur’s comments).
“yes. since Jones said he was going to splice a temperature series, we take him at his word. and the evidence supports that Jones did (roughly) what he promised to do. Which may explain Arthur’s reticence to take the question up. or not. he’s a busy guy and cannot be concerned with Jones error. correcting a blog comment is more dispositive for his agenda.
3. In the Mosher/Fuller book, Steve claimed that WMO-like splicing was performed in the TAR and/or AR4 graph (I’m not sure if it’s one or both). In his post, Arthur claims that splicing can be ruled out for TAR and AR4. In the comments to this ClimateAudit post, Steve agrees that Arthur is correct on this point, and thus that he (Steve) was wrong.
The substative text on AR4 is in the comments. I argued that McIntyre asked briffa to show the decline. briffa decided to hide the decline and EXPLAIN that hiding in the text. So, I focused on the 264 words that briffa used. I noted what his explaintion Failed to explain.
It failed to explain the magnitude of the divergence, its implications for dendro science, potential problems with the temperature series, AND how the final curve was spliced. So I noted 4 issues and got the last one wrong. As to Arthur being correct. Arthur hasnt emulated Ar4 with the right data. he could. It would make his case better. Not sure why he avoids this.
4. Arthur believes that not showing the post-1960 decline in the Briffa series is okay.
[“The trick” to “hide the decline” phrase] has been adversely interpreted in a couple of different ways but the actual meaning has been clearly identified as the process of creating graphs that do include tree-ring-based temperature “proxy” data only up to 1960, or 1980, a point where they start to diverge from temperatures measured by instrumental thermometers. There is nothing scientifically nefarious or “wrong” about this – the “divergence problem” has been extensively discussed in the scientific literature including in the text of the most recent IPCC report. If you have reason to believe a particular collection of tree ring data is a good measure of temperature before 1960 but for some still uncertain reason not after that point, then it’s perfectly legitimate to create a graph using the data you think is reliable, particularly if these choices are all clearly explained in the surrounding text or caption.
(I think that this fashion of presenting data is red-flag deceptive, but that’s neither here nor there at the moment.)
I think the question needs to be different. Given a choice between hiding the decline and showing it, WHICH communicates the uncertainty of the science better?
5. Arthur amended his post late on June 24, in order to take into account those of Steve McIntyre’s complaints that he (Arthur) thought were legitimate.
Steve Mosher, is this summary correct?
Arthur Smith, is this summary correct?
“Not sure why he avoids this.”
He said previously that he’s pretty busy right now.
“Given a choice between hiding the decline and showing it, WHICH communicates the uncertainty of the science better?”
I would do what you have done in the past in your work: show both with and without and force the policy guys to work with the unresolved uncertainties. If the confidence bands are robustly estiamted, tehy’re going to be so large as to make meanigless any tiny wiggles this way or that way in the mean position and direction of the endpoints. Without the uncertainty bands, you get all this heat and friction over minute details (truncating, padding, smoothing, truncating). Hint: if the details matter THAT MUCH then you have a bigger problem!
bender, this scatter-brained posting style is not something I can deal with. For example, there is a case of you responding to thread of conversation twice, then having your third response jump back to an earlier point. It is too much trouble to try to keep up with the responses as they are happening currently.
If you want me to respond to points, I will. But can we try to bring things into some semblance of order? If you can list what you would like me to respond to in one post, it would be much easier for me to follow the conversations.
You can list any and all outstanding issues you have, or just pick one to focus on at time. I will try to respond to people, but I need structure to do so.
“this scatter-brained posting style is not something I can deal with”
Well, then stop posting scatter-brained.
“You can list any and all outstanding issues you have”
There is only one oustanding question – and you have indicated you don’t want to answer it: what do you make of Mosher’s error in the context of those of the guys he was auditing?
I have no problem answering that question as a separate point. I am fine with answering it so long as you are not saying, “Arthur Smith’s point is irrelevant because….”
So with that said, I think Steven Mosher’s initial mistake was a minor thing. Misunderstanding the details of a “trick” is perfectly understandable. I don’t think is possible to put it on the same scale as the behavior of people like Mann.
On the other hand, it is not some inconsequential point. Steven Mosher made a bold claim without knowing it to be true. When he started facing self-doubt, he did not revisit his claim. This caused several people to defend his claim on false pretenses. When his claim was finally shown to be false, he did not go back and correct it.
The problem is not Steven Mosher made a mistake. The problem is he took no action to correct the mistake until he was (effectively) forced to.
Of course, while this is not just some casual error, it is nowhere near as bad as lying, deleting data, abusing power, or any number of things other people have done.
Thank you very much for saying so. Now, I wish Art would do the same, and I also wish he would thank Steve McIntyre and Climate Audit for exposing such lies and deceit. Rather, he says he sees nothing praiseworthy going on here.
Brandon:
“On the other hand, it is not some inconsequential point. Steven Mosher made a bold claim without knowing it to be true. When he started facing self-doubt, he did not revisit his claim. ”
Well, that’s not entirely true. I did not revist my claim in tha manner which you would like me to. June has been a particularly heavy month for me in several areas. When my time freed up I decided that I should revisit the whole matter from ground Zero. Go back to the sources and build from there. You might like me to adopt a different method. So, I started by asking steve for the sources he had. he pointed me to the WMO work he did. So I started there. and that sent me back to mann’s original trick. The goal of course was to work through everything so as to avoid getting wrong footed.
“This caused several people to defend his claim on false pretenses. When his claim was finally shown to be false, he did not go back and correct it.”
I take it your expectation is that I return to brian’s site and make a comment there? So, if art makes a mistake here, should he correct it both here and on his site? and on every site that links to his site? Let me ask you this. You think that my correction here doesn’t wash. I have given arthur credit. I have admited the error.
is that a standard you are willing to apply to
A mann.
B Jones
In other words if they made mistakes and refused to give credit to people who discovered them and/or squirrelled away corrections what is your judgement of them. Commit to your standard. and we can proceed.
“Well, that’s not entirely true.”
Of course it’s not entirely true, and if he’s read the whole thread – where you stated as much yesterday – then he’s knowingly making false statements of his own. Although I rather suspect he just can’t follow or doesn’t have the time to research the conversation. And there’s a lot of that going around, so maybe he can be a little more forgiving?
But one of this would be an issue – NONE – if the data and codes were available, and if IPCC reviewers were on record as to the logic of their editorial decisions.
So Brandon,
“The problem is not Steven Mosher made a mistake. The problem is he took no action to correct the mistake until he was (effectively) forced to.”
How big a problem is this for you? If a scientist engaged in the same behavior, if a scientist REPEATED the error after he was personally informed, and if that scientist, then made the correction without publically notifying anyone and without crediting the ‘corrector’ what would you assessment of him be?
clearly, now without weaseling. Characterize the severity of that offense.
Arthur Smith states:
Aurthur, speaking for myself, my comment #91 at S&R was talking about TAR not AR4. It was not meant as a defense of Mosher’s comment. I was hoping you would see fit to look into the TAR trick – perhaps by running a check on the stated TAR smoothing and endpoint padding methods and comparing to the published graph.
Arthur Smith, would you please strike Layman Lurker’s name from your record, then, in recognition of this error? And could you verify that the others named on this list were indeed inconvenienced by Mosher’s error?
No quotable apology necessary this time. Jsut a text edit.
Brandon,
Just to be clear on your criticism and art’s criticism of me. Beyond the basic mistake, you find fault with the speed and manner with which I corrected the error. I’ve asked you if you are willing to apply that same standard across the board. To yourself, to Art, to others.
roll tape:
“Phil Jones wrote:
>
> Tom, Caspar,
> Keep the attached to yourself. I wrote this yesterday,
> but still need to do a lot more. I added in a section
> about post-Lamb work in CRU, but need to check out
> the references I’ve added and look at the extra one
> from 1981 that you’ve sent. This may take me a little
> time as I’m away Weds/Thurs this week. I see my name
> on an abstract, by the way, that I have no recollection of !
> I presume this has something in about instrumental global
> temps. This abstract isn’t in my CV!!!!!
>
> So your point (3) needs to document that we knew the
> diagram wasn’t any good, as well as how far back it goes.
> Knowing Hubert on some of his other ‘breakthroughs!’
> it is clearly possible it goes back to Brooks !
>
> On the post-Lamb work in CRU, I recall talking to Graham
> (maybe mid-1980s) when he was comparing recent CRU work
> with Lamb – correlations etc. Did that ever see the light of day
> in these pubs or elsewhere? I will look. It isn’t in the chapter
> Astrid and he wrote in the CRU book from 1997. I recall some
> very low correlations – for periods from 1100 to 1500.
>
> This is all getting quite complex. It clearly isn’t something that
> should be discussed online on RC – at least till we know all
> the detail and have got the history right as best we can. A lot
> of this history is likely best left buried, but I hope to summarise
> enough to avoid all the skeptics wanting copies of these
> non-mainstream papers. Finding them in CRU may be difficult!
>
> As for who put the curve in – I think I know who did it. Chris may
> be ignorant of the subject, but I think all he did was use the
> DoE curve. This is likely bad enough.
> I don’t think it is going to help getting the real culprit to
> admit putting it together, so I reckon Chris is going to get the blame.
> I have a long email from him – just arrived. Just read that and he
> seems to changing his story from last December, but I still
> think he just used the diagram. Something else happened on
> Friday – that I think put me onto a different track. This is all like
> a mystery whodunit.
>
> In the meantime – any thoughts on the attached welcome. Getting the
> level of detail required is the key.
>
> I need to do a better diagram – better scanning etc.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
And then.. in response:
>> I see the problems with this in terms of history, IPCC image,
>> skeptix, etc. I’m sure you can handle it. In doing so, you might
>> consider (or not) some of these points.
>>
>> (1) I think Chris Folland is to blame for this. The issue is not
>> our collective ignorance of paleoclimate in 1989/90, but
>> Chris’s ignorance. The text that was in the 1990 report (thanks
>> for reminding us of this, Caspar) ameliorates the problem
>> considerably.
>>
>> (2) Nevertheless, ‘we’ (IPCC) could have done better even then.
>> The Rothlisberger data were available then — and could/should
>> have been used.
>>
>> (3) We also already knew that the Lamb UK record was flawed.
>> We published a revision of this — but never in a mainstream
>> journal because we did not want to offend Hubert. I don’t have
>> the paper to hand, but I think it is …
>>
Anyway, the crowd here awaits your best judgement on these cases.
whatever standards you may claim for judging peoples’ responses, I’d like you to demonstrate your ability to apply those standards fairly by comparing these cases. Your displeasure at me, and your assessment of the two mails above.
End of this foodfight. Place anything new on Unthreaded (but only something new, not arguing.)
3 Trackbacks
[…] post on another blog’s criticism of Steve Mosher and somewhat collaterally, Climate Audit. In this post, Steve describes how Arthur Smith has mischaracterized what has been said at CA about hide the […]
[…] Arthur Smith’s Trick Look, I’m all in favor of verifying studies and claims. However, when I do this sort of exercise, I try to […] […]
[…] https://climateaudit.org/2010/06/23/arthur-smiths-trick/ […]