There is an interesting, and, in my opinion, very bold, comment (dated 9/27, here in Finnish; Google Translation) in a Finnish web journal by professor Atte Korhola entitled “Recession in Climate Science”. Korhola:
Esitän kärkeen heti teesin, jonka mieluusti alistan julkiseen kritiikkiin: kun myöhemmät polvet tutustuvat ilmastotieteeseen, he luokittelevat 2000-luvun alun tieteen historian noloihin lukuihin. He tulevat kummastelemaan ja käyttämään aikaamme varoittavana esimerkkinä siitä, kuinka tieteen keskeisten arvojen ja kriteereiden annettiin pikku hiljaa unohtua itse tutkimusteeman – ilmastonmuutoksen – muuttuessa poliittiseksi ja sosiaaliseksi temmellyskentäksi.
My translation:
I put immediately forward a thesis that I’m glad to expose to public criticism: when later generations learn about climate science, they will classify the beginning of 21st century as an embarrassing chapter in history of science. They will wonder our time, and use it as a warning of how the core values and criteria of science were allowed little by little to be forgotten as the actual research topic — climate change — turned into a political and social playground.
Later in the text he gives two recent examples, where the core values have been forgotten. The first example is “various reports and studies” that “describe ever increasing horrors of climate change” examplified by the recent UNEP-incident. The other example is worth quoting in full. Korhola:
Toinen esimerkki on arvovaltaisessa Science-lehdessä hiljattain julkaistu tutkimus, jossa arktisten alueiden keskilämpötilojen todetaan olevan nyt korkeammalla kuin kertaakaan aikaisemmin kahteen tuhanteen vuoteen. Tulos saattaa hyvinkin olla totta, mutta tapa jolla tutkijat tähän päätyvät, herättää kysymyksiä. Proksi-aineistoja on on otettu mukaan valikoidusti, niitä on pilkottu, manipuloitu, silotettu ja yhdistelty – ja esimerkiksi omien kollegoideni aiemmin Suomesta keräämät aineistot on jopa käännetty ylösalaisin, jolloin lämpimät jaksot muuttuvat kylmiksi ja päinvastoin. Normaalisti tällaista pidettäisiin tieteellisenä väärennöksenä, jolla on vakavat seuraukset.
Another example is a study recently published in the prestigious journal Science. It is concluded in the article that the average temperatures in the Arctic region are much higher now than at any time in the past two thousand years. The result may well be true, but the way the researchers ended up with this conclusion raises questions. Proxies have been included selectively, they have been digested, manipulated, filtered, and combined, for example, data collected from Finland in the past by my own colleagues has even been turned upside down such that the warm periods become cold and vice versa. Normally, this would be considered as a scientific forgery, which has serious consequences.
I took part in the discussion that followed. Also the current Yamal dispute came to surface, and this is what Korhola had today to say about it:
McIntyren ja ClimateAuditin esittämä kritiikki on otettava vakavasti. Mannin ja kumppaneiden RealClimate tekee siitä lähinnä pilkkaa uusimassa blogissaan. Se voi kuitenkin pitkän päälle koitua omaan nilkkaan.
The criticism by McIntyre and ClimateAudit needs to be taken seriously. RealClimate of Mann & co is mainly making fun of it in the latest post. It may well be in the long run that this is shooting oneself in the foot.
Finally, in order not to cause any unnecessary troubles to prof. Korhola, let me be very clear about this: prof. Atte Korhola is not a “climate skeptic”.
Climate Audit 
76 Comments
And besides from beeing a professor and a “non sceptical” he is a finn, a people I as A swede admire and respect more than any other people for their integrity!
Jean, Assuming that Finnish is not your native language, my wife, who is a linguist, says anyone who learns Finnish is either very smart or slightly crazy!
Many thanks for broadening my horizons.
It is interesting that this Finnish Professor has taken an even stronger tone than Steve McIntyre!
[Jean S: Finnish is my native language, English is my third language. I find it generally hard to directly translate Finnish texts, especially when I want be sure that the exact meaning is preserved. It is much easier to express your own thoughts directly in English.]
Sort of what I was expecting in the long run. The argument and evidence for AGW is so flimsy and political that there had to come a time when real science and criticism had to start having an impact no matter the powers that be wanting to assert their agenda.
Ok I did not want to use the word (agenda) but could not find a better one. I am really proud that the human race is finally starting to overcome its basic instincts and thinking logically. Not true overall of course but we are getting there.
Here’s his Wikipedia page, with a bad translation. He appears to be the head of ECRU, which is not in the page.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fi&u=http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atte_Korhola&ei=9yHGSpCgKIjP8QbfnNBJ&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DAtte%2BKorhola%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hs%3DQEQ
Re: MikeN (#4), His ECRU bio (in English) is here.
The unintentional irony of Korhola’s reference to “core values” is priceless. Indeed, much of what passes today for “climate science” will be judged ultimately in the same light as the Michelson-Morley experiment to find “ether.”
Sorry Jean, I suspect the Professor will be deemed to have been “pissing into the tent”. Your protestations of his skeptic credentals will bear no weight.
Re: Geckko (#6),
“Sorry Jean, I suspect the Professor will be deemed to have been “pissing into the tent”.”
If the tent is on fire…
One of a number of scientists who believe the ends do not justify the means. Scientists have to stick to doing science, rather than pushing political agendas. People take science seriously because data doesn’t take sides. It must not be tortured to make it do so.
These sentiments are very similar to those offered by Richard Linzden of MIT:
However I don’t think the bemused amazement will settle itself around just this issue. In all areas of Science the press release is showing itself to be of more value than the underlying hypothesis. I can fully understand the pressures on Scientists to big up their results, in the interests of supporting institutional funding. These arguments have been known since Eisenhower’s time:
Thanks Jean for making this translation available. I hope Geckko above is wrong, but suspect he is not.
Kiitos, Prof. Atte! 🙂
Greetings from a newly won fan in Sweden. 🙂
To be sure, the scientists are the gods of our times? At least here in Sweden, science is seldom questioned at all. Politicians, artists and media have very low confidence with the public but scientists seem to have earned supernatural trust here lately. Quite weird, they are only human after all…
“He has to get the public’s attention”, a smirking physicist told a friend of mine recently, when they discussed the inconsistent apocalyptic pronouncements of a leading scientist.
Meantime, I’m just enjoying the paradox that it was action by the Royal Society that shook free the Yamal data. Perhaps we should rename “cherry picking” as “larch picking”?
Jean S
I don’t read or speak Finnish, but we say “what goes around comes around” all the time in English and have since I was a kid!
Re: lucia (#13),
Well, that’s the only English idiom that came to my mind somehow resembling the Finnish idiom “osua omaan nilkkaan” (he uses actually a modification of it: “koitua omaan nilkkaan”). What Korhola is saying in the last sentence is that the ridicule RealClimate is doing may well later hurt “oneself” badly. It’s not completely clear to me from the context if he means by “oneself” RealClimate or Climate Science in general.
Before that there are also a few paragraphs that may well be of a general interest here:
Re: Jean S (#17),
Hmm. Shooting oneself in the foot seems an appropriate translation.
[Jean S: Thanks! Corrected.]
Re: Scott Lurndal (#21),
How about “make a stick for one’s own back”?
What we might call the Myth of the Noble Scientist was challenged decades ago by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Here’s Wikipedia’s take on Kuhn:
This is exactly what is happening to climate science.
The first modern research university was the University of Berlin, founded in 1806 by Wilhelm von Humboldt, Prussian Minister of Education. The idea was to make the state stronger so it could fight the French.
It is not surprising that modern academicians in government universities dance to the tune of the politicians. Follow the money.
As I understand the translations, Professor Korhola is an experienced paleoclimatologist with a specialty in the arctic region. Exactly the sort of person who is most qualified to comment on Briffa’s methods and procedures.
[Jean S: Let’s clarify this here. Korhola’s comment (a blog post) was made before the Yamal incident (the same day as Steve’s original post, but earlier). The strong statement about a paper relates to Kaufman et al (2009). Only the very last comment, taken from the comment section (posted today) relates somewhat to Yamal. He is not taking any stance on Briffa’s methods or procedures, only saying criticism of Steve and CA needs to be taken seriously.]
Personally, I find the use of the word “skeptic”, in place of more accurate descriptors such as “denier” or “disbeliever” an insult to me as a scientist. Scientists should be skeptics. Those who allow themselves to lose skepticism are far more likely to lose objectivity. They become emotionally attached to the hypothesis, such that arguments to the contrary are dismissed without proper evaluation while those that agree are accepted without question.
.
The, rather sinister, underlieing meme is that “climate science” should be accepted without question, so long as it gives the “right” answer, that is.
These two sentences by Korhola:
“I will do my best that the availability and all kind of openess of data would increase.”
“I will also utilize mathematical statistics experts in the analysis of time series”
bode very well. Perhaps science (real science) will prevail, after all, also in climate research.
He must have lurked around at CA!
Re: Johan i Kanada (#18),
Yes, that’s the feeling I also had especially as the UNEP-thing was reported here only two days (maximum) earlier!
Re: Johan i Kanada (#18),
Indeed, those sentiments are rather uplifting to read.
I use “what goes around comes around” all the time too. Another way of putting it is this way: “you reap what you sow”.
I agree w/ the general tone of both te article and comments. I am neither scientist nor researcher but like many others, greatly respect and appreciate the work of those who are. Perhaps fortunately, situations like those refered to here, serve as reminders that no one or body are immune from errors, whether intentional or not. I realize those who actively pursue data collection in the field may prefer to avoid release of that data to others who might otherwise gain benefit from their own efforts; nevertheless, credible research not pursuant to private or corporate interests should expect to be subject to full and open review. Failing to do this or alternatively, limiting review to “friendly” quarters risks tarnishing the great credibility that the public currently holds towards the scientific community.
Jean:
Jean, ampua omaan nilkkaan: “Slang Dictionary
shoot (oneself) in the foot
tv.
to cause oneself difficulty; to be the author of one’s own doom. : Again, he shot himself in the foot with his open and honest dealings with the press.” -almost literary translation (nevermind it’s from a slang dictionary 🙂
Prof. Korhola’s list of publications here is impressive. He has also co-authored a study with K. Briffa: Snowball I. , Korhola, A., Briffa, K. & Koç N. (2004). Holocene Climate Dynamics in High Latitude Europe and the North Atlantic . In: Battarbee, R.W., Gasse, F. & Stickling, C. (eds.), Past Climate variability through Europe and Africa . Kluwer Academic Publishers: 465-494
Jean, thank you for posting this. This is a most welcome development. I honestly cannot understand why it has taken so long for a paleoclimate researcher to attempt to raise the level of science, but I am glad he will do so. I look forward to seeing the results of his efforts.
Markus Laine:
October 2nd, 2009 at 12:13 pm
An impressive list of publications indeed. But I just love it that there is a climate scientist called “I Snowball!”
Jean S –
Based on his statement the post should be titled “…political and social playground”.
Thanks for posting.
[Jean S: Thanks! Corrected.]
Allowing Google to machine-translate Finnish to English is about as wise as allowing Briffa or Mann to translate tree rings into temperature graphs.
I do hope a human with a commendable knowledge of both the Finnish and English languages translates the original text.
Jean S
just a little correction
“this would be considered as a scientific falsification, which has serious consequences.”
the correct translation of “väärennöksenä” should read IMHO “forgery” and not “falcification” so the sentence should read “this would be considered as a scientific forgery which has serious consequences.”
Bill W
[Jean S: Thanks! Corrected.]
I notice that Korhola is an expert in chironomids. The abstract for the underlying NSF grant said that the Kaufman sediments would be analyzed consistently with one of the core analyses being chironomids – too bad they didn’t do what they had agreed to do and too bad that NSF compliance is so inert.
Re: Steve McIntyre (#32),
he is also the second author of a (local) temperature reconstruction I consider mathematically one of the most mature ones I’ve seen. Incidently, I gave here the reference three years ago when Briffa’s chronologies were discussed in connection to Juckes et al.!
Jean S: I have always liked “SIW – self inflicted wounds” and “One should not complain of fleas when sleeping with dogs.” Perhaps the second is more appropriate for the “Team.”
Thanks for the article, Jean. English is my first and last language, so I obviously miss a lot from the non-English-speaking world. 🙂
I read that Finnish scientists found in their tundra, that the forest level was some 80km norther during the MWP than today. Arctic hockey stick must look suspicious at the first glance.
Prof. Korhola is apparently active here also:
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2009/09/planetary_boundaries_1.html
Jean S.
Given that the ridicule is intended to hurt CA, the idiom might be “hoist on their own petard”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard
When shooting your foot, you may not be intending to shoot someone else. But when you intend to fling a bomb at someone else, and it blows on you, that’s “hoist with your own petard”. (I don’t think anyone uses the word petard in english anymore. But the idiom is in Hamlet, so it’s not going away any time soon.)
Re: lucia (#40),
This particular idiom has been used by me or commenters at CA on 16 different occasions so it’s a popular idiom here and in no danger of disappearing though all of us, I dare say, were familiar with the phrase only in its use as an idiom and not in its etymology.
One of the consistent themes here has been to try to apply procedures stridently advocated in one Team study to a different Team study – thus,”hoist with their own petard”.
Re: Steve McIntyre (#60),
Perhaps then we need a new word to describe the act post facto.
I propose “petarded“.
Re: Anthony Watts (#51),
Anthony, you need to revise your term to self petarded.
Choice quote from the the latest RC post:
Note they don’t actually name one…
To rename publishing cherry-picked data as “test[ing] the robustness of their conclusions” beggars belief.
“…When shooting your foot, you may not be intending to shoot someone else. But when you intend to fling a bomb at someone else, and it blows on you, that’s “hoist with your own petard”. (I don’t think anyone uses the word petard in english anymore. But the idiom is in Hamlet, so it’s not going away any time soon.)..”
lucia
Completely off-topic, but there seem to be a lot of English idioms for harming yourself unintentionally. I wonder if they exist in the same abundance in all languages, indicating that this is a human trait, or whether the Anglo-Saxons have a particular tendency to self-damage…
I dunno, ‘petard’ looks like a french word …
Petard is french but from the latin. Petard is a small explosive cartridge. We use them for killing taupe (moles) at the moment but that is not their only contextual use.
Re: stephen richards (#58), From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hoisted+by+own+petard
Word History: The French used pétard, “a loud discharge of intestinal gas,” for a kind of infernal engine for blasting through the gates of a city. “To be hoist by one’s own petard,” a now proverbial phrase apparently originating with Shakespeare’s Hamlet (around 1604) not long after the word entered English (around 1598), means “to blow oneself up with one’s own bomb, be undone by one’s own devices.” The French noun pet, “fart,” developed regularly from the Latin noun pditum, from the Indo-European root *pezd-, “fart.”
Which also explains the bad smell!
Re: bernie (#45), Well, we don’t need here to explore this any further, but Hamlet was probably written around 1586, by the 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward DeVere.
Re: PhilH (#52),
sorry to continue OT (snip away if you like), but “Oxfordians” might find a more pleasant home over at RC – from reading both blogs for quite a while, I get the distinct impression that the good folks at that site are rather prone to accepting outlandish claims without a shred of … evidence, quite *unlike* here!
For those who are at a loss what *this* bantering is supposed to be about, have a look here in your spare time: http://shakespeareauthorship.com/
Steve: As an Oxford alumnus myself, I’m quite comfortable here.
Re: ChrisZ (#54), “Shreds?” I am looking at over 900 pages of evidence, Chris. In Charlton Ogburn’s magnificent work: “The Mysterious William Shakespeare.” Read it!
Re: PhilH (#59),
ahem! Sorry it will take me some time until I get around to that one – apart from various IPCC reports, the fundamental works of Charles Dawson, Trofim Lysenko and Ron L. Hubbard are also on my reading list. /sarcasmoff/
Re: ChrisZ (#65), Chris: they, quite rightly, are not going to let us carry on about this, but you should knoow that your comparison of these nuts to Charlton (one of the finest men who ever lived) is beneath you, even for a Stratfordian.
Re: PhilH (#66),
Phil, my last word on the matter: I’m not a “Stratfordian” nor any other “-ian”, merely an individual who enjoys good, but detests bad scholarship – that’s why I am appreciating the discussions here, and that’s why I got quickly tired of Ogburn’s shoddy reasoning many years ago (yes I did read all the 900 pages you speak of, and was not convinced, no more than Briffa’s or TomP’s methods are able to convince me here). Ogburn may have been an excellent man, but he should have stuck to fantasy writing instead of posturing as a researcher – just like Al Gore is more a politician than a climate expert. There’s good reason for “Oxfordians” being the laughing stock of most literary scholars (you will likely know this summary: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/4081/Oxford.html ), and I see it as a very noble goal of this and similar websites to expose “the team” and their political followers in a similar way, by making clear the not-so-obvious fabrications and purposeful oversights they indulge in. I hope you have opportunity to read this, Phil, before Steve – very rightly – will snip the whole exchange.
Re: ChrisZ (#68), Okay, Chris, we agree to disagree. But, my God, he is a Kathman guy!
‘factory of sticks’
I like that.
And I recall that the little pig’s house of sticks did not last any longer than the house of straw when the big bad wolf (that would be Mr. McIntyre) came around.
Another word that comes to my mind when I read what Korhola says, is that this seems to be a guy with sisu.
Sisu is one of the few Finnish words that are known outside Finland, and I beleive it means “guts”.
Talking about Finland, Steve had two fine posts back in January about the “Supra-Long Finnish Chronology” where he says that
I have tried to locate the post with the reasons for IPCC’s rejection, but have not been able to locate it (yet). Did this rejection refer to both treeline and the Finnish studies?
It is not hard to guess who the reviewer was, but it would be interesting to see on what grounds IPCC rejected these studies. Maybe it also could prove interesting to re-visit in light of the new Yamal “implosion” – but that certainly will be the case for more than this point. The Yamal affair seems to have the power to send some echoes backwards in time and provide new understanding. (And I’m sure we will see some such re-visiting here.)
I will try not to speculate, but it’s hard to imagine that it will have absolutely no consequences for the IPCC process.
All–
I just mean that I think the word “petard” appears in that idiom but otherwise, no one uses the word “petard” in English anymore. (They may have back in Shakespear’s day when pétard were actually used.)
The full idiom is definitely used and isn’t going to go away– even if lots of English speakers who haven’t yet heard the phrase wonder what the heck a “petard” is.
Dogdgy geeer
Sure. But Jean S was looking for “just the right one”. Different idioms for hurting oneself can convey different levels of hurting yourself and different initial motivations:
1) Shooting yourself in the foot: You hurt yourself pretty seriously, but weren’t intending harm to anyone.
2) Hoist on your own petard: You hurt yourself badly when you were trying to hurt someone else badly.
3) Cutting your nose off to spite your face: You hurt yourself because, oddly, you are stupid enough to knowingly do things to hurt yourself.
4) Spit into the wind: Hurt yourself a little because you try to do futile things.
Every language probably has equivalents for each of these things. I still remember a Chinese graduate student at UofI saying “We have an expression in Chinese. It’s ‘making a mountain out of a hill made by a very small animal’ “. I told him that’s “Making a mountain out of a mole hill”. He asked “what’s a mole?” He was also pleased to learn the English idiom for the Chinese expression that he explained as, “Taking a big ferocious wild cat by the tail”. It turned out we shared lots of idioms; he just needed to learn which animals went into the slots. (Tiger actually was the right word in Chinese too.)
I read that in Chinese, the word for swallow, means both the act and the bird.
Petard appears to have a more specific meaning than just something that blows up. As anyone who has worked with explosives knows, an explosive is intended to blow up something specific, rather than just make a big boom. So actually a petard could be considered what we call a “shaped charge” that is going to be specifically damaging in a particular direction or to a particular object. The idea of “this side toward enemy” is rather long-standing in military terms. So I would suggest that in this case the term “hoist by their own petard” is used quite advisedly, since the shaped charge was intended to do harm to the “skeptics” and instead did harm to the “believers”. And it is even better than the phrase of “shooting oneself in the foot” because it is affecting a group of people, rather than any particular person.
Sorry for the forbidden reference. The phrase “bit off more than he could chew” is just an old country idiom meaning the person attempted a more difficult task than they could complete. It was intended in the spirit of idioms of people injuring themselves. It has absolutely nothing to do with a person’s girth.
Steve McIntyre
it is interesting to see the prfessor use the sentence “Normally, this would be considered as a scientific forgery, which has serious consequences.”
On Melanie Phillips’ site you have suggested that her use of the word goes to far. Does it in this context and, in your view, justify MP’s use of the word?
Ian C, Korhola is calling Kaufmann a forgery for using Tiljander upside-down.
Not sure if that is relevant to Yamal and Briffa.
“The importance of hockey stick to climate science is limited”
Very true, Professor Korhola.
Also OT,
But as an Oxford alumnus at roughly the same time as Steve (1969-1972), though I have absolutely no idea if our paths ever crossed, I have (some might say pedantically, though that is not really as I am) pointed out in the past that the Shakespeare quote is
“hoist with his own petar”.
Craig Loehle generously acknowledged this at the time and I guess we both thought that was the end of it 🙂
Apparently, Finnish, like Estonian and Basque. are not Indo-European languages.
Re: Feedback #46:
[QUOTE]Another word that comes to my mind when I read what Korhola says, is that this seems to be a guy with sisu.
Sisu is one of the few Finnish words that are known outside Finland, and I beleive it means “guts”. [/QUOTE]
OT, but interesting, and illustative for the range of things you can learn at this site–I now know the derivation for the name of the ground-breaking high performance sailplane of the early ’60’s, the Sisu 1A.
http://www.webcitation.org/5VlbKEJy9
With respect to petards and shootings of feet, perhaps we can add another in honor of hockey sticks:
Shooting the puck into your own net.
JeanS said:
… “he is also the second author of a (local) temperature reconstruction I consider mathematically one of the most mature ones I’ve seen. Incidently, I gave here the reference three years ago when Briffa’s chronologies were discussed in connection to Juckes et al.!”
The problem with diatoms is that they reflect the temperature of water and not the air. When looking at long term average summer temperature of water and air they don’t agree. The water temperature trend may diverge by +- one centigrade (ten years average). I presented these results on a climate meeting in Italy in 2001 (about). I never got it published (the Holocene) because one referee (from US) said that diatoms probably reflects the air better than the water temperature !! The referee was one of the “big” in the field, an advocate of teleconnections.
As he is not an AGW sceptic, by his own admission, I take he trusts the evaluation of the peer-reviewed papers. Korhola’s own work includes studies on the arctic mires and ponds which have been observed to be releasing CO2 and methane recently. I take it the capacity of the carbon capture potential by these ecosystems could be re-examined and audited here?
From a Japan Times article:
“Atte Korhola, a University of Helsinki professor, stressed that it is crucial that all countries are involved in the post-Kyoto climate change mitigation policy.”
“Korhola noted that no linear relationship has been established between the increased emissions and the rise in global temperature.”
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nb20090210d1.html
Maybe “cliche'” would be a better word than “idiom” in regards to the phrase “shooting oneself in the foot”? It also strikes me as awfully American. Does Finland have a second amendment or a westerns genre?
Can anyone get a translation of the full thread? I’ve read that he has called Mann’s hockey stick a forgery, while others are bad science and confirmation bias.
Re: MikeN (#75),
Where did you read that? He definitely did not state such things. I did say something along those lines about multiproxy studies in the comments in the defense of Atte’s wife Eija-Riitta Korhola, who was given hard time for saying in the other post that “classical hockey stick has been found out to be forged/faked”.
#74 is OT (dendro.junk.sci)
But
( http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=571&filename=.txt )
“MBH can be reproduced”, yeah right.
Re: UC (#77),
The comment right above is also funny:
“MM” misusing bristlecones by doing a textbook PCA?!? This Phil guy sure has a twisted logic.
Ok, now I also know why W&A had such a smooth ride through the peer-review all the way to the IPCC 4AR.
Re: Jean S (#78),
..and even mike says that
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=591&filename=1132094873.txt
6 Trackbacks
[…] climate scientists who AREN’T “climate skeptics” are complaining about politics producing bad science. when later generations learn about climate science, they will classify the beginning of 21st […]
[…] Interesting comment from a Finnish professor whose specialisations include climate change and carbon cycling: […]
[…] recently commented on the upside down use of Finnish proxy data, as follows (Jean S’s translation) (Google translation here): data collected from Finland in the past by my own colleagues has even […]
[…] recently commented on the upside down use of Finnish proxy data, as follows (Jean S’s translation) (Google translation here): data collected from Finland in the past by my own colleagues has even […]
[…] sharply criticized on different occasions by two eminent Finnish paleolimnologists – Atte Korhola here and Matti Saarnisto […]
[…] sharply criticized on different occasions by two eminent Finnish paleolimnologists – Atte Korhola here and Matti Saarnisto […]