Finnish Transcript (and Video) Online

New (Nov 11) – online version with English subtitles.

Transcript available here.  CA readers will recognize some of the graphics.

[Jean S adds: The official online version is here (for the next seven days): (Nov 17, removed)

BTW, this is the post number 2000! Congratulations, Steve!]




  1. MarkB
    Posted Nov 9, 2009 at 6:19 PM | Permalink

    Make sure you read all the way to the last sentence.

  2. benpal
    Posted Nov 9, 2009 at 7:24 PM | Permalink

    Excellent! Thanks for the link.

  3. Fred
    Posted Nov 9, 2009 at 7:28 PM | Permalink

    I’ll be waiting for David Suzuki and CBC to re-broadcast the show back here in the Great Whit North.


    Still waiting.

  4. Henry
    Posted Nov 9, 2009 at 7:36 PM | Permalink

    Wonderful to have in English. The associated blog is in Finnish but a machine translation gives a good idea of the reaction from some viewers.

  5. cba
    Posted Nov 9, 2009 at 9:04 PM | Permalink

    great article. i liked it. kudos steve. even the machine translation was cute – perhaps even a little viking…

  6. ianl8888
    Posted Nov 9, 2009 at 9:39 PM | Permalink

    The translation is lucid, the progression of Q&A clear and logical

    Is there any reliable estimate of audience size ?

  7. snowmaneasy
    Posted Nov 9, 2009 at 11:23 PM | Permalink

    Excellent work…I love it…I have spent many years in Finland and this is a typically Finnish response to an issue where they think their data has been mis-used…

  8. Akseli
    Posted Nov 9, 2009 at 11:28 PM | Permalink

    Good work Steve. You were very clear.

  9. Jarkko
    Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 1:47 AM | Permalink

    For some reason, the Finnish broadcasting company (YLE), is holding back on the release. Usually the show get’s online about half hour after airing.

    Well, while awaiting, here’s the youtube version. Ilmastokatastrofi [url]

    Congratulations Steve.

  10. Feedback
    Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 1:48 AM | Permalink

    Anyone knows if it is possible to watch the program on the Internet with Swedish subtitling?

  11. andy
    Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 2:04 AM | Permalink

    Good watching. It’s even shown how the core drilling from trees is done and how lake sediments are drilled. Also, the environment of the lake Korttajärvi is shown, fields are sloping deeply to the lake shore, no wonder the lake sediments are disturbed due human activities, or what was the nice scientific term used.

  12. Abducted by Aliens (Jim Turner)
    Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 4:00 AM | Permalink

    A very nice summary of why I don’t believe in catastrophic AGW, having followed this and other ‘sceptic’ sites for several years.
    Several points summarised here highlight the difficulty I have in convincing others – it is just TOO ridiculous!
    Used proxies upside-down….preselected hockey-stick proxies because they give the expected result…’adjusted’ historical measured temeratures down and modern ones up…concealed and/or ‘lost’ data…etc, etc.
    All this from the world’s most eminent climate scientists and scientific bodies; and governments would obviously not commit trillions of dollars if it really was so transparently ‘fixed’.
    You just can’t say this stuff without sounding like a lunatic conspiracy theorist!

  13. Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 4:49 AM | Permalink

    Here is a link to all 3 parts of the video. I hope there will be an English version soon.

  14. dearieme
    Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 5:24 AM | Permalink

    This struck me.
    Question by Backman: “… how much warmer was the medieval period in Finland, compared to the present?”

    Ojala: “It is difficult to say exactly. But …..”

    Observe: “It is difficult to say exactly.” Due scientific humility – how unMannly.

  15. Paul Z.
    Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 5:28 AM | Permalink

    This is a well researched story by YLE but… Finnish TV??

    This should be on CNN, BBC, Reuters, etc. – the global news channels. 😦

  16. Paul Z.
    Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 5:32 AM | Permalink

    Also, I noted this line in the transcript, “The father of the hockey stick, professor Michael Mann…”. Did uu@W mate with a tree or something?

  17. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 5:41 AM | Permalink


    • Paul
      Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 7:54 PM | Permalink

      Re: Steve McIntyre (#17),

      Thanks! I was going to post those up… the Jean S link didn’t work. I like it straight up (but the translation was pretty good).

  18. Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 5:50 AM | Permalink

    Pity MOT used the earlier uncorrected version of Steve’s Yamal RCS chronologies instead of this one. Not that it makes any difference to the conclusions; it’s a nice example of Steve’s integrity, and a demonstration of how Science should proceed – mistakes are OK and perfectly normal, IF they are admitted and corrected.

  19. Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 6:47 AM | Permalink

    Intriguing transition from an astonishing e-mail to an illustrious graphic.

  20. Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 7:48 AM | Permalink

    FMI Director Mikko Alestalo: MOT program “irresponsible communication”

    ..statement made before the program was aired.

  21. Erasmus de Frigid
    Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 8:21 AM | Permalink

    A competent, coherent news story……wish we could see this type of reporting in the States.

    BTW, who is playing Steve in the movie version down the road?

    • jim edwards
      Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 9:10 AM | Permalink

      Re: Erasmus de Frigid (#21),

      I heard Johhny Depp was otherwise engaged; how about Tom Wilkinson ? [From The Full Monty, The Patriot, et Al.]

  22. Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 12:35 PM | Permalink

    The show transcript reads just like 60 Minutes. You can bet that if this were, say, Big Pharma and they were cherry-picking data and/or using it upside down then ABCNBCCBSPBS would be all over it like a cheap suit.

  23. Richard Henry Lee
    Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM | Permalink

    Great interview with Steve. We are fortunate that Steve decided to deconstruct the hockey stick several years ago. Without his perseverance, the stick might still be used as the icon it was when initially published.

  24. Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 2:47 PM | Permalink

    Thanks for all the compliments. ianl888: The ratings were good: about 510 000 viewers, which translates to a 25 percent market share. Feedback: unfortunately we don’t have the time to publish a version with Swedish subtitles. But hopefully we’ll get to do a version with English subtitles and voiceover, if there is real demand from abroad.

    Matti Virtanen
    producer, MOT

    • bernie
      Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 2:59 PM | Permalink

      Re: Matti Virtanen (#25), Surely its worth an English voiceover. I also believe that this is far better than the recent “Not Evil, Just Wrong” which, in my opinion, tried to cover too much. In any event, congratulations.

    • ianl8888
      Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 3:31 PM | Permalink

      Re: Matti Virtanen (#25),

      That’s OK. If the translation, Q&A etc were not lucid and logical, I may have noted that instead. And 0.5m viewers is encouraging

      Can anyone tell us exactly what UC #20 above means, please ?

      • Earle Williams
        Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 3:41 PM | Permalink

        Re: ianl8888 (#29),

        FMI is the Finnish meteorological institute. Appears to be an official spokesperson doing a little pre-broadcast damage control.

        • ianl8888
          Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 5:17 PM | Permalink

          Re: Earle Williams (#31),

          A machine translation (I really dislike this method, it offers no precision of language) includes this sentence (ascribed, I think, to the FMI spokesman):

          “In particular, if the counterparty is a layman who does not have responsibility said.”

          The machine translation also included a barely comprehensible phrase about ” … ordinary people becoming excited about this topic …”

          Rebuttal by ad-homs. Very familiar

    • Feedback
      Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 4:31 PM | Permalink

      Re: Matti Virtanen (#25),

      Thanks for the information.

      BTW I have also sent an e-mail to the Norwegian popular science TV-magazine “Scrhødingers katt” and suggested that they show the program. Maybe others could do this as well. I mean, not only in my country.

  25. Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 3:01 PM | Permalink

    Matti, thank you very much, and can we please have it in English? And please note my little correction above #18.

  26. Calvin Ball
    Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 3:29 PM | Permalink

    As I understand it, Roy Spencer has some issues with Lindzen’s latest paper about feedback, so that part requires some caution; it’s still being hashed out. The rest of it, however, seems like a good summary of the highlights of the disputes.

  27. Craig Loehle
    Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 3:32 PM | Permalink

    The transcript is one of the most coherent discussions of a scientific topic perhaps ever to hit TV. Hat tip to the Finns for allowing such cogent analysis to hit the air, without sensationalism and without dragging it out like on Nat Geo shows and padding with pictures.

  28. Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 3:44 PM | Permalink

    from WUWT re: ianl8888 (#29),

    Marco (11:10:51) : There is no such thing as bad publicity.

    In this case there might be. The makers of this film are already under fire for revealing that the finnish prime minister had taken bribes. It was just one more revelation in the long list of corruption scandals that are currently ravaging the country. But unlike other cases, the full might of the party PR-machinery managed to spin the case so that the show was the one that ended up taking the heat.

    I wouldn’t be surprised is this episode would be used as an excuse to silence a political critic and force the network to cancel the show.

  29. Brynjar Berg
    Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 6:53 PM | Permalink

    Has there been too much attention given the program already? The video media is no longer available on the net?
    I’ll second the suggestion for Schrödinger’s Cat to air it in Norway, let us see if they dare (or are allowed to do it).

  30. Kasmir
    Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 8:55 PM | Permalink

    Also from a machine translation of the Finnish Meteorological Institute response:

    “Carbon dioxide by itself raise the temperature of half or one degree. But that’s not the whole truth. 2,5-6,0 degrees warming, calculated the positive feedback efektioita, covering areas such as water vapor and snow and ice disappear. Only through them achieve a stronger warming. Dioxide trigger other processes, however, is the whole cause of climate change. “

    Interesting that the gent from FMI didn’t actually audit the show. Linden’s 0.5 C feedback estimate on a CO2 doubling stems from his claim to have experimentally measured negative feedback. The Lindzen-Choi paper is hugely important if true and deserves a post of its own here. It’s apparently controversial, and deserves an audit 😉

    • ianl8888
      Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 10:23 PM | Permalink

      Re: Kasmir (#37),
      AGW proponents (& the populist “meeja”) are running a million miles from Lindzen & Choi 2009. From their viewpoint, it doesn’t exist

      I don’t know the validity of Lindzen & Choi 2009, but my experience says that if the AGW proponents call it “irresponsible” then they are terrified that it may contain some real accuracy (although Roy Spencer certainly doesn’t think so)

      Given the stakes here now, I expect we will not be enlightened any time soon. And I simply cannot trust RC

  31. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 10:39 PM | Permalink

    I spent some time with Lindzen and Choi in Erice and was planning to some posts on this before the Yamal and Kaufman things came up – topics that are related to my areas that I specialize in. While I think that Lindzen and Choi are important and interesting, I’m not in a position to do a detailed analysis of their results. There are hundreds of climate scientists and I presume that some of them will analyze their findings.

    • Calvin Ball
      Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 11:25 PM | Permalink

      Re: Steve McIntyre (#39),

      See Lubos’ post on that from about a week ago. He has some serious doubts, and he’s certainly no alarmist. Spencer has critiqued it, so I’d say that this one is still far from settled. And the nature of the dispute seemed pretty basic. It seemed strange that Lindzen could make such a simple error. Anyway, stay tuned.

      Steve: I’m not going to comment until I’ve examined the data.

      • Raven
        Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 11:54 PM | Permalink

        Re: Calvin Ball (#40)
        I am not sure it was simply an error. It appeared to stem from the type of climate model that Linzden used for his comparison and Linzden may have good reasons for the choice. I hope he clarifies.

    • PeterA
      Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 11:58 PM | Permalink

      Re: Steve McIntyre (#39),
      Roy W. Spencer, who I think is an AGW skeptic has analyzed their work and come up with an uncertain conclusion – see link below. He also makes the same comment that it’s up to other climate scientists to take a serious look at their work and make comments.

      • Steve McIntyre
        Posted Nov 11, 2009 at 12:12 AM | Permalink

        Re: PeterA (#42),

        As I said above, I haven’t personally considered the data and do not have an opinion on the matter. I’d prefer that readers hold off expressing opinions on this study until such time as I’ve familiarized myself with the topic or until someone more familiar than I with the issues can moderate the topic.

        • bender
          Posted Nov 11, 2009 at 6:34 AM | Permalink

          Re: Steve McIntyre (#43),
          What a nuisance when people comment without first reading the blog to get a sense for what is and isn’t suitable for discussion.

  32. Posted Nov 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM | Permalink

    We were aware of Spencer’s criticism, but decided to ignore it for the time being. After all, Lindzen & Choi is in the peerreviewedlitritchurch. And Spencer is no proponent of high sensitivity.

    Lucy: We’ll try to correct the wrong graph. And to Marco’s comment about the prime minister and corruption: it was not MOT, but another current affairs show, on YLE TV2.

  33. Posted Nov 11, 2009 at 4:39 AM | Permalink


    Where either Briffa or Mann asked to appear in the programme?

  34. Posted Nov 11, 2009 at 5:25 AM | Permalink

    Whoops! #45 should read ‘Were either Briffa …’ Sorry

  35. Robert E. Phelan
    Posted Nov 11, 2009 at 11:13 AM | Permalink

    Very nicely done. I, too, would like to see an English version. We could put it on DVD and mail it to all our Congress… people.

  36. Jean S
    Posted Nov 11, 2009 at 11:23 AM | Permalink

    A version with English subtitles:

    • Just an EE
      Posted Nov 11, 2009 at 2:05 PM | Permalink

      Re: Jean S (#49),
      I’d recommend that this link be moved to the main page;
      the timely subtitles make all the difference!

      Perhaps you are reluctant to recommend your own posts, but this one deserves top billing, IMHO

  37. fs
    Posted Nov 11, 2009 at 1:11 PM | Permalink

    rather one sided this MOT program…

    • bender
      Posted Nov 11, 2009 at 1:40 PM | Permalink

      Re: fs (#50),
      So go ahead and refute the facts presented there.

  38. vg
    Posted Nov 11, 2009 at 2:59 PM | Permalink

    52 Yes the English version needs to be publicized more. The implications are mind blogging….

  39. Michael Smith
    Posted Nov 11, 2009 at 5:11 PM | Permalink

    Matti Virtanen, I don’t know how to say, “Thank you” strongly enough for creating this documentary. It is a wonderful antidote to the suffocating alarmist hysteria that one hears on a daily basis in the main stream media.

  40. Peter O'Neill
    Posted Nov 12, 2009 at 9:53 PM | Permalink

    Re: Jean S (#49),
    Thanks for the subtitles. Perhaps you can also explain something which puzzled me in the original Finnish: the hockey stick is sometimes an icehockey stick (jääkiekkomaila/lätkämaila) and sometimes just a hockey stick (kiekkomaila). Is there some logic behind this choice? A subtle linguistic joke perhaps?

    I found the programme generally very clear, but one section was less clear. The Korttajärvi data graphs showed x-ray density but did not actually make clear that both graphs showed higher temperature at the top. This has led to some confusion, and may continue to do so. There is a blog comment for example at, from Vainikka:

    Tuo järvisedimenttikäyrän mukaan ottaminen onkin sitten todellinen riman alitus. Juu, käyrä on toisin päin mutta niin ovat numerotkin. Yleensäkin kuvaajat tehdään niin, että suuremmat numerot ovat kuvan yläpuolella. Kuva on erilainen mutta sen sisältämä tieto täysin sama l. vääristämätön.

    This suggests that the Korttajärvi data was not actually inverted because both graph and numbers were inverted together, so confusing x-ray density (the numbers shown) with temperature (not shown). As I did not find any answer pointing this out in 8 comment pages, I have submitted a comment:

    Mutta numerot ovat X-ray Density, ei lämpötila. Molemmissa kuvia, korkeammat lämpötilat ovat kuvan yläpuolella, joten tieto ei ole “täysin sama”, kuten kirjoitat, mutta on täysin vääristynyt.

    As I understand Finnish rather better than I can speak or write it, perhaps you might correct my correction if necessary

  41. Jean S
    Posted Nov 13, 2009 at 3:58 AM | Permalink

    Re: Peter O’Neill (#55):
    first, a clarification, I didn’t do the subtitles, and I actually do not know who did, so please don’t credit me 🙂

    As far as I can tell, there is no “logic” or linguistic joke behind choosing different variations for the word “hockey stick”.

    The problem you are describing is understood by the producers (and the question is answered a couple of times in their blog). Matti Virtanen asked here for help in that matter.

  42. cohenite
    Posted Nov 14, 2009 at 4:32 PM | Permalink

    The x-ray density (inverted) graph has been ‘inverted’ by Mann, but so to has the vertical scale; forgive my statistical shortcoming (and any impression I want to give the hockeystick any support) but doesn’t that mean that the intrinsic values have been preserved?

    Steve: No. It was used upside down. It’s been explained over and over. Why don’t you ask Mann to acknowledge this??

  43. bender
    Posted Nov 14, 2009 at 4:56 PM | Permalink

    This suggests that the Korttajärvi data was not actually inverted because both graph and numbers were inverted together

    How on earth do you determine if the data were inverted based on the presentation of a graph? Smarten up. You have to examine the output of the code that makes use of the data to determine how it gets used. Read the blog.

  44. cohenite
    Posted Nov 14, 2009 at 6:21 PM | Permalink

    “How on earth do you determine if the data were inverted based on the presentation of a graph?”

    I guess, for a start, you look at the axis, and with the vertical axis inverted it seemed a reasonable question; now, what blog are you talking about?

  45. John M
    Posted Nov 14, 2009 at 7:12 PM | Permalink

    The pertinent discussions start here.

    Steve: Actually they start in October 2008 – see the It’s Saturday Night Live post. In case people have lost the Saturday Night segue, this post was written close to the peak of the Tina Fey-Sarah Palin thing. You could make a pretty good skit on a paleoclimatologist using upside down proxies – the guy on the Apple commercials from the Jon Stewart show would be good at it.

  46. cohenite
    Posted Nov 14, 2009 at 7:31 PM | Permalink

    Thanks John M; I think I’ve got it; Mann did a double or reverse flip so that the data and the scale were flipped in opposite directions.

    Steve: I’m not sure that your explanation is particularly perspicacious, but if it helps you, that’s good. The point was explained clearly in the posts and is very simple. Lots of people have understood it easily, though close Team associates have complicated matters by refusing to acknowledge it and muddying the waters. As Gavin Schmidt says, it would be better if authors corrected their errors, but unfortunately this hasn’t happened in this case and even the Comment-Reply process at PNAS did not elicit a settlement of a highly trivial point.

    • bender
      Posted Nov 14, 2009 at 9:03 PM | Permalink

      Re: cohenite (#63),
      You think you’ve got it? I guarantee that if you don’t read the blog you won’t get it. You have to understand how Mann’s algorithm works to understand how the business end gets flipped.

      • Dave Dardinger
        Posted Nov 14, 2009 at 11:14 PM | Permalink

        Re: bender (#64),

        But it’s also important to emphasize that in physical reality the blade of the stick has nothing to do with temperature and this was pointed out by the original authors. Therefore, even if the original authors had been mistaken about the theory of what the varve measurements meant in past centuries, in this last century or so the measurements were not caused by temperature and therefore any measurements during this time period should be eliminated before the larger record is put to any use for paleoclimatology.

  47. cohenite
    Posted Nov 14, 2009 at 11:23 PM | Permalink

    Well following bender’s advice let’s see if I can be more perspicacious; inverting both the scale and the meaning of the data would leave things unchanged; however what Mann did was to invert the scale and change the meaning of the data; that is, the proxies for warm were changed or misinterpreted by Mann to be cold and vice-versa for the cold proxies. So instead of the low x-ray density corresponding to warm Mann now shows that low density shows cold and so on. It’s pretty glaring when it clicks which makes it astounding that Mann will not fess up.

    Can I be excused now?

    • bender
      Posted Nov 15, 2009 at 5:48 AM | Permalink

      Re: cohenite (#66),
      No, you don’t get it. It is obvious you still haven’t read a thing. Did you bother reading “Conolley endorses upside down Mann”, for example? It took Connolley and his minions several days for them to understand what was happening with this perverse proxy in Mann’s artesanal algorithm.

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Nov 15, 2009 at 8:34 AM | Permalink

      Re: cohenite (#66),

      It’s not just the upside-down-ness of Tiljander. In any process when you have an error of this type, you can’t just exclude the data and drive on. You have to ask how did the algorithm get so mixed up.

      The point of the upsidedown-ness which has sort of been overlooked because of disinformation from Connolley and so on is that it proved for those that have eyes to see that the Mannian algorithm was simply mining for correlations without regard to whether they had any meaning. In this case, there was a spurious correlation to ditchbuilding and bridges; the Mannian algorithm mined for this correlation.

      Jeff Id has been writing colorfully and well on this topic – he’s still relatively new to the craziness and has some of the freshness that I used to have.

      The thing can’t be “fixed” by simply excluding upside-down Tiljander. The Mannomatic just mines for the next thing. “The” problem goes right back to the Mannomatic itself.

      • bender
        Posted Nov 15, 2009 at 8:52 AM | Permalink

        Re: Steve McIntyre (#68),
        Yes. I don’t want to sound dismissive. I want people to read to see for themselves that the problem runs pretty deep. It’s not like somebody forgot to multiply a data column by -1, or accidentally inverted the scale on a graphic in a paper. The authors got fooled by a spurious correlation, and this happened to have a bizarre knock-on effect that they could not imagine. How did they miss it? Because a good “proxy” does not change sense as you move from the calibration period to reconstruction period. It would be like my thermometer working one way on the day I bought it, but then in the opposite sense once the warranty had expired. Thermometers don’t do that! You hope …

  48. EW
    Posted Nov 15, 2009 at 9:28 AM | Permalink

    the Mannian algorithm was simply mining for correlations without regard to whether they had any meaning.

    Surely, but that should be the responsibility of the person behind the data mining, who checks about the physical meaning of the data and their suitability to be fed to the software. One would think that a thorough reading of the original articles of the data collectors, understanding of what proxy the data were intended for and such “minuscules” should be done first and very carefully. Otherwise it is “just feeding the data scrapped somewhere on the internet”?

  49. Peter O'Neill
    Posted Nov 15, 2009 at 9:56 AM | Permalink

    November 14th, 2009 at 4:56 pm

    This suggests that the Korttajärvi data was not actually inverted because both graph and numbers were inverted together

    How on earth do you determine if the data were inverted based on the presentation of a graph? Smarten up. You have to examine the output of the code that makes use of the data to determine how it gets used. Read the blog.

    Apologies of causing further confusion in #55 by mixing languages. It was the Finnish quote just above which suggested …

    … Yes, the curve is the other way around, but so are the numbers. Generally graphs are drawn so that higher numbers are at the top of the figure. The figure is different but the information is exactly the same i.e. undistorted.

    And my short comment in Finnish below, which I asked Jean S to consider correcting if my Finnish had proved inadequate, is:

    But the numbers are the X-ray density, not temperature. In both images, higher temperatures are at the top of the figure, so the information is not “exactly the same,” as you write, but is completely distorted.

    And I have read the blog, and am aware of further aspects of this. There are severe limitations on in depth treatment in a short programme, but I thought that presentation of this point was a weak point in the programme, and allowed viewers to become confused because the X-ray density shown in both figures does suggest an inversion of “graph and numbers together”, drawing attention away from the fact that both are supposed to represent temperature reconstructions based on the same data.

  50. bender
    Posted Nov 15, 2009 at 10:06 AM | Permalink

    There are severe limitations on in depth treatment in a short programme, but I thought that presentation of this point was a weak point in the programme

    Again I ask: what would you have shown in a video? The code of the Mannomatic? A guy failing to check 1209 outputs to see if they made sense? The video is an invitation to dig deeper. If you do, you will see that, yes, in fact the data were used inappropriately. And it doesn’t stop (or start) there …

  51. Peter O'Neill
    Posted Nov 15, 2009 at 10:20 PM | Permalink

    Re: bender (#72):

    There are severe limitations on in depth treatment in a short programme, but I thought that presentation of this point was a weak point in the programme

    Again I ask: what would you have shown in a video?

    (With all the obvious benefits of hindsight) I (hope) I would have:

    (1) Added an indicative high/low temperature anomaly scale alongside the X-ray density scale to the figure shown in the programme and described in the English transcript as “millennial temperature reconstruction from Korttajärvi done by the Finns”, and added a footnote explaining that the paper did not include an explicit temperature scale, but did indicate than X-ray density changes should be interpreted as temperature changes, up and down, in the manner shown in the figure.

    (2) Matched the temperature anomaly scale for tiljander_2003_xraydenseave from Figure S9 in Mann’s original SI (this is still graphed in the updated SI, but, at least on my screen, is hard to find as the coloured key entry is almost invisible, and the graphed data needs to be located by a process of elimination). Added this alongside the X-ray density scale to the figure shown in the programme and described in the English transcript as “the same data presented by the hockey team”

    (3) Added links to the discussion of this topic at climateaudit. (For anyone who only selected the “Transcript in English” button at the “Lisätietoa” link leads to a set of URL links for the programme).

    I would not have tried to discuss any issues of code (I’m near the end of STEP3 in porting GISTEMP to a single unified application in a modern language, with considerable additional output for analysis, and the basic output verified against the NASA intermediate files – I know only too well what lies within the code produced by some of these people, and would not wish to inflict any such torture on the unwary. There be dragons, interesting dragons perhaps, but dragons nonetheless).
    As you say, read the blog …

    I tried to watch the programme from the point of view of someone to whom all this is new, which I believe was the target audience. (Even if I did get sidetracked a little counting hockey vs ice-hockey sticks). Preaching to the converted would not be a priority. Unless such a person can see immediately within the few seconds available to make the particular point that the data has been subjected to gross abuse, that person will very likely not be motivated to dig deeper on this topic, and it may well stop there. How the data got used is for later.
    So, having concentrated on making one initial point strongly by also showing it clearly in the associated graphics, I would hope that they would then take up the invitation to dig deeper, first by reviewing the program transcript (the “Käsikirjoitus” button is the same transcript in Finnish), then by reading the blog, for which I would have provided links on this topic, as I think it is a topic where the less mathematically inclined have a better chance of understanding at least some of the issues involved. Whereas issues such as cohort structure (not here criticising the mention of this in the program, just taking it as an example) or even sample size may be less accessible.

    Overall, I believe that a strength of the programme was that it covered a limited range of topics at a reasonable and accessible depth and in plain language, rather than falling into the trap of bewildering the audience by trying to cover too much, or by over-detailed presentation. I just felt that a weak point was that these two figures as presented ran too great a risk of dismissal as a trivial difference in presentation. The second scale, particularly when the figures could be viewed later at leisure in the transcript, could have made the difference in interpretation of X-ray density as temperature proxy more immediately obvious.

    Hope this makes my point of view clearer.


    As “taman_viikon_mot” translates as “This week’s MOT”, these links will presumably move shortly to the “Viime viikon MOT” (Last week’s MOT) section, and then to the archive. I’ve pasted these links “as is” below for anyone who may later wish to see what was linked without having to navigate the archive by guesswork. Try Google translation or just follow the links. (Steve, please snip this whole paragraph and the links if you feel it may infringe the YLE copyright agreements that Matti Virtanen referred to at, although I would understood that post as referring to the actual programme productions rather than such ancillary items):

    1) Kööpenhaminan ilmastokokous:
    2) Kööpenhaminan ilmastokokouksen sopimusluonnos loka-marraskuun vaihteesta:
    3) Kansainvälinen ilmastopaneeli IPCC:
    4) Al Goren elokuvan mainossivut:
    5) Michael Mannin lätkämaila IPCC:n vuoden 2001 raportissa:
    6) Lätkämaila ja sitä ennen vallinnut käsitys keskiajan lämpökaudesta:
    7) Yhteenveto siitä, miten IPCC:n käsitys keskiajan lämpökaudesta on muuttunut:
    8) Steve McIntyren analyysit jääkiekkokäyristä:

    9) Michael Mannin ja kumppaneiden alkuperäinen lätkämaila-artikkeli:
    10) Pohjoisamerikkalaisia vihnemäntyjä, joiden lustoihin Mannin lätkämaila perustui:
    11) Yhdysvaltain tiedeakatemian NAS:n raportti lätkämailakiistasta:
    12) USA:n johtavien tilastotieteilijöiden arvio lätkämailakiistasta (ns. Wegman-raportti):
    13) Keith Briffan ja kumppaneiden lätkämaila-artikkeli:
    14) Briffan työnantaja CRU:
    15) Steve McIntyren analyysit Briffan lätkämailasta:
    16) David Demingin lausunto USA:n kongressille:

    17) Briffan uusi lätkämaila-artikkeli vuodelta 2006:;311/5762/841
    18) “Polar Urals” tarkoittaa Ural-vuoriston pohjoisinta osaa:
    19) Jamalin niemimaa:
    20) McIntyre Jamalin vuosirenkaiden käytöstä IPCC:n vuoden 2007 arviointiraportissa:
    21) Metsäntutkimuslaitos Metlan lustotutkimuksia:
    22) Professori Kari Mielikäinen, Metsäntutkimuslaitos:
    23) Professori Atte Korhola, Helsingin yliopisto:

    24) Atte Korholan julkaisuluettelo:
    25) Atte Korholan tuore arvio ilmastotieteen ongelmista:
    25) Professori Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
    26) Richard Lindzenin tunnin mittainen analyysi ilmastonmuutoksesta: (Ensimmäinen kuudesta 10 minuutin osasta.)

  52. Jarkko
    Posted Nov 16, 2009 at 3:13 AM | Permalink

    Finnish dendro has pitched in at lustiag. Unfortunately no english version is available. The post at lustiag is not signed, but the host of the site is Mauri Timonen. Here are couple extracts, please excuse my english, especially when it comes to technical words (my dictionary didn’t have all the words, so some of them are just from the top of my head):

    “Jamalin sarjan vuosilustoaineisto on poikkeuksellisen hyvälaatuinen. Sen laatua kuvaavien siirtymien ja luontaisten poikkeamien oäärä on lähes nollassa (4) ja lustosarjojen keskinäinen korrelaatio on poikkeuksellisen korkea (0.771). Siksi se toimii erinomaisena lustokalenterina ajoitustehtävissä. Ilmastomallituksissa sen sijaan joudutaan monenlaisiin ongelmiin.”

    The Jamal chronology is one with exceptionally good quality. The number of transitions and natural deviations, the propertys that describe it’s quality, are close to zero (4) and the correlation between the series is exceptionally high (0.771). That is why it works as an excellent chronology for dating purposes. On the other hand, when considering the interpretation of climate, one runs in to all kind of troubles.

    “Jamalin tapauksessa, päätellen siitä, että eri aineistoyhdistelmät antavat selvästi toisistaan poikkeavia tuloksia, voi kysymys olla myös edustavuusongelmasta. Pienet vuotuiset havaintomäärät (P8-violetti viiva) ja indeksin suuri hajonta (variaatiokerroin keskimäärin 45 %) viittaavat myös reliabiliteettiongelmaan.”

    In the case of Jamal, judging from the fact that different combinations of data results in a clear divergence, the problem may be of validity. Small amount of anual observations and the large deviation (coefficient of variation is approximately 45%) of the index also points to a reliability problems.

    “Jamalin sarjan indeksien variaatiokerroin on viimeisten 1000 vuoden jaksolla noin 45 %, mikä edellyttäisi jopa 80 havaintoa vuotta kohden 10 %:n tarkkuuskriteerillä. Jos havaintojen määrä jää Jamalin tapaan 10-20 luokkaan, on estimaatin tarkkuus vuositasolla luokkaa ±20-30 %. Se on aivan liian vähän korreloitaessa lämpötiloja lustonleveysestimaatteihin.”

    The coefficient of variation for the last 1000 years in the index of Jamal chronology is approximately 45%, which would require up to 80 samples for each year, when aiming for accuracy of 10%. If the number of samples is in the range of 10-20, like in Jamal, the accuracy of the estimate is something like +- 20-30%. It is way too low, when correlating temperatures to ringwidh estimates.

    “Jamalin aineistossa ilmastotulkintaa vaikeuttaa myös puiden kalenterivuosittain lasketun keski-iän nousu noin 75 vuodesta 1900-luvun yli 250 vuoteen. Jos sarjan yritettäisiin soveltaa esimerkiksi 70-110 vuoden ikäkanavaa, ei havaintoja riittäisi lainkaan 1900-luvulle, koska kaikki puut ovat 110 vuotta vanhempia.”

    In the case of Jamal, the climate interpretation is further complicated by the rise of the average age calculated by calendar years, from about 75 to 250 through last century. If one would try to apply, for example, 70-110 year age band, there would be no measurements left for the last century, because all the trees would be more than 110 years old.

    “Maailmalla laajasti netin keskustelupalstoilla käsitelty Jamal-kritiikki on erinomaista oppia kaikille lustotutkimusta harjoittaville tahoille. Rankan arvostelun myrskyn silmään ja syyttävän sormen kohteeksi joutuneen Briffan ryöpyttäminen on kuitenkin mielestäni ollut kohtuutonta asiassa, joka yleisesti koskee tieteenalan (dendrokronologia) menetelmien kehittämistä ja ohjeistamista.”

    The wide critic of the Jamal case, that has been discussed all over the internet, is a great learning experience for all working in this field. However, in a case that adresses the methods and criterias of a whole field of science (dendro), I feel that the citisism towards Briffa has been unreasonable.

    So, haven’t heard of any dendro, that would stand behind Briffas dirty dozen, but at least someone sort of breaked the silence.

  53. Paul Z.
    Posted Nov 16, 2009 at 3:41 AM | Permalink

    What happened to the YLE English transcript? It’s gone missing.

  54. Bob Jones (USAF - Retired)
    Posted Nov 16, 2009 at 4:29 AM | Permalink

    I watched the Finnish video. I have also read two books on global warming: Unstoppable Global Warming & The Politically Incorrect Guide To Global Warming. As a side note, shouldn’t those titles now be changed to be “Climate Change” instead of “Global Warming”? 🙂
    I am not a scientist but I was taken with Professor Lindzen’s reliance on nature instead of computer models. To me, computers have always been nothing more than rapid morons. So I was wondering if doing something as simple as checking the world’s tidal charts would, in any way, prove or disprove whether or not the arctic/antarctic ice was melting and causing seas to rise?

  55. Peter O'Neill
    Posted Nov 16, 2009 at 5:40 AM | Permalink

    Re: Paul Z. (#73)

    What happened to the YLE English transcript? It’s gone missing.

    taman_viikon_mot = this week’s MOT
    Sivua ei löydy = page not found

    I suspect that this is the transition to the programme to be shown this evening, and that a new page will appear in due course at for this week’s programme.

    When it appears, you could try the “Viime viikon MOT” button (last week’s MOT), but it can also be found directly now and for the next week at

    From November 23rd try the archive at and look for the date 9.11.2009

  56. Paul Z.
    Posted Nov 16, 2009 at 5:42 AM | Permalink

    Thanks Jean. Also in news:

  57. Jean S
    Posted Nov 17, 2009 at 11:32 AM | Permalink

    Lindzen’s interview in full available here:

    • ianl8888
      Posted Nov 17, 2009 at 4:31 PM | Permalink

      Re: Jean S (#80),

      Thanks Jean S. I was hoping for that link 🙂

  58. MOT
    Posted Nov 23, 2009 at 3:26 AM | Permalink

    MOT’s reporter Martti Backman has made several climate skeptical tv documentaries since 1997. One of the more recent ones is MOT: Cooling in the greenhouse (2008) which includes interviews with Roy Spencer and John Christy. You can watch the program for free:

    MOT: Cooling in the greenhouse (MOT: Kylmää vettä kasvihuoneeseen)

    Program’s transcript in English:

    MOT’s full interview with Roy W. Spencer (in English)

    MOT’s full interview with John Christy (in English)

    A discussion thread about the programs MOT: Climate catastrophe cancelled (2009) and MOT: Cooling in the greenhouse (2008):

    Some general info about MOT’s reporter Martti Backman (in Finnish):

    English subtitles for MOT: Climate catastrophe canceled

  59. Jean S
    Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 4:51 AM | Permalink

    The MOT team had a program about ClimateGate on Dec 7th. The transcript in English is here:

    And the actual program is here (in three parts):

    [Dec 28th: With English subtitles: ]

One Trackback

  1. […] [Update Dec. 28: If you'd rather read than watch/listen, the English transcript of this program is available. h/t Jean S at Climate Audit] […]

%d bloggers like this: