“Without oversight or challenge”

One of my long-standing concerns of Climate Audit and its readers has been a concern over the role of Eugene Wahl in changing the IPCC assessment of the McMc-Mann dispute in the Final Report – a role that Fred Pearce described in The Climate Files as a “subversion” of IPCC policies of openness and transparency. Jones’ delete-all-emails request was a direct request to erase all evidence of Wahl’s surreptitious contact with Briffa. Even this year, the University of East Anglia has continued to refuse FOI requests for Wahl’s actual proposed changes to IPCC AR4 text. The indolent Muir Russell inquiry doesn’t appear to have bothered obtaining and examining the critical attachments to Wahl’s emails, seeing no need to bother looking behind Briffa’s soothing reassurances on the matter. Continue reading

Muir Russell Tries to Cooper Up Website

In preparation for his appearance at the SciTech Committee, Muir Russell has, at the last possible minute, attempted to cooper up his webpage by amending the list of FOI requests to include the David Holland FOI request for off-balance-sheet IPCC review comments that prompted Phil Jones’ notorious delete-all-emails request. Amazingly, this request had been left off the original list of FOI requests provided by the U of East Anglia. Continue reading

CanAm 2010 Squash Doubles

I’m playing in the 60+ division of the 2010 USA vs. Canada in Squash Doubles this weekend. (US notice here.)

I qualified for the Canadian team on last year’s 60+ tournaments (finals of the Canadians, semis of the US and won the Ontario.) Tournament website says:

The 2nd playing of the Can-Am Cup Squash Doubles Championship takes place October 22 – 24, 2010 in Toronto, Ontario Canada.

The host venue for this event will be the Toronto Cricket, Skating and Curling Club. Supporting venues will be the Toronto Lawn Tennis Club and the Badminton & Racquet Club. The event will feature the best doubles teams from Canada and the United States, 104 players, 52 from each country, participating in a Ryder Cup-like competition.

The Can-Am Cup will feature two teams from each country in each of thirteen divisions:
Men’s

* A/Open
* 40+
* 45+
* 50+
* 55+
* 60+
* 65+
* 70+
* 75+

Women’s

* A/Open
* 40+
* 45+
* 50+

Not doing very well so far.

Bradley Tries to Deal

At Lucia’s, Steve Mosher asks:

did bradley make the charges to further a different goal?

As indicated in the email sent by Bradley to a third party shown below, Bradley’s actual objective in filing the complaint against Wegman may not have been a concern over alleged plagiarism, but an effort to get Wegman’s criticisms of MBH98-99 (criticisms which North and Bloomfield conceded under oath) removed from the Congressional record. Bradley writes as follows:

I filed a complaint with George Mason University (where Wegman is a Professor) & they have set up a committee to investigate my complaint. I[A] recent letter from their Vice-Chancellor indicates that they expect the committee to report their findings by the end of September.

That’s the long & short of it. I have told the University that I am prepared to drop this matter if Wegman makes a request to have his report withdrawn from the Congressional Record. No response on that.

Thanks
Ray [Bradley]

Bradley Copies Fritts #2

In my previous post on Fritts and Bradley, I observed that Bradley’s so-called ”seminal” textbook had copied 12 of the first 13 figures in its dendro chapter from Fritts 1976, together with verbatim or near-verbatim caption (with a little more examining, this is now 17 of the first 19 figures in the textbook.) By focusing on the figures in this post, I didn’t mean to suggest that the comparison of running text in the two textbooks did not provide anything worth discussing. On the contrary. There is much of interest in this comparison, some of which I’ll discuss today. Continue reading

Bradley Copies Fritts

On March 5, 2010, Mann co-author Bradley filed a plagiarism complaint with George Mason University, alleging that Wegman had copied boilerplate descriptions of proxies from Bradley’s useful but ordinary textbook, which blogger Deep Climate described (incorrectly) as “seminal”.  Bradley’s allegations were based on comparisons previously reported by Deep Climate (e.g. link). In a subsequent interview with USA Today, Bradley breathlessly stated:

Clearly, text was just lifted verbatim from my book and placed in the (Wegman) report. Talk about irony. It just seems surreal (that) these authors could criticize my work when they are lifting my words.”

Making Bradley’s allegation even more surreal, it turns out that Bradley’s own description of tree rings as proxies had been copied, including more than a dozen figures and captions almost verbatim, from Harold Fritts’ 1976 textbook, Tree Rings and Climate. Of the first 13 figures in Bradley’s dendro chapter, 12(!) are either copied exactly from Fritts 1976 or, in a few cases, with negligible “paraphrase” (e.g. Bradley Figure 10.10 combines single-columned Fritts Figure 7.10 and 7.11 into a double-columned figure).

In all 12 figures, Bradley copies often lengthy text from Fritts 1976 (in the form of captions). In six of the 12 figures, although the language is taken from Fritts 1976, Bradley cites other provenance for the articles. In each such case, the language in Bradley appears to be a paraphrase of the cited article, while it is, in fact, a copy of the uncited version in Fritts 1976. Since much of Bradley’s dendro chapter is a commentary on the figures from Fritts, Bradley’s text draws heavily on ideas from Fritts 1976, and, in some cases, Bradley’s language tracks Fritts’ rather closely (without specific attribution.) Bradley 1985 included a commendation of Fritts 1976 in its introduction, but this commendation was removed in Bradley 1999.

For the six figures actually referenced to Fritts 1976, the Bradley 1985 captions all conclude with “after Fritts 1976” (“after” is dropped in Bradley 1999). I leave it to readers to comment on whether the term “after” Fritts 1976 fully captures the fact that the figures are in fact identical and the lengthy captions are, in most cases, either verbatim or near verbatim.

In this article, I will compare 12 Bradley 1985 figures and captions to predecessor Fritts figures and captions. In my next article (link), I’ll compare language in the running text.  It also turned out that Bradley had an ulterior motive in his plagiarism complaint (see link): Bradley offered to withdraw his plagiarism complaint against Wegman if Wegman withdrew his report from the Congressional record.

Bradley 1985 Figure 10.1

Bradley 1985 Figure 10.1 is identical to Fritts 1976 Figure 2.3.

Fritts 1976 Figure 2.3: Drawing of cell structure along a cross section of a young stem of a conifer. The earlywood is made up of large and relatively thin-walled cells (tracheids); latewood is made up of small, thick-walled tracheids. Variations in tracheid thickness may produce false rings in either earlywood or latewood.

Bradley 1985 Figure 10.1: Drawing of cell structure along a cross section of a young stem of a conifer. The earlywood is made up of large and relatively thin-walled cells (tracheids); latewood is made up of small, thick-walled tncheids. Variations in tracheid thickness may produce false rings in either earlywood or latewood (after Fritts, 1976).

Bradley 1985 Figure 10.2
Bradley 1985 Figure 10.2 is identical to Fritts 1976 Figure 1.5 and Fritts 1971 Figure 3.

The caption to Bradley 1985 Figure 10.2 states:

Trees growing on sites where climate seldom limits growth processes produce rings that are uniformly wide (left). Such rings provide little or no record of variations in climate and are termed complacent. (right): Trees growing on sites where climatic factors are frequently limiting produce rings that vary in width from year to year depending on how severely limiting climate has been to growth. These are termed sensitive (from Fritts, 1971).

The caption to Fritts 1971 Figure 3 is related but not so close:

Trees with ample moisture and favorable temperatures are not limited by climatic factors (left). Their rings are uniformly wide and there is little variation in thickness from one ring to the next. Trees on arid or extremely cold sites may often be limited by climatic factors (right). Their rings are narrow and there may be marked variation in ring thickness corresponding to variations. in climatic factors which have limited growth.

However, the caption to unreferenced Fritts 1976 Figure 1.5 is virtually identical:

Trees growing on sites where climate seldom limits growth processes produce rings that are uniformly wide (A). Such rings provide little or no record of variations in climate and are termed complacent. Trees growing on sites where climatic factors are frequently limiting produce rings that vary in width from year to year depending on how severely limiting climate has been to growth. (B) These are termed sensitive.

Bradley 1985 Figure 10.3
Bradley 1985 Figure 10.3 is identical to Fritts 1976 Figure 5.8 and Fritts 1971 Figure 5.

The caption to Bradley 1985 Figure 10.3 states:

A schematic diagram showing how low precipitation and high temperature during the growing season may lead to the formation of a narrow tree ring in arid-site trees. Arrows indicate the net effects and include various processes and their interactions. It is implied that the effects of high precipitation and low temperature are the opposite and may lead to an increase in ring widths (from Fritts, 1971).

This is virtually identical to the corresponding caption in Fritts 1976 – Figure 5.8. (Bradley changed “will increase” to “may lead to an increase”.)

Model Part A. A diagram representing some of the relationships that cause climatic factors of low precipitation and high temperatures during the growing season to lead to the formation of a narrow ring in arid-site trees. The arrows indicate the net effects and include various processes and their interactions. It is implied that the effects of high precipitation and low temperature are the opposite, that is, ring width will increase.

The caption to Fritts 1971 Figure 5 is related:

Physiological Model A illustrating how low precipitation and high temperature during the growing season (season of cambial activity) may cause a ring to be narrow for conifers growing on semiarid and warm sites. The climatic conditions affect physiological processes which limit the rate of cell division, the amount of cell expansion or the length of the growing season.

The Bradley language is clearly derived from the language from the unreferenced Fritts 1976.

Bradley 1985 Figure 10.4
Bradley 1985 Figure 10.4 is identical to Fritts 1976 Figure 5.9 and Fritts 1971 Figure 6.

The caption to Bradley 1985 Figure 10.4 states:

A schematic diagram showing how low precipitation and high temperature before the growing season may lead to the formation of a narrow tree ring in arid-site trees. (from Fritts, 1971).

The language from the corresponding Figure 5.9 in unreferenced Fritts 1976 is:

Model Part B. A diagram representing some of the relationships that cause climatic factors of low precipitation and high temperatures prior to the growing season to lead to the formation of a narrow ring in arid-site trees. Compare with Fig 5.8.

The language in cited Fritts 1971 Figure 6 is again related but not as close as the unreferenced Fritts 1976:

Physiological Model B illustrating how low precipitation and high temperature prior to the growing season (season of cambial activity) may cause the ring to be narrow for conifers growing on semiarid and warm sites. The climatic conditions may affect physiological processes which precondition the plant, reduce the potential for rapid growth and reduce the rate of cell division (shown in Model A) so that a narrow ring is formed.

Bradley 1985 Figure 10.5

Bradley 1985 Figure 10.5 is identical to Fritts 1976 Figure 1.5.

The caption to Bradley 1985 Figure 10.5 is copied almost word for word from caption to Fritts 1976 Figure 1.5:

Bradley 1985 Figure 10.5: Annual growth increments or rings are formed because the wood cells produced early in the growing season (earlywood, EW) are large, thin-walled, and less dense, while the cells formed at the end of the season (latewood, LW) are smaller, thick-walled, and more dense. An abrupt change in cell size between the last-formed cells of one ring (LW) and the first-formed cells of the next (EW) marks the boundary between annual rings. Sometimes growing conditions temporarily become severe before the end of the growing season and may lead to the production of thick-walled cells within an annual growth layer (arrows).This may make it difficult to distinguish where the actual growth increment ends, which could lead to errors in dating. Usually these intra-annual bands or false rings can be identified, but where they cannot the problem must be resolved by cross-dating (after Fritts, 1976).

Fritts 1976 Figure 1.5: Annual growth layers or rings are formed because the wood cells produced early in the growing season (EW) are large, thin-walled, and less dense, while the cells formed at the end of the season (LW) are smaller, thick-walled, and more dense. An abrupt change in cell size between the last-formed cells of one ring (LW) and the first-formed cells of the next (EW) marks the boundary between annual rings. Sometimes growing conditions temporarily become severe before the end of the growing season and cause subsequently formed cells to be smaller with thicker walls (arrows). When more favorable conditions return, the subsequently formed cells are larger and have thinner walls. The resulting dark bands within the growth layer are called intra-annual growth bands or false rings and are usually identified by the gradual transition in cell-size on both margins of the band. Occasionally these intra-annual bands are indistinguishable from the true annual ring and the problem must be resolved by crossdating. In A, the false ring is within the latewood formed near the end of the growing season. In B, it is within the earlywood formed near the beginning of the growing season. Growth is in the upward direction. (Adapted from Kuo and McGinnes Jr, 1973).

Bradley 1985 Figure 10.6

Bradley 1985 Figure 10.6 is identical to Fritts 1976 Figure 1.8.

The caption to Bradley 1985 Figure 10.6 is copied almost word for word from caption to Fritts 1976 Figure 1.8:

Bradley 1985 Figure 10.6: Cross dating of tree rings. Comparison of tree-ring widths makes it possible to identify false rings or where rings are locally absent. For example in (A), strict counting shows a clear lack of synchrony in the patterns. In the lower specimen of (a), rings 9 and 16 can be seen as very narrow and they do not appear at all in the upper specimen. Also, rings 21 (lower) and 20 (upper) show intra-annual growth bands. In (b) the positions of inferred absence are designated by dots (upper specimen), the intra-annual band in ring 20 is recognized and the patterns in all ring widths are synchronously matched (after Fritts 1976).

Fritts 1976 Figure 1.8: Cross dating makes it possible to recognize areas where rings are locally absent or where intra-annual growth band appears like a true annual ring. The patterns of wide and narrow rings are compared among specimens. Every fifth ring is numbered in the diagram and in A the patterns of wide and narrow rings match until ring number 9, after which a lack of synchrony in pattern occurs. In the lower specimen of A, rings 9 and 16 can be seen as very narrow and they do not appear at all in the upper specimen; while rings 21 (in the lower) and 20 (in the upper) show intra-annual growth bands. In the upper specimen of B, the positions of inferred absence are designated by two dots, the intra-annual band in ring 20 is recognized and the patterns in all ring widths are synchronously matched (Drawing by M. Huggins).

Bradley 1985 Figure 10.7
Bradley 1985 Figure 10.7 is identical to Fritts 1976 Figure 1.9 and Fritts 1971 Figure 2.

The caption to Bradley 1985 Figure 10.7 states:

Standardization of ring-width measurements is necessary to remove the decrease in size associated with increasing age of the tree. If the ring widths for the three specimens shown in the upper figure are simply averaged by year, without removing the effect of the tree’s age, the mean ring-width chronology shown below them exhibits intervals of high and low growth, associated with the varying age of the samples. This age variability is generally removed by fitting a curve to each ring-width series, and dividing each ring width by the corresponding value of the curve. The resulting values, shown in the lower half of the figure, are referred to as indices, and may be averaged among specimens differing in age to produce a mean chronology for a site (lowermost record) ( from Fritts, 1971).

The language from Figure 1.8 in the unreferenced Fritts 1976 version is virtually identical:

Standardization of ring-width measurements is necessary to remove the decrease in size associated with increasing age of the tree. If the ring widths for the three specimens shown in the upper figure are averaged by year, without removing the effect of the tree’s age, the mean ring-width chronology shown immediately below them exhibits intervals of high and low growth associated with the varying age of the samples. This age variability can be removed by fitting a curve to each ring-width series, and dividing each ring width by the corresponding value of the curve. The resulting values shown in the lower half of the figure are referred to as indices and may be averaged among specimens differing in age to produce a mean chronology for a site.

The language in Figure 2 from the citation, Fritts 1971, is again related, but not as close as the unreferenced Fritts 1976:

Standardization is necessary because the first-formed rings are generally wider than those found in the older portions of stems and because some trees grow more rapidly than others. If ring-width measurements, plotted as a function of year of formation (upper plots) are averaged, the mean chronology will show long-term variations arising from differences in ring age and mean growth rate of different sampled specimens (fourth plot). When an exponential curve is fitted as shown in the upper plots and the value of each cure during each year is divided into the ring width for that year, new values are obtained which are referred to as indices (lower plot). These indices do not vary as a function of tree age and mean growth and have an expectation value of 1.0. Such indices may be safely averaged (lowest plot) to obtain a ring-width chronology that is likely to correspond to short-term fluctuations in climate that have limited the growth of the trees.

Bradley 1985 Figure 10.9
Bradley 1985 Figure 10.9 is identical to Fritts 1976 Figure 8.8.

The caption to Bradley 1985 Figure 10.9 states:

Five year running means of ring width indices from Pseudotsuga menziesii at Mesa Verde, Colorado, corrected for autocorrelation and plotted on every even year from AD442 through 1962 (after Fritts et al 1965)

The caption to unreferenced Fritts 1976 Figure 6.6 is identical:

Five year running means of ring width indices from Pseudotsuga menziesii at Mesa Verde, Colorado, corrected for autocorrelation and plotted on every even year from AD442 through 1962 (Modified from Fritts et al 1965c)

Bradley 1985 Figure 10.10

Bradley 1985 Figure 10.10 is copied from Fritts 1976 Figures 7.10 and 7.11:

The captions are indistinguishable:

Bradley 1985 Figure 10.10: Magnitudes of the elements of the first and second eigenvectors of climate at Mesa Verde, southwestern Colorado, and their corresponding amplitude sets. In eigenvector 1, (which reduces 13% of the climatic variance) the eigenvector elements for temperature are all the same sign; the corresponding signs for ten elements for precipitation have the opposite sign. This arises because temperatures throughout the 14 month period are somewhat positively correlated with each other, but they are negatively correlated with precipitation for ten out of 14 months. In eigenvector 2 which reduces 11% of the climatic variance) the eigenvector expresses a mode of climate in which the departures of temperature for July to November are opposite in sign to those of December to July. All elements for precipitation have signs opposite those of temperature, indicating a generally inverse relationship. The eigenvectors are multiplied with normalized climatic data to obtain the amplitude sets. Asterisks mark those elements with the largest positive and negative values, indicating a climatic regime for the year which most resembles the eigenvector in question (either positively or negatively (after Fritts 1976).

Fritts 1976 Figure 7.10: Plot of the magnitudes of the elements of the first and most important eigenvector of Mesa Verde climate, which reduces 13% of the climatic variance, and the corresponding amplitude set. The eigenvector expresses a mode of climate in which the departures of temperature for July to November are opposite in sign to those of December-July. All elements for precipitation have signs opposite those of temperature, indicating a generally inverse relationship. The eigenvector is multiplied with normalized climatic data to obtain the amplitude set. Asterisks mark those elements with the largest positive and negative values, indicating the most resemblance of the climatic regime for the year to that particular eigenvector. (See Fig 7.9).

Fritts 1976 Figure 7.11: The magnitudes of the elements of the second eigenvector of Mesa Verde climate, which reduces 11% of the climatic variance, and the corresponding amplitude set. The eigenvector elements for temperature are all the same sign; and the corresponding signs for ten elements for precipitation have the opposite sign. This arises because temperatures throughout the 14 month period are somewhat positively correlated with each other, but they are negatively correlated with precipitation for ten out of 14 months. The eigenvector is multiplied with normalized climatic data to obtain the amplitude set. Asterisks mark those elements with the largest positive and negative values, indicating the most resemblance of the climatic regime for the year to that particular eigenvector. (See Fig 7.12).

Bradley Figure 10.11

Bradley 1985 Figure 10.11 copied three of the five panels of Fritts 1976 Figure 7.13.

The captions are indistinguishable:

Bradley Figure 10.11: Response functions obtained from a stepwise regression analysis using amplitudes of eigenvectors to estimate a ring-width chronology representing six Pinus ponderosa sites along the lower slopes of the Rocky Mountains, Colorado. Steps with 1, 3 and 12 predictor variables are shown. Percentage variance reduced can be calculated by multiplying the R2 value by 100. The regression coefficients for amplitudes are converted to response functions though when response functions are complex as in this example, a linear combination of many eigenvectors is needed to obtain the best fitting relationship (after Fritts 1976).

Fritts 1976 Figure 10.11: Response functions obtained from a stepwise regression analysis using amplitudes of eigenvectors and prior growth to estimate a ring-width chronology representing six Pinus ponderosa sites along the lower slopes of the Rocky Mountains, Colorado. Steps with 1, 3, 7, 12 and 20 predictor variables are shown. The regression coefficients for amplitudes are converted to response functions (Equation 7.22) . When response functions are complex as in this example, a linear combination of many eigenvectors is needed to obtain the best fitting relationship. Prior growth was entered into regression after the step with 12 variables. The percent variance can be calculated by multiplying the R2 by 100.

Bradley Figure 10.13
Bradley 1985 Figure 10.13 is identical to Fritts 1976 Figure 8.9 and Lamarche 1974 Figure 6.

The caption to Bradley 1985 Figure 10.13 states:

Growth of pinus longaeva on lower forest border (…) and upper treeline (—) sites of the White Mountains, California, and the precipitation and temperature anomalies inferred from the departures in ring width. Data expressed as 20 year averages of standardized normal values. Arrows show dates of glacial moraines in nearby mountains (after Lamarche 1974)

The caption to Fritts 1976 Figure 8.9 is virtually identical:

The 20-year average growth , expressed in standardized normal values, in Pinus longaeva on lower forest border (…) and upper treeline (—) sites of the White Mountains, California, and the precipitation and temperature anomalies inferred from the departures in ring width. Arrows show dates of glacial moraines in nearby mountains (From Lamarche, V.C. 1974 Science 183 (4129) 1043-1048, copyright 1974 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.)

The caption to Lamarche 1974 Fig 6 is related, but not nearly as close as the unreferenced Fritts 1976:

Departures from mean growth(normalized 20-year means) trees on ecologically contrasting sites in the White Mountains and inferred climatic anomalies. Arrows show dates of glacial moraines in the nearby Sierra Nevada (19); all except the youngest were formed during periods judged to be relatively cool from the tree-ring evidence. Glacial advances of the early 1300s and early 1600s also coincide with unusually wet periods.

analogous to the stepwise regression coefficients described in the previous section…

Needless to say, there are many other examples.

Note: Edited on December 12, 2023 to streamline presentation.

How Anthony Watts Handled Team Plagiarism

Anthony has an instructive post on how he handled a plagiarism incident involving NOAA. Anthony writes:

Readers may recall this post: More dirty pool by NCDC’s Karl, Menne, and Peterson

…where I take NCDC to task for not given proper attribution to the surfacestations.org and volunteer Russ Steele for use of a photo on the cover page of their Exeter report, seen below:

I was a bit taken aback by the cover image (left, from NCDC’s Exter presentation), because it was straight from our surfacestations project (right, click image for gallery), but there was no attribution that I could find.

So yes, I was a little miffed that they’d used it, especially since it has been an ongoing problem with NCDC using my preliminary data (against my wishes) to write a paper.

So I fired off an email to Dr. Matt Menne of NCDC about the issue.

And I got a response a few days later. The email was friendly, apologetic, and offered two solutions. I opted to just have him do the solution that put our standard attribution on it….

So, apology made, attribution added, document updated, and the problem was solved. Simple, I’m satisfied. Of course I could have been a jerk about it and demanded all sorts actions via formal complaints, copyright claims, etc. But I didn’t. It simply didn’t rise to that level.

But I’m betting that I won’t even have to ask about adding Russ Steele’s name in place of “various contributors” He’ll see it here and fix it, or somebody will tell him.

Given all the wailing that has been going on about the Wegman report (Aka “copygate” Steve McIntyre sums it up pretty well here) and attribution to Bradley, and a whole strange set of circumstances, it seems to me that after four years of the Wegman report floating around the web, if Dr. Bradley really had an attribution issue, he could have avoiding the whole stink going on now by simply asking Dr. Wegman to modify the report in a way that satisfies whatever his complaint is.

But that would be too simple, too direct, and too professional. It also wouldn’t get the pound of flesh some of the players like John Mashey and “Deep Climate” want.

It’s a sad state of affairs, really, and only invites escalation of moribund issues beyond the scope of their actual worth.

See Anthony’s full post for illustrations and details.

It’s too bad that the Team (in its narrowest sense) doesn’t have similar courtesy.

Fiona Fox and the Babe Magnet

Fiona Fox is the director of the Science Media Center. She is in the news for a remarkable story here. [On June 30, Bishop Hill reported her comments on the NS Affair here.]

She hosted the press conferences for Oxburgh and Muir Russell. Board members for the Science Media Center include Bob Ward, known to CA readers and Mike Granatt,
Partner, Luther Pendragon, who was actively involved at all stages of the Muir Russell report.

She is in the news because of the decision of UK tribunal awarding UKP 35,000 to a former employee of Labour MP Jimmy Devine. The story:

The Edinburgh tribunal heard Devine told a pal to phone Marion [Kinley] pretending to be a journalist investigating office expenses. Miss Kinley alerted Devine to the message, but he insisted a newspaper was set to print an article about her wages – and claim they were having an AFFAIR.

Horrified Marion told the hearing: “He told me ‘they are going to say I’m paying you that much because you and I are having an affair’. “I said to him, ‘no amount of money would entice me to have an affair with you’.”

The story goes on to say that the next day she saw a message for Devine from Fiona Fox described as follows:

There was one marked urgent from Fiona Fox, Director at the Science Media Centre in London. There was a PS saying, ‘

I phoned that poor woman in your office and left the message. Hope you’ve put her out of her misery. Remind me never to work for you’

.

In a statement reported by the Guardian, Fox implausibly said that she thought that the phone call was merely an office “prank”.

I am pleased Miss Kinley has won her case and deeply regret being unwittingly drawn into this unpleasant saga. In a very, very small way I too was duped by this man. He had assured me that this kind of prank was part and parcel of the humour in his team and that his colleagues gave as good as they got. At that time I had no reason to doubt the integrity of a Member of Parliament who I got to know because of his public support for stem cell research during the Human Fertility and Embryology Bill in 2008

The story is worth reading in full. Also covered at Lucia and BIshop Hill and the Guardian. Here is a picture of babe magnet Devine:

Fiona Fox corresponded with Oxburgh last year. On April 14, after the report of the Oxburgh “inquiry”, she wrote Oxburgh and David Hand as follows:

Subject: FW: Oxburgh/UEA coverage so far
Dear Lord Oxburgh and David,
Just a quick note to show you some of the coverage we have picked up so far this afternoon. The Telegraph headline is perverse – but I must admit all the rest of the coverage looks good to me – even the Daily Mail!!l I wanted to say what a pleasure it was to have you two in the Science Media Centre today. Your whole approach and style was brilliant and you clearly endeared the journalists to yourselves through being so open and clear and compelling and robust. We’ve run many briefings on this subject now and this was by farthe most relaxed and enjoyable.

Hope it was a positive experience for you too – I loved the fact that you managed to squeeze in quite a few messages about the way science works and an ‘idiots guide to statistics’ while you were at it!

There’s another interesting exchange in late April. On April 23, she wrote to a number of parties:

subject: Newswatch on science in BBC news

… for those of you who get up at stupid O’Clock on Saturday mornings (those with small kids perhaps or insomnia?) Newswatch this week is on science news at the Beeb. There is an angry guy attacking science at beeb, Pallab defending it and me in the middle (well that’s if they use the nice things I said as well as the ‘what could be better’ ones – and if they don’t I’ll be lodging my own complaints!!) Enjoy the sunny weekend
Fiona

On April 26, Tom Heap replied to her email as follows:

Subject: Re: Newswatch on science in BBC news
Thanks for the tip. Got trapped in US by cloud so couldn’t do lomborg and watson at RI this week. Hoping to reschedule. By the way, Mann said Hand got his criticism of the stats all wrong and would be issuing a clarification/apology. True?

Later that day (Apr 26), in an email entitled “aghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!”, she passed Heap’s inquiry on to David Hand (cc – Oxburgh):

Subject: aghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Hi Folks – assuming (praying) this is not true? If it – or any version of it – is true – can we chat about it and how the SMC might help? If it’s rubbish someone might want to suggest to Michael Mann that he decease from suggesting it to BBC reporters.

By the way [Tom Heap] who wrote this, is my good friend (long term BBC science reporter)- he’s making a Panorama on Climate generally a very responsible reporter – so if you can give me a message to pass to him that would also be useful
Cheers guys
Fiona

See here for Heap’s interview with Mann.

On Apr 27, Hand replied to her (cc Oxburgh) as follows:

Subject: RE: aghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Dear Fiona,
There has been some misrepresentation of my views, which have not changed and which are the following. Mann et al (1998) used a non-standard statistical method, but the papers and reports I have examined which explore the impact of this suggest to me that it is unlikely that the qualitative conclusion will be affected by a more appropriate analysis, though clearly the precise impact depends on which series are included and any assumptions underlying the analysis.
Hope that clarifies things.
Thanks
David

Later that day, Oxburgh sent condolences to Hand:

Subject: RE: aghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
David,
I am sorry that your participation in our UEA study seems to have involved you further than we might have anticipated! If I can be of any help even remotely, please let me know.
Best,
Ron

I met her at the Guardian’s reception after their Muir Russell symposium, I tried to arrange a meeting with her during the couple of days that I was in London, but was unsuccessful. It turns out that she has a colorful personal history, including, according to Wikipedia, formerly being a “leading member of the Revolutionary Communist Party”. In 1995, under a pseudonym (Fiona Foster), she wrote a controversial article for Living Marxism entitled “Massacring the truth in Rwanda“, which is reported here and elsewhere as denying Rwandan genocide.

She and her sister Clare Fox, another activist, are profiled by The Times here, where she is reported to have cystic fibrosis, a very serious lifetime disease, the life expectancy for which is much less than Fiona’s 46 years – a point that readers should keep in mind.

Copygate

As readers know, Raymond Bradley’s allegation that “text was just lifted verbatim from my book and placed in the Wegman Report” has been widely publicized following Bradley’s interview with USA today. The allegation pertains to Wegman’s boilerplate section (2.1) describing proxies, a section in which neither MBH98-99 nor MM2003, 2005abcd are mentioned, and on which no Wegman conclusions depend. Nor does it affect the under oath endorsement of Wegman conclusions given at the House Committee hearings by Gerald North and Peter Bloomfield – see here.

There seem to be several related issues. Although Wegman cites Bradley no fewer than six times in the approximately 1640 words of section 2.1, there are some suggestions that this was insufficient homage. The more problematic issue pertains to the lifting of text with very slight paraphrasing. This issue is not unique to the Wegman Report. As shown below, substantially similar situations arise with the Oxford Companion to Global Change, the Climate Change Study Guide, Enviropedia and Luterbacher et al 2010, and, under a zero-tolerance policy, with Bradley 1999 itself.

Plagiarism is not a topic that has been discussed much at Climate Audit. Nonetheless, given the lengths to which the Team has gone from time to time to avoid the slightest acknowledgment of Climate Audit, I welcome this new zeal on the part of climate scientists against plagiarism, which, by definition, also includes using the “ideas” of “another person without giving appropriate credit”

Continue reading

Chladni and the Bristlecones

Some of the CA posts that I’ve found most interesting to write have been about identifying Chladni patterns in supposedly “significant” reconstructions when principal component methods have been applied to spatially autocorrelated red noise. (This is by no means a new observation, as warnings about the risks of building “castles in the air” using principal components is prominent in the older climate literature (from the 1970s), but seemingly forgotten in the IPCC period. I did several posts on Chladni patterns in the Stahle/SWM network used in MBH99 and about Chladni patterns in the Steig et al 2009 Antarctic network (in the latter case, observing that eigenvectors said in the Nature article to have physical significance were, in fact, nothing more than the expected Chladni patterns from spatially autocorrelated data in a region shaped like Antarctica.

The second half of the McShane Wyner paper applies a sort-of MBH99 style analysis to the Mann 2008 network. In their case, instead of applying PCA to the North American tree ring (and similar networks) and combining the PCs with individual proxies as in MBH, they applied principal components to the entire proxy network. Although principal components were integral to MBH99 (and to the reprise of MBH in Rutherford et al 2005), principal components are not an important feature of the majority of AR4 studies – which, for the most part, reverted back to the simple CPS methods of Bradley and Jones 1993 and Jones et al 1998 or poorly-understood RegEM.

In my earlier discussions of Mannian networks, we observed the concentration of proxies in the bristlecone area, but since then have developed some tools for analysing spatial autocorrelation that I didn’t have at the time of the original study.

Applying these methods to the Mann et al 2008 network (McShane Wyner 93 proxy selection) yields some provocative results. (Results for the Gavin Schmidt 55 proxy subset are probably similar and I’ll get to them on another occasion.)

I’ve done three plots below showing weights in the style that I’ve been using – the area of the filled circle proportional to the weight. Red for positive weights, blue for negative weights. (I’ve plotted the gridcell beside Sheep Mountain in orange to avoid it being overprinted by the Sheep Mountain gridcell – there’s no significance to the orange otherwise.) In each case, I’ve added up weights in a gridcell and plotted values by gridcell. Click on the plot below for a larger version.

The figure at left show simple counts. In the Mann2008/MW93 subset, there are 24 bristlecone series, which are reflected in relatively high weights in the bristlecone area. The middle plot is the eigenvector corresponding to a PC1 from spatially autocorrelated red noise located at the locations of the actual proxies – for this calculation, I used spatiall decorrelation of exp (- distance_km/1200), a decorrelation factor more or less equivalent to what we’ve seen in station data. It’s worth experimenting with this. By working directly on the correlation matrix, you can get the eigenvector directly (you could do lots of simulations, but you don’t need to.) Notice what taking the principal component does: it focuses the weights on the bristlecone area, and makes “peripheral” weights almost negligible. This is a more extreme version of what we saw with the Antarctic Chladni patterns. There the PC1 tended to overweight the center of the region and underweight the boundary (this is the Chladni pattern of a drum). It’s even more extreme here – the Chladni pattern is really focused on the bristlecone area with negligible weights on the periphery. Take a look at the graph and I’ll discuss the actual proxy network eigenvector afterwards.


Left- Counts; middle – eigenvector for spatially autocorrelated PC1 given proxy locations; right- eigenvector for M08-MW93 network PC1.

The eigenvector for the actual proxy PC1 is “remarkably similar” (TM – climate science) to the eigenvector for spatially autocorrelated red noise at locations of the actual proxies. However, there are a few very interesting details. There are two negatively-oriented proxies in the actual PC1 in central America. The Yucatan proxy in question has a very elevated medieval warm period. Because this is antithetical to the bristlecone pattern, it is flipped over in the PC1. This is related to the phenomenon observed in McMc 2005 (EE) where we observed that proxies with a warm early 15th century introduced into an augmented network would be flipped over because of the way that bristlecones imprinted the PC1.

Other noticeable details: the two Tiljander proxies retained in the Mann 2008 (MW93) network fight the tendency to downweight “peripheral” proxies in the PC1 and are noticeably weighted. The “Tornetrask” series also receives a higher weight than in the spatially autocorrelated version – as I noted on another occasion, Briffa’s Yamal series is averaged with Tornetrask (and Taimyr) and used as “Tornetrask”.

Next, here is an interesting comparison of the eigenvalues for spatially autocorrelated red noise at actual proxy locations and for the actual M08 (MW93) proxy network. On the left is a “scree” plot showing the squared eigenvalues (log scale) for the actual proxy network as compared to spatially autocorrelated red noise. Gavin Schmidt has an eigenvalue comparison in the Schmidt et al comment on Mc_W, but does not consider the potential impact of non-random spatial distribution of proxy locations. On the right is the cumulative eigenvalue weights.

The 2nd and higher eigenvalues for the proxy network are higher than the corresponding eigenvalues for spatially autocorrelated red noise. However, the first eigenvalue for spatially autocorrelated red noise is a LOT higher than the actual network and the cumulative eigenvalue weights for the actual network are lower at all points than spatially autocorrelated red noise.

I’m mulling over the interpretation of these results, but my first impression is that the results of the actual network are forced by the unique properties of the bristlecones. The bristlecone pattern is very distinct and imprints the PC1 of the actual network; lower eigenvectors are various contrasts with the bristlecones and are more heavily weighted because the bristlecones are somewhat sui generis.

Chladni patterns are pretty interesting in themselves. In the present case, the bristlecones result in a mathematically interesting sort of symmetry-breaking.

As observed on other occasions, the NAS panel said that strip bark should be “avoided” in temperature reconstructions, but, like the dead parrot in Monty Python, they were re-sold in Mann et al 2008 (notwithstanding its claims that it complied with NAS recommendations) and included in the MW analysis. In the Schmidt comment, he says that these have been vindicated by Hughes and Funkhouser 2009 (not available at the time of Mann et al 2008), with Gavin Schmidt pointedly avoiding any discussion of Linah Ababneh’s failure to replicate Graybill’s Sheep Mountain chronology.