Deep Climate has been reading the stolen emails that Steve McIntyre didn't mention:
Arguing from a cherrypicked selection of quotes from the "Climategate" emails, McIntyre has claimed that IPCC authors Chris Folland and Michael Mann pressured Briffa to submit a reconstruction that would not "dilute the message" by showing "inconsistency" with multi-proxy reconstructions from Mann and Briffa's CRU colleague Phil Jones. Briffa "hastily re-calculated his reconstruction", sending one with a supposedly larger post-1960 decline before. According to McIntyre, Mann resolved this new "conundrum" and simply "chopped off the inconvenient portion of the Briffa tree-ring data".
But a review of the emails - including some that have never been quoted before - clearly contradicts McIntyre's version of events:
- Jones and Briffa were concerned that Mann had an outdated version of the Briffa reconstruction, and both urged the adoption of the newer "low frequency" one, more appropriate for comparison with other multi-century reconstructions.
- Far from pressuring Briffa to change his reconstruction right away, Mann questioned whether an immediate change was required, or even possible, and counselled waiting for the next revision.
- CRU colleague Tim Osborn advised Mann that he and Briffa "usually stopped" the "low frequency" reconstruction in 1960, and went one better in his later "resend" to Mann, by explicitly removing the post-1960 data.
And be sure to vote in the poll at the end of the post on McIntyre's next move.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Ah...
...I'd bet that we won't see this on any of the Denialati sites.
You know, DC is another whom I would happily give three votes to were he [up for a seed grant](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/please_vote_for_peter_sinclair…).
The guy is as patient and dogged as a glacier, and as meticulous as an obsessive/compulsive with a career in foresics.
He's another real fly in the denialist ointment, and he's systematically peeling the layers away from several of the contrarians' squishy onions.
Kudos.
Odd problem when pasting the link with a space, here is as close as I can get to a helpful link
Jakerman ...
if you convert using "tinyurl.com" it can be really simple to do
Jakerman, you can also use this code
[a href = "http://www.link.com"]Link Description[/a]
Replace "[" and "]" with "<" and ">"
It should be "Executive" in the title.
OK, fixed the link. That's not a regular space in the URL -- it's a non-breaking space.
> You know, DC is another whom I would happily give three votes to were he up for a seed grant.
Ditto. Awesome work.
Let me say that this is one of the most reprehensible attacks on a reputable scientist that I have seen, and the so-called tsunami of accusations made in regards to climategate are nothing in compared to the attack on McIntyre.
tonetrolled ;)
DC's forensic work is to be applauded. Very interesting to re-read Judith Curry's comments on the matter (which DC presents in the comment section )written the time the McI twisted the emails to select his dodgy narrative).
tonetrolled,
you're gonna enjoy this... DC promised more.
More muck on Muckintyre?.
Let me say that this is one of the most reprehensible attacks on a reputable scientist that I have seen, and the so-called tsunami of accusations made in regards to climategate are nothing in compared to the attack on McIntyre.
Please explain how the "attacks" cited in the article at Deep Climate are not truthful. If they are truthful, how can they be reprehensible?
[I had initially thought to post this on DC's thread, but because my tone is a little more narky than is usually invited by his approach to blogging, I'll put it here instead - and no slight to our esteemed host intended!]
----------
DC.
Beautifully dissected, as ever.
You are performing an invaluable service for science and for history, and this value will certainly be appreciated all the more as the weeks, months, and years pass.
Aside from the off-topic questions about the import with respect to professional impropriety, this piecing together of the history begs the question: if McIntyre and his allies are unable to accurately report the day-to-day exchanges of informal correspondence, what qualifies them to comment with any authority at all on the science underpinning said correspondence?
As to Judith Curry, for about a year now I've ben growing ever more doubtful about her objectivity in matters pertaining to AGW. It seems that any doubt on my part is being rapidly clarified...
Perhaps I am being overly-harsh in my conclusion, but from where I stand, hers would appear to be a reputation that has suffered just about more than anyone else's in this tawdry saga. At least, such would appear to be so amongst those who have the real scientific literacy to deconstruct the material - what passes for a 'reputation' in the eyes of the cheering crowds of the uninformed denialati is another matter entirely.
Alas - for both McIntyre and for Curry - the merciless memory of the Interweb.
Apologies for the wonky URL (there was a "space" character in it between "climategate" and "emails").
This one should work better - hopefully Tim can update the link.
http://deepclimate.org/2010/05/14/how-to-be-a-climate-science-auditor-p…
And, of course, thanks to Tim for highlighting my research for the second time in a week! It's very much appreciated.
Does it hurt?
@Erasmussimo,
Irony doesn't always translate well to written text. Tonetrolled's comment is a snipe at Judith Curry, who on a comment thread after an interview of Keith Kloor with Curry went ballistic when people pointed to the plagiarism in the Wegman report. How DARE someone attack a reputable scientist with such outrageous claims! It wasn't true! It's scandalous!
After providing some more facts, Curry rapidly retreated... ultimately proclaiming ignorance on several matters concerning the Wegman report!
Erasmussimo (and others),
Tonetrolled was just ironically quoting
Curry.
8 tonetrolled,
A Poe, right? In case you aren't...
McFraudit is not a scientist.
Every post he makes is an attack on the competence and/or honesty of climate scientists. He never calls anyone an outright fraud but that is what he implies. It is only fitting that his claims are audited.
Deep Climate is meticulous to be sure. I recommend his painstaking work on the Wegman Report, but it's not a quick read.
17 Marco,
Doh! I've been Poe'd! (Comment held.)
What is the matter with Curry? Surely she's not gone emeritus? Or was she never up to much?
Oops. Seems I owe tonetrolled an apology.
...but you are gonna enjoy this ;-)
As a clASS A tone troll himself, it's amusing that Erasmussimo doesn't grasp that a poster with the id of "tonetrolled" might have applied a tongue to the cheek.
Judith Curry on tsunamis: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/04/second-cru-inquir…
"After providing..."
Sorry, this is a pet niggle of mine. It should read "after being provided with...". Curry was the object of the provision, the person who was furnished with the facts, which forces the passive voice.
Chuckle.
Y'all remember this?
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/I_am_aware_of_all_internet_traditions
Judith Curry may deserve an entry there for this one:
"To see such a respected academic accused in this way (with the accusations so obviously baseless) is absolutely reprehensible."
23 Hank,
Your link has underscores, converted to italic on/off here. [This](http://encyclopediadramatica.com/I_am_aware_of_all_internet_traditions) should work.
Is there likely to be a 40% tax on the profits of the quote miners?
"McIntyre's next move" will be entirely consistent with the moves of a mining industry shill.Unfortunately investigation of McIntyre by the main stream media has been entirely inadequate. At least the Guardian needs to allocate a team to him.
> Is there likely to be a 40% tax on the profits of the quote miners?
Maybe we need to ask a minor prophet for a quote on the matter?
Bill @ 27:
"Unfortunately investigation of McIntyre by the main stream media has been entirely inadequate."
I agree. Anyone know a good reporter working for an international media outlet who has some integrity? Ooh, ooh, I know Richard Black, Pearce, Revkin, Rose, Leake etc.! Things are not looking good are they?
Anyhow, maybe some readers here have established contact with a reputable and ethical journalist and they can hopefully encourage said journalist to give DC's sleuthing the attention it deserves.
I know of one reporter who would probably cover this, but they work for a regional outlet.
Talking of Jonathan Leake . . see his new blog. Maybe not so sceptical after all
http://cma.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Environment/article275…
Unfortunately investigation of McIntyre by the main stream media has been entirely inadequate.
True, but coverage of Mr. McIntyre has also been sparse. I did a quick search on his name in Google News and got lots of hits from right-wing sites and such world-famous publications as the Ethiopian Review, as well as this blog, but only one mainstream newspaper mentioned him: the Washington Post, and the mentions contained no editorial content, they simply listed him as a correspondent of Mr. Mann.
By contrast, I found quite a few references to Mr. Mann, from the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Daily Mail, and yes, Fox News (you can imagine how that was slanted).
Erasmussimo @31, I find in general that those caught up in advocacy tend to exaggerate the power and influence of the opposition. On this blog and a few others there is often a lot of chatter about McIntyre, and even about the likes of Watts. Plimer, Monckton and even Booker are also often talked up as if their material was of far more influence than is the case.
In truth, all of those guys are a net asset to the important work of getting agreement on how to handle global warming, because their credibility as the opposition is so low and their arguments are so desperate.
They are influential only in their own minds, unless we make the mistake of taking them seriously. Just let them get on with it, and don't make the mistake of turning them into bogies. It's much more important to answer sensible questions from people wanting to know about global warming (and sure, that does involve dissecting some of the weird and wonderful nonsense coming out of Watts' and McIntyre's blogs).
But Mann has influence.
@32 It is hard to quantify these things and they should be. It is my gut feeling that McIntyre is the generator of a large number of talking points for the denialoshere and sits at the centre of it.
McIntyre is an effective strategist , the "science" he comes out with is bunkum but serves its purpose for his Gish gallop.
TonySidaway:
You've obviously never heard of the Liberal Party in Australia or their current leader.
> You've obviously never heard of the Liberal Party in Australia or their current leader.
Senator Fielding springs to mind as well...
Fielding certainly wins the prize for being the most clueless on climate, having been completely suckered in by the nonsense sprouted overseas by Inhofe's crowd. Even more worrying, as an "independent" senator in a Senate where either governing party often relies on support from 3rd parties to get legislation passed, he has a fair bit of power.
DeepClimate blogged about his thesis in December
http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mcintyre-provides-fodder-for-skeptics/
He is rehashing the same thing again.
His reading of the Folland email is flawed.
>*His reading of the Folland email is flawed.*
In some mysteriously unsayable way? Your mere assertion ain't enough Shub.
If by "flawed" you mean more correct, I agree. The "flaw" is a natural result of including the text omitted by ellipses. For example, I could quote you with ellipses:
Then I can paint you as someone who doesn't even have the beginnings of a clue what the actual issues are. Problems with email? Wha? Then when someone else points out that the reading changes by re-including the text omitted with ellipses, I'll simply say their reading is "flawed."
In fact this is precisely what has been documented Plimer famously did with one of his source-quotes in his silly book.
"His reading of the Folland email is flawed."
Becomes
"...the Folland email is flawed.
DeepClimate starts the December post with the line:
"This so-called Climategate is really getting out of hand, isnât it?"
You've got to give the guys some marks for comprehension. ;)
DeepClimate conclusion about the email series in his second analysis is:
"So, once again, the accusation that it was IPCC lead author Mann who decided to âtruncate the series at 1960â³ is clearly contradicted."
McIntyre's conclusion in his 'analysis' about the email series is:
"Mannâs IPCC trick is related to the Jonesâ trick, but different. (The Jones trick has been explained in previous CA posts here, here and consists of replacing the tree ring data with temperature data after 1960 â thereby hiding the decline â and then showing the smoothed graph as a proxy reconstruction.) While some elements of the IPCC Trick can be identified with considerable certainty, other elements are still somewhat unclear."
I'll leave it to your readers to make what they will - of both interpretations.
I spent some time reading and re-reading both Deepclimate's initial December post, and his latest post. I read McIntyre's post once more too.
I think both of them are right, and both of them are wrong. I am not being disingenuous.
Yeah. Splunge for me too.
Why is it the people with no judgment imagine we want their unsupported take on everyth ... oh, wait, never mind.
Here's my coverage of the denial festival from the Heartland Institute, if interested...
International Conference on Climate Change: Many Villages Report Missing Idiots During Event
http://anarchist606.blogspot.com/2010/05/international-conference-on-cl…
Telegraph's Resident Idiot Talks Idioique
http://anarchist606.blogspot.com/2010/05/telegraphs-resident-idiot-talk…
You want judgement, delgado?
DeepClimate's conlcusion that McIntyre blamed Mann for the 1960 truncation ...is wrong.
There you go - play with that bone.
I bet you did not read through any of the three posts patiently.
Everyone sees what they want - DeepClimate included.
Shub have you posted this claim of your at DC's?
Of course Shub has not. He'd be slammed with the facts right away. But unfortunately for him, the same happens here:
http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/mcintyre-trinity.2010.pdf
"IPCC section author Mann resolved the conundrum. He chopped off the inconvenient portion of the Briffa tree ring data â the portion where it goes down â and tucked the end point under other data, giving a rhetorical impression of consistency."
A direct quote from Steve McIntyre claiming Mike Mann removed the 'inconvenient portion' (which would be the post-1960 part).
I should. But I have a suspicion it wont be well received. Not for any fault of DC - I think he tries to work out things.
If you look at the '0' draft of the multi-proxy curve, the green Briffa line has 'problems' - it does not go well with the Mann's and Jones'.
Folland notes that this 'dilutes the message'. By this he could have meant:
1) The message of unprecedented warming is diluted
2) The message that paleoclimatologists are able to capture temperature fluctuations at all timescales especially centennial and therefore understand what is going on, is diluted.
Mann correctly understood that Folland is talking about (2) which McIntyre doesnt give credit for. Briffa on the other hand, took Folland's comment to mean, *among other things* that Folland implied (1) - which DeepClimate doesn't give credit for.
It is a mess.
If we go by what the Paleo team *did* under Mann's leadership - they recreated and made a new version of the Briffa curve (which suddenly gets rid of the 'centennial non-variability' issue AKA the issue that Mann identified AKA the issue that Briffa's curve differs in large part in the opposite direction from Mann's and Jones' does), and chopped off post-1960s data without explanation.
Taking Jones' recent comments in the media, and Briffa's email observations it can be concluded that the CRU scientists think differently about the MWP than Mann
Regards
Shub I suggest you post it there (at DC's) if you want an informed comment. I've not trawled through the emails, but if you back yourself, then put your views through the scrutiny that is necessary.
There. Fixed it for you.
Thanks zoot. ;)
For 'seeing' that sentence, amongst the remaining stuff I had written.
Shorter Shub Niggurath:
When I say "everyone", I mean "everyone except me". Therefore, you're wrong and I'm right, although I won't literally say that you're wrong, because I'm not making any actual claims. But anyway, we're all biased, and therefore I'm not biased.
When I say 'everyone', I mean - Mann, Briffa, McIntyre and Deepclimate. These are the people reacting to and interpreting the initial Folland email referring to the 'truth'. I don't mean commenters like you and me.
Bam - Mann is *responsible* for the 1960's nip and tuck - as Lead Author on that chapter. It did happen.
DC is trying to argue that McIntyre concludes
1) The decline is the only problem with the Briffa curve
2) And he solved it by leaning on Briffa to chop it
This analysis of DC ...is wrong.
McIntyre says that and says more things too. Where did all that go?
DC's interpretation that Folland and Mann were talking about the centennial variation issue is correct. But he had this right even in December. McIntyre did not acknowledge that.
I am talking about it here, I express my opinion, but what is the point? You the concerned should head over to ClimateAudit and tap McIntyre on his shoulder.
Like bender notes in the CA thread - what were Briffa and Mann doing recalculating Briffa's curve? Even leaving the truncation aside, the whole thing just flips belly-up, so to speak. How did that happen?
Like I said, it is a mess.
Shorter Shub Niggurath:
When I say "everyone", I don't mean "everyone", I only mean certain people. Everyone is biased, and I'm not biased. It's a fact that DeepClimate got some things wrong and some things right. At least, in my opinion, it's a fact. Well, it is a fact. But that's only my opinion.
Sometimes I wonder to myself: why am I posting here? Then I figured out the answer: I'm posting here because you, the Global Warming Believer, aren't posting at McIntyre's blog. That's why I need to post here. It's all your fault!
Frank: Out of ideas? ;)
"Sometimes I wonder to myself: why am I posting here?"
If that question crossed my mind - I wouldn't post here. I feel there are a few sensible people acting like teenagers, along with the rest who seem to be really teenagers.
What I really do wonder is: What if we clean up all the reverse psychology crap that is spewed, by habit? How would the comments section look like?
Shorter Shub Niggurath:
What I really said was "I am talking about it here, I express my opinion, but what is the point?" I never asked why I am posting here! It's completely different!
You're like teenagers. And I'm like an adult, though I won't say that outright. Therefore, I'm a very humble man, though I won't say that outright.
Therefore, global warming is a hoax, though I won't say that outright.
So Shub did you end up posting your thought at DC's? Or are you just crusing?
Frank: Your shorter version is 'longer' than mine.
I wonder if that is a teenage thing.
Ha! :)
I've posted at DeepClimate.
Shub, where?
I searched [the thread at DC's](http://deepclimate.org/2010/05/14/how-to-be-a-climate-science-auditor-p…) and no Shub could I find.
It is there. I've asked for email numbers.
Yet its [come through now](http://deepclimate.org/2010/05/14/how-to-be-a-climate-science-auditor-p…) Shub.
I suggest you repeat [your claims](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/mcintyre_the_quote_mining_exec…) that you made here and prompt DC et al to review review them (for relevance and accuracy etc.).
Fake regression lines are common with the Friends of Science, a Calgary denial cult. They typically show the 2002-2010 trend, claim it is a decade, and start their regression line close to a maximum. Their current regression line stops in 2009, as the 2009/2010 El Nino would create a positive trend.
Ooops, wrong thread. My apologies!
The Strange Case of Dr. Curry and Ms. Denied