McIntyre

Deep Climate catches Steve McIntyre in a particularly outrageous piece of quote mining. McIntyre strips a sentence written by Trenberth from its context to make it appear that Trenberth was saying that Jones was an IPCC author for the first time, when in fact Trenberth was saying that Jones was an IPCC lead author for the first time. My comment from a previous McIntyre quote mining incident still applies: You don't have to take my word for any of this -- check it out for yourself and ask yourself if you can trust the claims McIntyre makes about things that aren't so easy to check.

The discussion involving Judith Curry and The Hockey Stick Illusion has continued at Collide-a-Scape, with posts on the views of Judith Curry (Curry did admit to getting one of her ten points wrong, but not the other nine) and those of Gavin Schmidt. Steve McIntyre's comments in the second thread provides another case where readers can judge the reliability of his claims without having to delve into the mathematics. He wrote: The non-Stickness of Mann-style reconstructions without bristlecones+Gaspe or with reduced bristlecone+Gaspe weight - a point conceded by Wahl and Ammann - was…

Last month Judith Curry challenged folks to respond to Bishop Hill/Montford's book The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science So I am laying down the gauntlet, this really needs to discussed and rebutted by the paleo researchers and the IPCC defenders. and In the context of the hockey stick wars, Montford clearly describes the three main critiques that MM had of MBH98,99: i) inappropriate use of centering in the principal component analysis; ii) stripbark bristlecones are not reliable as a proxy; iii) the R2 statistic needs to be used in the assessment of…

Deep Climate investigates Steve McIntyre's claim that, in the IPCC TAR, Michael Mann used a "trick" to "hide the decline" in Briffa's tree-ring proxy. You will be shocked, just shocked, to discover that: So, once again, the accusation that Mann "truncated" or "chopped off" the data set is proven to be utterly false.

Steve McIntyre claims: One version of the trick is used in IPCC TAR. In this version, Mann replaced post-1960 values of the Briffa reconstruction with instrumental values, then did a smooth, then truncated the Briffa reconstruction back to 1960. Post-1960 instrumental values affected the smooth by the arithmetic of the smoothing filter. Steven Mosher claims that the same "trick" was used in IPCC AR4. Arthur Smith investigated and shows that the 1960-truncated Briffa curve in AR4 was not padded with instrumental values, but rather with the mean of the adjacent existing values, exactly as…

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…

Deep Climate documents what happened when Steve McIntyre combined his talent for making mountains out of molehills with David Rose's talent for fabrication: So in summary, we have a nonsensical accusation of "artful" manipulation of a key graph. And we have a fake "blowup" from the Mail on Sunday that contains important differences with the real figure. Read the whole thing.

The phrase "hide the decline" from the stolen CRU emails has been taken out of context and construed to refer to a decline in temperatures this century when in fact it was a reference to a decline in tree-ring density since 1961. Steve McIntyre knows this, but instead of a correction, he offers another misrepesentation of its meaning, quote mining the stolen emails to argue that the IPCC was hiding stuff: IPCC Lead Authors met in Arusha, Tanzania from September 1 to 3, 1999 ... at which the final version of the "zero-order" draft of the Third Assessment Report was presented and discussed…

One of McIntyre's repeated complaints about Briffa was that he refused to release his data. For example, in his post Fresh Data on Briffa's Yamal #1: A few days ago, I became aware that the long-sought Yamal measurement data url had materialized at Briffa's website - after many years of effort on my part and nearly 10 years after its original use in Briffa (2000). I am very grateful to the editors of Phil Trans B (Roy Soc) - at long last, a journal editor stood up to CRU, requiring Briffa to archive supporting data. This got turned into statements like this one, from Tom Fuller: The data,…

Over the past few days we have had another outbreak of stories of how global warming has been totally disproved. For example, James Delingpole: the global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie When finally McIntyre plotted in a much larger and more representative range of samples than used those used by Briffa - though from exactly the same area - the results he got were startlingly different. The scary red line shooting upwards is the one Al Gore, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa and their climate-fear-promotion chums would like you to believe in. The black one, heading downwards,…

Atmoz examines a Climate Audit thread as Steve McIntyre and company wrestle with the question of why the northern hemisphere is warming faster than the southern hemisphere.

Global warming skeptics just keep trying to show that Hansen's projections in in his 1988 climate model were wrong. We've had Pat Michaels, who dishonestly erased scenarios B and C from Hansen's graph, Willis Eschenbach at Climate Audit, who used the wrong baseline for temperature data and Steve McIntyre used some erroneous data of satellite-measured temperatures from RSS. McIntyre is at it again, producing the graph below. I have digitally enhanced the big red dot McIntyre put on the June 2008 GISS temperature. I think we can all agree that Hansen 1988 completely failed to project the June…

Back in January, Steve McIntyre used some erroneous data of satellite-measured temperatures from RSS to argue that Hansen's 1988 temperature projections were too high. A week later he posted a corrected graph, blaming RSS for not making the error clear: The fact that users are "falling into the RSS error trap" is one more good reason why RSS should have issued a clear error notice, rather than the obscure readme. They should issue a proper notice of the error in their public webpages and wherever else appropriate. But McIntyre did not follow his advice to RSS, and failed to make a correction…

David Rado emails: although the accuracy sections of our complaint were considered under section 2.2 of the broadcasting code, that was not the section that we had complained under. We complained primarily under section 5.7, but Ofcom decided section 5.7 only related to news programmes. We don't think the code makes it at all clear that it the requirement for accuracy only applies to news programmes (which is why we complained under that section) - and if it's really true that science documentaries are not expected to be accurate, that is a serious indictment of the broadcasting code. Hmmm,…

Eli Rabett chronicles the Climate Audit comedy of errors. One consequence of the error in the RSS satellite data is that the global warming skeptics switched to using RSS, and now they can't switch back without making it look realy obvious what they are up to. Update: McIntyre has a new post where he claims: In the same post that Rabett criticized here, as originally written, I had incorrectly missed a comment in Hansen et al 1988 saying that Scenario B was the "most plausible", an error which I picked up about 8 hours after the original posting (about 9 am EST) and immediately corrected it…

In a 1988 paper James Hansen presented three scenarios (A, B and C) for future climate change, saying that Scenario B was the most plausible. In 1998 Pat Michaels committed scientific fraud when he erased scenarios B and C from Hansen's graph to argue that Hansen's predictions was out by 300%. In fact, as you can see from the graph below (updated to include 2007 temperatures), his predictions have been pretty close to reality. (More discussion at RealClimate.) You can bet that if a mainstream climate scientist had done anything one tenth as bad, Steve McIntyre would be all over it, but not…

Nexus 6 puts Steve McIntyre's paranoia into pictures.

If you've never heard of the Data Quality Act go read this article by Chris Mooney. Back? Good. Steve McIntyre, still angry after a comment was not released from moderation on Christmas Day, is now trying to use the Data Quality Act against RealClimate. As far as I can make out, because Gavin Schmidt works for NASA, McIntyre thinks that the stringent peer review hurdles of the Data Quality Act (inserted by a tobacco lobbyist to make it harder to use the scientific evidence on the dangers of cigarette smoke) should apply to RealClimate. I wonder where McIntyre learned about the ins and outs…

Some time ago, Steve McIntyre insinuated that Gavin Schmidt was dishonest after one of McIntyre's comments was held up in moderation. In his latest post (at 9:20 am on December 26) McIntyre complains that: realclimate censored my post, which pointed out an incident of realclimate fallability, as opposed to admitting and correcting that part of their post which was in error. After all, he'd posted his comment at 5:00 pm on December 24, and they'd had all of December 25 to approve it. What other explanation could there be for the fact that it was not through moderation by 9:20 am on December…

The McIntyre factor is the amount that you have to multiply the size of an adjustment in the GISS US temperatures by to get the number of words in the resulting Steve McIntyre post. Empirical evidence puts the McIntyre factor at 125,000. You see, on Sep 10 GISS made some small changes: We switched to the current version of USHCN data set which includes data through 2005. The effect of this change is shown by the following graphs. Also see tables of comparisons for globe and US-only. In the US, 1998 and 1934 each changed by just 0.01 degrees C. So naturally Steve McIntyre wrote a 2,500…