Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« That's telling him | Main | Gatekeeping continues »
Tuesday
May292012

Tim Osborn responds to the Yamal furore

I've just noticed that UEA has posted a response to the recent flurry of postings about Yamal, both at Climate Audit and here.

It's authored by Tim Osborn and can be seen here.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (85)

Summary: We're NOT LIARS. We may be incompetent, we may not talk to each other, but we're NOT LIARS!

May 29, 2012 at 3:59 PM | Unregistered Commentersteveta

It doesn't appear to be there any more. I just get an empty page.

May 29, 2012 at 4:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterDominic Allkins

move along people ...get on with your lives

May 29, 2012 at 4:07 PM | Unregistered Commenterconfused

@Dominic Allkins

It still works for me.

May 29, 2012 at 4:12 PM | Unregistered Commenteranonym

We note that much of the challenge to CRU’s work has not always followed the conventional
scientific method of checking and seeking to falsify conclusions or offering alternative
hypotheses for peer review and publication. We believe this is necessary if science is to move
on, and we hope that all those involved on all sides of the climate science debate will adopt
this approach.

What the hell does this mean, this can be read so many ways its not worth the webpage its written on.

May 29, 2012 at 4:13 PM | Registered CommenterBreath of Fresh Air

Expect Richard Black's report in the next day or so - all his own investigative work naturally

May 29, 2012 at 4:22 PM | Registered Commentermangochutney

And where's the rebuttal to Steve M's claim that the hockey-stickness of Yamal is largely down to one tree? Or is that accepted?

May 29, 2012 at 4:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterNeil McEvoy

BoFA

This means that you are not supposed to criticise published work by talking openly about it on blog posts. You have to put your criticism in the form of a paper into a respected, controlled, journal to be reviewed, rejected, by peer scientists, the team and their entourage,
Failure to do so is just.... just... just not cricket old boy! They can't be criticised by just any old Tom, Dick or Steve, they've earned the right of unopposed dictatorial expression just ask the RS.

May 29, 2012 at 4:31 PM | Registered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

I don't know...there is nothing there. There is a pdf, there are some words written on it.

May 29, 2012 at 4:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

But that in no way contradicts our statement to Muir-Russell that, at the time of writing the 2008 paper, Keith Briffa simply did not consider the possibility of including that data in the Yamal chronology. It was a year after I had done the work that included Khadyta River, I’m not sure if Briffa even knew which sites I’d used in 2006

Unless or until Keith Briffa (not the monkey) comes up with a plausible explanation why he did not include Khadyta River data and chose data in a way that appears to have had no other purpose other than to create a false hockey stick, this protestations of innocence are pathetic.

We know the data was available. We know the data was needed. We know it had already been used in 2006. There is no excuse for it not being used in 2008.

It speaks volumes that this is third hand "I don't think he .... " and not Keith Briffa saying "The reason I did it was ..." .

All we have is Tim Osborn who is claiming to know nothing and then asserting it cannot be a lie. Which is it Tim?

Do you know nothing and cannot say whether it was a lie in which case everything you write is a pointless load of tripe. Or do you know a lot more than you suggest and like Keith Briffa are you trying to defend the indefensible?

And yes it can be entirely accurate that the Khadyta River data was "not considered" and that you misled Sir Muir Russel .... because it was not consider because the intention was to fabricate the false hockey stick.

Just saying the statement is true, does not mean the intention was not to deceive.

There was every reason to use the Khadyta River data. There was no reason not to use it. No plausible explanation has ever been offered as to why it was created except by those who suggest it was to fabricate a hockey stick. As the saying goes: "when every other plausible explanation has been rejected as tosh ... what remains must be the truth".

May 29, 2012 at 4:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterScottish Sceptic

Tim: Keith, have you considered using the Khadyta River I used two years ago?

Keith: No, I've not considered it.

End of.

May 29, 2012 at 5:13 PM | Unregistered Commentersteveta

Is it fair to summarize this as a head-in-the-sediments response?

May 29, 2012 at 5:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterJEM

Scottish Sceptic: “Unless or until Keith Briffa (not the monkey) comes up with a plausible explanation why he did not include Khadyta River data and chose data in a way that appears to have had no other purpose other than to create a false hockey stick, this protestations of innocence are pathetic.”

I suspect that Osborn is being used as a sacrificial g*t, sorry goat, to test the water before Briffa is allowed to open his mouth.

May 29, 2012 at 5:24 PM | Registered CommenterSalopian

May 29, 2012 at 4:31 PM | Lord Beaverbrook

I am sure that is exactly what Tim thought he said, but he has written it so badly it could be taken as meaning the opposite.

We note that much of the challenge to CRU’s work has not always followed the conventional
scientific method of checking and seeking to falsify conclusions or offering alternative
hypotheses for peer review and publication.......... we hope that all those involved on all sides of the climate science debate will adopt
this approach.

As he did not specify which approach is to be adopted it could mean either should be adopted.

May 29, 2012 at 5:32 PM | Registered CommenterBreath of Fresh Air

BH,


The link in your post to Osborn's article at UEA/CRU worked earlier but now is down.


John

May 29, 2012 at 5:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Whitman

Was this put out in the university's (or even CRU's) name? Seems strange to put out an official press release "No, we are not liars". Wonder if Osborn was leant on, blog gossip getting embarrassing, time to shut down the chatter? If that was the plan, looks like another own goal

May 29, 2012 at 5:59 PM | Unregistered Commenterbill

@Salopian - the question being whether Briffa's inclined to open his mouth at all.

May 29, 2012 at 6:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterJEM

Well something that Steve mentioned at CA is still there for all to see; the tree count drops dramatically just at the point where they need to demonstrate extra warming. I wonder why that could be?

May 29, 2012 at 6:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterDung

Any of you guys steal any trees around those times??? -.-

May 29, 2012 at 6:06 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Well our Gav has been taken to the cleaners by Mr McIntyre so it will be interesting to see what happens next?

May 29, 2012 at 6:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterStacey

If UEA link does not work, try this cached version.

May 29, 2012 at 6:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

"We note that much of the challenge to CRU’s work has not always followed the conventional scientific method of checking and seeking to falsify conclusions..."
.
How else would one characterise McIntyre's criticisms of various temperature reconstructions other than "checking and seeking to falsify conclusions"? To what other challenges was Muir Russell referring?

May 29, 2012 at 6:18 PM | Registered CommenterHaroldW

Perhaps Keith Briffa has been abducted by aliens!

I bet they are after the world's intelligentsia - so I suppose that means the climate "scientists" are safe.

Well once they have analysed Dr Briffa!

May 29, 2012 at 6:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterConfusedPhoton


Data availability

I re-iterate that the raw tree-ring data used in our published work are available, and in most cases have been so for years.

This is no longer the problem. Despite earlier stonewalling, the team finally got around to archiving their data. When it became available Steve McIntyre was able to demonstrated the skewed selection of data. What is in question now is the selection process that Briffa used to pick out the trees to use in his reconstruction.


We note that much of the challenge to CRU’s work has not always followed the conventional scientific method of checking and seeking to falsify conclusions or offering alternative hypotheses for peer review and publication. We believe this is necessary if science is to move on, and we hope that all those involved on all sides of the climate science debate will adopt this approach.


Any premise for checking and falsifying conclusions is valid as long as people can openly see the work. It's just not as sterile, controlled, or gamed as the peer review process. Peer review is merely a process, a means to an end. Despite the claim of superiority of peer review, the openness is sorely lacking.

May 29, 2012 at 6:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterObtuseFaction

May 29, 2012 at 6:20 PM | ConfusedPhoton
"Perhaps Keith Briffa has been abducted by aliens!"

That's that idiot Krugman's fault, that is.

May 29, 2012 at 6:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterJimmy Haigh

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."

I'm reminded of Donald Sutherland playing the English professor in 'Animal House' discussing Milton when the bell rings and the students rush out of class ignoring his demand that they turn in the papers that are due. He cries out to the fast-emptying room:

"I'm not joking. This is my job!"

Of course, I'm sure that the august personages performing their jobs at UEA need not assure us of the importance of their jobs and their integrity.

May 29, 2012 at 6:28 PM | Unregistered Commenterstan

Off Topic but quite a good laugh

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/0528/1224316806201.html

May 29, 2012 at 6:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamspid

Jamspid, the Rio hoteliers are deliberately acting to reduce the carbon footprint of the gabfest.

This may prove to be the most significant positive outcome of the event.

And yes, we are badly off topic.

May 29, 2012 at 6:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterPolitical Junkie

So is there anything in this piece that screams 'bait!'?

I mean, if I bought into the notion that CRU is capable of conspiracy, you'd expect to see some little nugget of something defensible in this thing that, after the skeptic community's given Osborn a good flogging on its general cluelessness, CRU's defenders in the press would then rally round with 'Oh, see, he's exactly right in where he placed this comma! The Noble Scientists of CRU' are right again and those nasty, loony deniers are at it again.'

May 29, 2012 at 7:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterJEM

In 2009 Melvin specifically warned Hantemirov about difficulties involved in obtaining non-problematic reconstructions using Hantemirov's own data as input 4981.txt


Melvin to Hantemirov: "If you are reconstructing climate using the new data set there are a few problems (RCS bias) that could cause problems. If you wish for any suggestions or help from us please ask."

It would be very interesting to know more about these 'problems' which will undoubtedly reveal much about the 'scientific method' employed by the CRU.

May 29, 2012 at 7:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

No page numbers, no date, no version number. No veneer of quality.

May 29, 2012 at 7:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterSH

To quote the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies "he would say that, wouldn't he?"

May 29, 2012 at 7:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

Trees are not thermometers. The problems stem from the ethics behind the choice and then the contortions to sustain the choice.

May 29, 2012 at 7:43 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

When ever you leave out data that should be included becasue its directly related and would give greater depth to your research , you better have a dam good reason for this an explain it . That is taught to any science undergraduate and yet the 'best ' working at CRU do not know this ?
Either their rubbish and frankly below the standard expected of students or Tim is frankly BSing in the hope of getting away with it, which is it ?

May 29, 2012 at 8:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

Bish, your notice inspired me, feel free to use this movie poster:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/29/yamal-that-hurts-cru-gets-touchy-responds-to-mcintyre-and-montford-without-naming-them/

May 29, 2012 at 8:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnthony Watts

Im sure the good Bishop, Dellingpole and the other Broad Sheet commentators will eventually get to the faullts and general Hipocrisy of the latest Rio Summit
They re complaining about holding Euro 2012 in the Ukraine and Poland theyre full of Neo Nazis

Ironic politicitians discuusing and making decisions about the worlds poor
Yet Rio is the most dangerous city in the world
50 000 delegates living it up in the lap of luxury. Balcony views of the shanty towns
Protected by 15 000 of most brutally corrupt heavily armed sercurity forces
The Rio police shoot homeless children and run the main drugs industry
Brazil is a rising economy it wont want to cut CO2 and cripple itself
Then cant lift its people out of poverty
Lets hope the delegates all havie a nice time
Enough of my ranting back to topic

PS Come on England in Euro2012

May 29, 2012 at 8:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamspid

Don Keiller; The juxaposition of Tim Osborn and Mandy Rice-Davies - now that really is scary.

May 29, 2012 at 8:12 PM | Registered CommenterSalopian

"This confirms that the most productive route to moving this debate forwards is to complete our paper describing our recent work ... publish in the scientific literature."

Meaning: We uttered some utterances and hold back some data so the only way to resolve it when we do what we want with it.

I've never seen a bunch playing this game where the object is to hit the ball back on to one's own court.

May 29, 2012 at 8:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

To quote the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies "he would say that, wouldn't he?"

May 29, 2012 at 7:38 PM | Don Keiller

Don, no relation to christine ?

May 29, 2012 at 9:11 PM | Unregistered Commenterstephen richards

I've never seen a bunch playing this game where the object is to hit the ball back on to one's own court.

May 29, 2012 at 8:27 PM | Shub

Shub, it's called "faire le pipi contre le vent". It's what sailors were told not to do and for very good reasons.

May 29, 2012 at 9:17 PM | Unregistered Commenterstephen richards

"Don, no relation to christine ?"

That would be Christine Keeler, not Keiller. :-)

May 29, 2012 at 9:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterMichael Larkin

'The 2006 chronology was, therefore, neither complete nor appropriate FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE 2008 PAPER.'

Oh. Really!

May 29, 2012 at 9:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

I have to say it reads like a litany of excuses as to why one's homework isn't available for handing in on time.

At the same time I love the comedy "what we said was true" assertion too. Have these guys never heard of lying by omission?

or is it Vicky Pollard "yeah, but..no, but.." from Little Britain?

An another own goal by the team in any case. Keep it up guys!

May 29, 2012 at 10:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterFarleyR

Why can't Briffa speak up in his own justification? At least Gavin Scmidt, not very bravely, is still lobbing grenades from within his own redoubt of RealClimate, while never venturing out into the real (that's real real) world. Tim Osborn old chap, don't you think it's a little demeaning to be part of the Praetorian guard of an unclad Emperor?

May 29, 2012 at 10:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterChris M

had he known, I doubt he would have considered the 2006 work to be appropriate for his 2008 paper because the spatial domains were quite different (my 2006 work included sites separated by more than 20° longitude, while in 2008 they looked at chronologies from regions smaller than this). So, Khadyta River really was not considered.

They sure have a hard time telling a consistent story. Khadyta River was not "separated by more than 20 deg longitude". The Hantemirov data set included data from several rivers, INCLUDING Khadyta River. The Hantemirov cores with prefix M- and X- came from Khadyta River. Osborn's statement on this point is nonsense.

May 29, 2012 at 11:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve McIntyre

I took the liberty of reposting this observation from the thread at WUWT:
John A. Fleming says:
May 29, 2012 at 12:04 pm
Here’s the deception: Osborne says “the raw tree-ring data used in our published work are available”.

That’s true. But they pre-filtered the data. The published paper was based on non-transparently selected data, the reasons for rejection of all other considered time series was not published, nor were the excluded time series made available.

So when Osborne says “are all false”, he’s being carefully true, and carefully deceptive.

May 30, 2012 at 12:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterSophus

the academics never learn...we amateurs do have memories...the Bish should set up a site where we can gamble on the date of acceptance of the last paper in the latest IPCC trash report.

May 30, 2012 at 2:03 AM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

So - the gauntlet has been thrown down: just you TRY to publish your results, just you try my little pretties, and that goes for your dog Toto, too! Let's see what happens.... They wouldn't try to block it or peer-review into oblivion with the whole freakin' world watching.

Would they? ;-D

May 30, 2012 at 2:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterLearDog

he’s being carefully true, and carefully deceptive.

Yes, probably...but...

If you're running a data-centric business, whether you're doing flight plans for airliners or medical case management or laboratory sample analysis tracking or structural FEA or just running a Russian botnet pushing pen*s-pill spam, you have to have a certain empirical understanding of the quality of the data you have, and how good (for professional, regulatory, safety, business, etc. reasons) your results have to be, and how to get from A to B. 'Cause if you can't, you go broke, or you kill someone, or you end up in jail.

The climate-science crowd appears completely to lack this understanding.

They appear not to understand that what they have is fecal matter and all the Brasso in the world isn't going to make it shine.

Is this because of nefarious intent, or because they're just thick?

May 30, 2012 at 2:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterJEM

Diogenes @ 2.03

This slightly off topic but your comments about the upcoming IPCC report reminded me of what I had read earlier today. Donna Lafromboise has found that there is to be a new chapter in the report

"The next IPCC report will include a chapter that discusses gender inequality, marginalized populations, and traditional knowledge. So much for providing “rigorous…scientific information.”

Guess what, the lead author for the chapter is from the UEA !!

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/05/29/the-ipcc-going-where-no-scientist-should/

May 30, 2012 at 5:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoss

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>