Friday, October 02, 2009

Steve McIntyre: I Didn't Say What I Just Said, Anyone Who Says I Did Is Lying

On Sept 26, Steve McIntyre accuses Keith Briffa of deliberate data selection/exclusion:

Unfortunately, to date, people in the field have not honored this responsibility and, to an outside observer, seem to have done no more than pick the version (Yamal) that suits their bias.

McIntyre's method: smear and run.


Gerrard787 said...

You can do better then that BCL.

As you note, he says "seem to" which is properly construed as an insinuation, which is allowable, and not a direct accusation.

What about those trees though, eh?

Anonymous said...

rather than let BCL, the good honest Liberal Warmist that he is, besmirch Steve's reputation, here is what Steve actually wrote.

"I don't wish to unintentionally feed views that I don't hold. It is not my belief that Briffa crudely cherry picked."

Just the facts, Jack, no spinerama allowed.'

Robert G. Harvie, Q.C. said...

I've actually somewhat modified my own stance on climate change.. I see some merit in the science, but still see problems with where the findings are being extended.. but really, people like McIntyre, whether you admit it or not, are doing much more than the MSM for creating more, not less, understanding of the issue.

Rather than just the usual, there is actually a discussion about scientific method and such.. strikes me it would be a wonderful public service if MSM devoted more time to the discussion of the foundation of the the principals and the arguments being made against those foundations.. with suitable debate.

As opposed to that putrid pile of exaggeration, "An Inconvenient Truth".

Gerrard787 said...

The MSM has been intimidated into submission on the issue roblaw. Curiosity, skepticism and any questioning on the subject of AGW is regarded as heretical.

But as Copenhagen will shortly demonstrate, until our questions about the robustness about the data are answered, and not to warmies satisfaction, but to our satisfaction, we will not permit our elected officials to commit ourselves to what may be an economically suicidal course of action.

Warmies can dream on if they think they can circumvent the public.

bigcitylib said...

Fred, he said that after he written the quote I've given and been called on it. At that point he began his retreat. Now the debate isn't about the legitimacy of Briffa's result, but about whether he should have given Mc his data nine years ago. Or something,it changes from hour to hour as Mc's earlier contentions are refuted.

Ti-Guy said...

Curiosity, skepticism and any questioning on the subject of AGW is regarded as heretical.

That's not what you're doing.

Rather than bring up the details, I'll just refer everyone to this discussion at DeSmogBlog.

Whatever scepticism is out there is being buried by an avalanche of crackpottery churned out by kooks, frauds, sell-outs and paid shills.

I'm not sure what category Paul Sunstrum is in exactly although I believe Albertans represent a special case, since the province's prosperity depends entirely on high prices for dirty oil. Global Warming may in fact represent a more immediate existential threat for them than for anyone else on Earth.

Robert G. Harvie, Q.C. said...

But TG.. the Wild Rose has ASSURED us that it is all just "junk science".

That, and that they will make sure we support "REAL" marriage.

Oh. And give each Grade 1 kid a cheque to pay to whatever teacher he or she likes best.

Ti-Guy said...

But TG.. the Wild Rose has ASSURED us that it is all just "junk science".

They all have PhD's in environmental sciences...

That, and that they will make sure we support "REAL" marriage.

...and Master's degrees in sociology...

Oh. And give each Grade 1 kid a cheque to pay to whatever teacher he or she likes best.

...and have done post-doctoral research in educational policy and political economics.

These polymaths are awesome.

Gerrard787 said...

Nice try Ti. Warmies bring up the kooks and attempt to tar everyone who expresses reservations with the same brush.

And being the "gravest threat to ever face mankind", one would expect warmies to actually be living their own personal lives at some level consistent with their beliefs. That warmies don't (and won't) makes them all that much harder to consider with anything other than disdain.

I'd love to stay and chat, but my brother is dragging me off to see Capitalism: A Love Story, and in an effort to blend in, I need to finish ironing by Bushitler t-shirt.

See ya.

Ti-Guy said...

You're psychotic, Paul.

Robert G. Harvie, Q.C. said... two cents on the criticism side, I'm still not 100% certain that the science ESTABLISHES that global warmings is actually a man-made phenomenon, but it seems at least a credible guess. (OK, before the "warmies" start pummelling me, let me make my point).

That being said, if you accept that POSSIBILITY, you have to at least accept the POSSIBILITY that is COULD be a valid proposition. Once you've done that, you at least have to (unless you are a Wild Roser) concede that you need to pay SOME attention to the potential problem. From that point, it becomes an argument of "degree of attention", not one of "yes or no".

This is where the criticism in my mind misses it's mark. Putting a hole in a theory, even if that's sustainable, doesn't make the theory WRONG. It just requires some further debate.

The biggest question I have, which I haven't seen an answer to - "If the paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum resulted (as I understand) in a profound increase in plant production in Northern Climates and increases in rain and fresh water production - such that the Arctic Ocean surface was actually a broad fresh-water layer, aren't there some potential POSITIVES with global warming that we're not at least discussing?

Gerrard787 said...

You're psychotic, Paul. - Ti

Your warmie tactics aren't working Ti. Try something new.

And good luck at Copenhagen.

Yikes, have to run.

Ti-Guy said...

Rob, the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum was an event that took place over the course of 20,000 years, during which time the biosphere adapted. We're potentially looking at a similar increase in temperature over a century, during which time there will be no possibility of adapting.

The only bright side I can think of is that trolls like Paul S. will be dead...and in Hell.

bigcitylib said...

roblaw, dyou actually have a link to WAPs climate change position?

Unknown said...

Yes Paul, he only "insinuated", then left Watts and the rest of the other denidiots to make the accusation which he did nothing to correct. And I bet you were all over the denidiot blogs corrected them before you showed up here, weren't you?
Oh well, another denidiot "gotcha" goes splatt, and it's time to change the channel again, as I see you've done in further comments.