Steve McIntyre “Rejected” at RC

Steve McIntyre tried to post at RC in the “Hi Ya! (mal)” thread in response to a question from a poster, Benjamin, relating to the use by Mann of the Tiljander proxies “upside down”.

Steve lodged his post in the “Hey Ya! (mal)” thread, at 4.55 pm on 13 October 2009, and he posted a copy (#379) in the “Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science” thread at Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog (very much worth a read by the way).

At the time of writing (around 5.00 pm US Eastern time on 18th October), Steve’s post has still not appeared. It seems safe to say that his post has been “Rejected”.

Here is the post contributed by Steve to Dot Earth reporting that he had lodged a post at RC.
ience – Post 379.

Steve McIntyre. Toronto. October 14th, 2009. 11:09 am

A reader from this site transferred my comment above about the upside down use of the Tiljjander series in Mann et al 2008 to realclimate, who, as most people know, frequently censor scientific comment. I posted the following comment a few minutes ago at realclimate in which a reader asked for further information on Mann’s upside down use of the Tiljander series. This was recently confirmed by Atte Korhola, a Finnish paleolimnologist, in an online comment translated by a Finnish reader of Climate Audit http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7272 . I posted the following answer at realclimate and we’ll see if they permit it:

Quote: Comment: “Benjamin asks: Could someone point me to where this “inverted data” issue is addressed by Mann or someone else who knows?

The Tiljander series in Mann et al SI Fig S9 are shown upside down from the interpretation of the original authors. I directly confirmed these points by email with Tiljander.

One of the Tiljander series used in Mann et al 2008 was also used upside down in Kaufman et al (2009), who, unlike Mann, truncated the record in 1800 to remove the modern portion of increased sediment attributed by the authors to bridges, ditches etc.

Atte Korhola, a Finnish paleolimnologist very familiar with the studies, confirmed the upside down use in a Finnish blog (Google translation ( http://translate.google.com… )

Science recently published a study in arctic regions [Kaufman et al 2009] , average temperatures are found to be higher now than at any time in the past two thousand years. Result may well be true, but the way the researchers conclude that raises questions. Proxy-material has been included selectively, they have been digested, manipulated, glazed, and the combined – for example, own and my colleagues collected data from Finland in the past has even turned upside down when the warm periods become cold and vice versa. Normally, this would be considered as a scientific falsification, which has serious consequences.” End Comment. /Quote.

RC’s rejection of Steve’s post has led to quite a bit of discussion in the “Upside-Side Down Mann and the “peerreviewedliterature”” thread at CA, and also on the Dot Earth thread.

We post relevant posts below in Comments.

It seems clear that this episode confirms, once again, that RC and ‘the team’ decline to engage in discussion on pertinent questions. That this is so is blindingly evident by now.

Advertisements

22 Responses to “Steve McIntyre “Rejected” at RC”

  1. rcrejects Says:

    CA “Upside-Side Down Mann and the “peerreviewedliterature” thread – Post 179

    Steve McIntyre: October 16th, 2009 at 7:56 am

    Re: Nick Stokes (#172). Pending your consideration of bristlecones, a topic that has been endlessly discussed here, you might post over at realclimate that the non-dendro HS of Mann 2008 shown in their Yamal thread cannot be used because of upside down Tiljander.

    I remind you of Atte Korhola’s (an eminent Finnish paleolimnologist) comment (as translated) on the upside down use of Tiljander and other proxies( in this case, Kaufman, but Mann’s use is far worse because he used the contaminated portion):

    “It is concluded in the article that the average temperatures in the Arctic region are much higher now than at any time in the past two thousand years.

    The result may well be true, but the way the researchers ended up with this conclusion raises questions. Proxies have been included selectively, they have been digested, manipulated, filtered, and combined, for example, data collected from Finland in the past by my own colleagues has even been turned upside down such that the warm periods become cold and vice versa. Normally, this would be considered as a scientific forgery [ falsification??], which has serious consequences.”

  2. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – “Climate Auditor Challenged to do Climate Science” thread – post 429.

    mondo. Australia. October 16th, 2009 5:11 am:

    I notice that RC has not yet deigned to post Steve McIntyre’s submission referred to in #379 above.

    It is puzzling why not. Steve provided a calm, professional and well informed response to Benjamin’s query. This would seem to be another example of RC refusing to engage in a discussion about the points at issue.

  3. rcrejects Says:

    CA “Upside-Side Down Mann and the “peerreviewedliterature” thread – Post 181

    TAG: October 16th, 2009 at 7:57 am

    Re: bender (#177). Why the ad hominems?

    I hope that this place does not become like RealClimate. The ad homs there are a serious detriment to its claims of authority.

    Steve: I agree. I’ve snipped the comment. Everyone: dial it back.

  4. rcrejects Says:

    Regular RC contributor Richard Sycamore offered to post Steve McIntyre’s post at RC:

    CA “Upside-Side Down Mann and the “peerreviewedliterature” thread – Post 188

    Richard Sycamore: October 16th, 2009 at 9:12 am

    Re: Steve McIntyre (#179). I’m not sure why you wouldn’t post it yourself, but I have taken the liberty of doing it for you:

    Quote: Richard Sycamore says: 16 October 2009 at 10:04 AM
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    There are two graphics in the opening post that contain problems and I ask whether they should be removed or amended. The first is the one derived from Kaufman et al. (2009). It makes inappropriate use of the Tiljander lake sediment proxy.

    On this topic, eminent Finnish paleoclimatologist, Atte Korhola, has stated [translation from Finnish]: “It is concluded in the article that the average temperatures in the Arctic region are much higher now than at any time in the past two thousand years. The result may well be true, but the way the researchers ended up with this conclusion raises questions. Proxies have been included selectively, they have been digested, manipulated, filtered, and combined, for example, data collected from Finland in the past by my own colleagues has even been turned upside down such that the warm periods become cold and vice versa. Normally, this would be considered as a scientific forgery [falsification?], which has serious consequences.”

    The second problematic graph is the one beneath it, derived from Mann et al. (2008) which makes the same innapropriate use of this proxy, attributing to it an interpretation that is directly opposite to that proposed by the orginal authors. It does not make sense to have proxies being interepted one way by one group and the other way by another. Given the contradiction, perhaps fix the graph or remove it?

    [Feel free to edit this text if any part of it is considered offensive.]

    Thank you. /quote.

    Please let me know if I have mis-represented the case. I rather dislike posting the comments of others, but in this case there is a need for resolution on the matter.

    Good day.

  5. rcrejects Says:

    CA “Upside-Side Down Mann and the “peerreviewedliterature” thread – Post 189

    MikeN: October 16th, 2009 at 9:25 am

    Is that at RC Richard? Good luck with that.

  6. rcrejects Says:

    CA “Upside-Side Down Mann and the “peerreviewedliterature” thread – Post 190

    Steve McIntyre: October 16th, 2009 at 9:38 am

    Re: bender (#182). “I’m disgusted by the failure of Steve’s critics to come here and fight like real men.”

    There are three different and equally disspiriting aspects to the present situation. As you observe, climate scientists don’t show up here to defend their work. In my view, the primary reason why they don’t is because of peer pressure within their community to place sanctions on Climate Audit. (We know of individual scientists that have commented here that have got into trouble with their associates and had to withdraw.) This is particularly problematic for young scientists who are looking for grants and jobs, who might otherwise be interested in engaging, but it’s not worth the risk of potential sanction.

    bender, and I’m not saying anything that you don’t realize just as well as me, the issue is not just the failure of the individual scientists to defend their work, but the policy that has arisen within the Community of a sort of sanctions policy against Climate Audit, discouraging individual scientists from participating here.

    The flip side of this is the censorship policy at realclimate, which is well-known to CA readers, but seldom fully understood by third parties.

    While both sides get blamed in this cold war, I think that this is unfair both to me and to this site.

    The people that suffer in the end are the scientific public who are starving for high-level discussion of the issues. They would like to understand exactly why the criticisms of Mann, Kaufman, Briffa,…etc are wrong.

    Blogs are not a substitute for journal publication, but they are a unique and potentially excellent way of establishing the sort of high-level discussion that the public is starving for.

  7. rcrejects Says:

    CA “Upside-Side Down Mann and the “peerreviewedliterature” thread – Post 191.

    Steve McIntyre: October 16th, 2009 at 9:40 am

    Re: Richard Sycamore (#188).

    I already submitted a related (but less pointed) post and, needless to say, it was censored.

  8. rcrejects Says:

    CA “Upside-Side Down Mann and the “peerreviewedliterature” thread – Post 193

    Richard Sycamore: October 16th, 2009 at 10:20 am

    Re: theduke (#192): Blogs are a shady place where misinformation passes for information and skeptics can spend their days endlessly reaping what they sow in the coprophagic echo chambers of the denialosphere.

    Re: Steve McIntyre (#191): Respectfully, I question your sense of what it means to write “less pointedly”. Some of your communications are unnecessarily provocative. Yet you complain when those provoked are “unresponsive”. Your game is to obtain “unresponsive” responses. Admit that nothing pleases you more.

    Re: MikeN (#189): I’ve not been censored there before, and yet I have challenged some of their assumptions. When the comment is printed you will be asked to eat your cyncism the way you eat up half-truths.

    Steve: Sometimes I write pointedly. All I meant in this instance is that my comment at RC did not include the portion of Korhola’s quote where he describes the continued use of upside-down Finnish series as a “scientific forgery”. I merely quoted the sentence where he says that they were used upside-down. I posted it simultaneously at DotEarth.

  9. rcrejects Says:

    CA “Upside-Side Down Mann and the “peerreviewedliterature” thread – Post 198

    bernie: October 16th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
    Re: Richard Sycamore (#188), I have looked at Real Climate for this post but no comments seem to have been added since yesterday.

  10. rcrejects Says:

    CA “Upside-Side Down Mann and the “peerreviewedliterature” thread – Post 201

    Richard Sycamore: October 16th, 2009 at 12:43 pm

    Re: MikeN (#199): Something might have gone wrong in the submission process. Perhaps my typographical error on the word “interpreted” Or perhaps it will materialize later. I decided to submit the following:

    Quote: Richard Sycamore says: 16 October 2009 at 1:38 PM
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Are you quite sure the graphs posted above are all correct? There are two that make use of a lake sediment proxy that I’d like to discuss.

    Thank you./quote.

  11. rcrejects Says:

    CA “Upside-Side Down Mann and the “peerreviewedliterature” thread – Post 205

    MikeN: October 16th, 2009 at 1:57 pm

    Re: Richard Sycamore (#201), I don’t think any typos would hold up a post. Someone got in with a post 40 min after yours. I’d say the second one might get through, since there’s no direct attack.

  12. rcrejects Says:

    CA “Upside-Side Down Mann and the “peerreviewedliterature” thread – Post 216

    MikeN: October 17th, 2009 at 1:53 am:

    “I’ve not been censored there before, and yet I have challenged some of their assumptions. When the comment is printed you will be asked to eat your cyncism the way you eat up half-truths.”

    That cynicism is burning.

  13. rcrejects Says:

    CA “Upside-Side Down Mann and the “peerreviewedliterature” thread – Post 221

    TerryS: October 17th, 2009 at 5:59 am

    Re: Richard Sycamore (#193): “I’ve not been censored there before, and yet I have challenged some of their assumptions. When the comment is printed you will be asked to eat your cyncism the way you eat up half-truths.”

    Re: Richard Sycamore (#201): “Something might have gone wrong in the submission process. Perhaps my typographical error on the word “interpreted” Or perhaps it will materialize later. I decided to submit the following:”

    Congratulations! You are no longer a Real Climate Virgin. You will never again be able to use the words “I’ve not been censored there before”.

  14. rcrejects Says:

    CA “Upside-Side Down Mann and the “peerreviewedliterature” thread – Post 229

    Nick Stokes: October 17th, 2009 at 3:30 pm

    Re: Peter (#227). Again you and bender are missing the point. Steve suggested that I post something at RC, presumably to get their response. I pointed to where someone had done that. I’m not saying RC gave a good response; I’m just saying that the result of posting that query is known.

  15. rcrejects Says:

    CA “Upside-Side Down Mann and the “peerreviewedliterature” thread – Post 231

    EdBhoy: October 17th, 2009 at 4:21 pm

    Re: Nick Stokes (#229). This is repeatedly the case with any dissenting or difficult questions at Realclimate. They give a poor response which does not answer the question and then their acolytes point to the fact that it has been “discussed” as being evidence that they were right all along.

    The fact that Gavin moderates (ahem!) dissenting voices out of the blog renders it a useless forum for academic discussion.

  16. rcrejects Says:

    CA “Upside-Side Down Mann and the “peerreviewedliterature” thread – Post 232

    Niels A Nielsen: October 17th, 2009 at 4:38 pm

    Re: EdBhoy (#231). Yes, Nick Stokes has the chance of improving the reputation of both himself and Realclimate in the eyes of many by voicing disagreement there. Do you think you would be censored, Nick?

  17. rcrejects Says:

    CA “Upside-Side Down Mann and the “peerreviewedliterature” thread – Post 234

    Nick Stokes: October 17th, 2009 at 5:41 pm

    Re: Steve McIntyre (#230), I’m not averse to pressing an argument. But only if I have something new to say. In this case, we have a comment offerred in challenging style at RC by Tilo, who seems to be a scientist in the field who has discussed the matter with Tiljander. I could not muster that authority, and I can’t see what content I could add.

    Gavin responded by pointing to the Mann SI which flagged the Tiljander issues and did a T-free calculation. He seems to say that is sufficient; others (me too, I hasten to add) think the data should have been omitted entirely. I don’t see how the passage of time would change that difference of views.

  18. rcrejects Says:

    CA “Upside-Side Down Mann and the “peerreviewedliterature” thread – Post 245

    MikeN: October 17th, 2009 at 11:26 pm

    “Whether the comment appears or not is somewhat immaterial. What matters is whether the graphics are corrected – by removing the Tiljander lake sediment series and the defective pine tree series. I will wait the week-end before passing judgement.”

    They wouldn’t post your comment, but you think they might pull the hockey sticks?

    I should stop commenting, as Pocahontas sang:

    How high does the sycamore grow? If you cut it down, you’ll never know.

  19. rcrejects Says:

    CA “Upside-Side Down Mann and the “peerreviewedliterature” thread – Post 228

    Gerald Machnee: October 18th, 2009 at 2:03 pm

    Re: Nick Stokes (#215), “Re: Gerald Machnee (#251). There’s an RC musing on this topic here. A more direct treatment as “Myth #0″ here. And more in the opening sentences here.”

    The musings you read on RC are nothing more than “amusing”.

    In Myth “0”, they try to counter that it is not the sole argument. Fine. I only said that they regard it highly as the Team goes to extraordinary measures to defend it. Also Mann made sure that it got into the IPCC.

    Your arguments are all from RC. Firstly, I cannot take that seriously as I am screened from posting any discussion or countering any of their opinions whether scientific or not.

    They have a problem doing an honest analysis of Steve’s posts and filtering discussion of that as well.

    So in summary, I will not accept anything quoted from RC and a couple of other sites.

  20. rcrejects Says:

    CA “Upside-Side Down Mann and the “peerreviewedliterature”” thread – Post 257

    MikeN: October 20th, 2009 at 6:03 pm

    “What matters is whether the graphics are corrected – by removing the Tiljander lake sediment series and the defective pine tree series. I will wait the week-end before passing judgement.”

    Richard, you have to give them more time to reprocess those graphics, to get the results without Tiljander.

    I’m sure that’s what they are doing, and that’s why your comment is not up yet. Otherwise it would be embarrassing. They’ve had 50 comments in that thread since then, including one that calls into question almost every single hockey stick.

    I even got one through under another name!

  21. rcrejects Says:

    CA “Upside-Side Down Mann and the “peerreviewedliterature”” thread – Post 260

    Richard Sycamore: October 20th, 2009 at 7:35 pm

    Re: MikeN (#257). I’m not sure what to say. Maybe they are still working on it?

  22. rcrejects Says:

    Roger Pielke Jr (who, along with his dad Sr) is a paragon of integrity and professionalism, sums this thread up.

    Roger Pielke Jr.’s Blog “Point Resolved in Hockey Stick Wars” thread – Post 16

    Roger Pielke, Jr. said…

    15 deancrowe

    This is where several recent threads here converge.

    Steve McIntyre attempted to address this at Real Climate and he was censored. Had RC simply clarified the record directly in response to McIntyre’s perfectly reasonable comment, there would be no ambiguity, would there? Why censor a comment that, if your interpretation here is correct, they could have easily dealt with?

    Here is McIntyre’s censored comment:

    http://community.nytimes.com/comments/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/climate-auditor-challenged-to-do-climate-science/?permid=379#comment379

    A good rule is that if you have nothing to hide, then don’t hide anything. Score another one for McIntyre’s credibility.

    The last word on this is yours if you’d like it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: