To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[IanC]

A post of mine in this thread seems to have disappeared. Let's try again.

Let's review.

McIntyre claims that a "fudge factor" is widely and consistently used in mainstream climate models. IanC, Westwall, and I suppose, Frank, agree with McIntyre. That a fudge factor is widely used is the CLAIM currently in question, not whether or not McIntyre is generally a dickhead or I can make a case for disliking the man. Those are distractions that Ian and Westwall would very much like to pursue because they are apparently unable to actually find an example of a climate model using McIntyre's fudge factor.

There you go boys and girls.

First find and quote McIntyre. I know of many instances where he referred to a 'bodge', specifically to Briffa's work with tree rings, but I am unfamiliar with your claim.

Pony up the quote and we can investigate further.

 

[Crick]

Really, that's rather surprising. You heartily recommended the link. Does this sound familiar?

I highly recommend that people visit the link in mamooth's post. It contains many of the problems in climate science over the last decade, with links to support it. It is a good starting point to do your own investigations. Read the viewpoints from both sides and decide for yourself which positions more closely match the evidence and history.

That link was
Uncorrected Evidence 32

in which McIntyre said:

8. Although there was no scientific basis for such an arbitrary adjustment, peer reviewers of Briffa et al (1992) did not object. "Bodging" then seems to entered into the CRU toolkit to get reconstructions to "look" right, as evidenced by the Climategate documents containing annotations that the method contains "fudge factors" or "very artificial corrections for decline" (e.g. http://di2.nu/foia/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro)

 

[IanC]

Really, that's rather surprising. You heartily recommended the link. Does this sound familiar?

I highly recommend that people visit the link in mamooth's post. It contains many of the problems in climate science over the last decade, with links to support it. It is a good starting point to do your own investigations. Read the viewpoints from both sides and decide for yourself which positions more closely match the evidence and history.

That link was
Uncorrected Evidence 32

in which McIntyre said:

8. Although there was no scientific basis for such an arbitrary adjustment, peer reviewers of Briffa et al (1992) did not object. "Bodging" then seems to entered into the CRU toolkit to get reconstructions to "look" right, as evidenced by the Climategate documents containing annotations that the method contains "fudge factors" or "very artificial corrections for decline" (e.g. http://di2.nu/foia/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro)

Briffa's Tornetrask Reconstruction

Here is one of McIntyre's articles on this. It gives his attempt at reconstructing Briffa92, gives examples of papers that used the Tornetrask series, and finishes up with a description from the Journal paper of how the bodge was accomplished.

 

[IanC]

New Light on Old Fudge

Two years later, McIntyre posts again using a PhD thesis that updates Tornetrask, and it closely matches what McIntyre said Briffa's series would look like without the bodge.

 

[flacaltenn]

so in other words the calibration was fudged which in turn made every data output fudged, and McIntyre correct. Thanks for playing.

I notice none of the deniers responded to the content showing McIntyre to be a fraud and liar. They're just mindlessly raging and making crap up, as I predicted. I mean, if they were honest, they wouldn't be deniers.

Now run along, as your services are required. DearLeaderMcIntyre needs a new coat of saliva on his boots.

Well gee whiz -- I WOULD have -- but you provided is no where near enough to call McIntryre a fraud or a liar.

When you multiply an array by 0.75 --- that's not exactly a "calibration". In that calibrations are used to linearize the data -- not just simply SCALE all the points. And if you are scaling ALL the points -- you better explain why you use such a value.

But that's the world of proxy data. You are ALWAYS moving the offset and scaling to make it LOOK like everyone elses.. Or to fit preconceived notions of "truth"..

The rest of the arguments to Parliament escaped your scrutiny apparently and you're just beating on this one observation.. I find the whole submission very compelling.. Especially pointing out how the ORIGINAL Briffa was truncated to the 1960s..

 

[IanC]

Tornetrask Digital Version - Hooray!

After he gets digital data, rather than having to estimate from other people's graphs.

 

[flacaltenn]

New Light on Old Fudge

Two years later, McIntyre posts again using a PhD thesis that updates Tornetrask, and it closely matches what McIntyre said Briffa's series would look like without the bodge.

EXACTLY.. What I was saying. Look at all the "new" reconstructions of that data set presented. A LOT of horseplay with the OFFSET values and scaling.. And everyone of them is a "STICK" -- not a hockey stick..

 

[IanC]

The basic idea is this. Briffa didn't like the response from 1850 onward so he simply twisted the end upward on a pivot. He admitted the bodge in 1992, but then failed to mention it in later uses. Plausible deniability.

 

[IanC]

I don't think anyone can come away from reading McIntyre's articles and papers without learning something about paleoreconstructions. Personally I don't see a big ego there either. Just knowledge and competence.

 

[mamooth]

The CultOfMcIntyre is fascinating, in the way they've created this strange alternate reality around Briffa's work. But notice how it's gotten zero traction outside of the cult? 'Nuff said. There's an explanation for that, of course. Moar conspiracy. Failure to acknowledge the conspiracy is itself part of the conspiracy. It's turtles all the way down.

Ian, flac, I'm sure you've got some more sacred scripture to post for us now. None of means anything, but I get that the proper chants and invocations must be made by the faithful.

Anyways, here's a great takedown of McIntyre's awful conduct, from back in 2009. Sheer boredom prevents me from summarizing it here, and, unlike the deniers, I don't see a point in cutting and pasting things that don't mean anything without context.

Let the backpedalling begin

 

[IanC]

Evasions and Fantasy at Real Climate

New Data from Hantemirov

Yamal and the Decline

 

[Crick]

Really, that's rather surprising. You heartily recommended the link. Does this sound familiar?

I highly recommend that people visit the link in mamooth's post. It contains many of the problems in climate science over the last decade, with links to support it. It is a good starting point to do your own investigations. Read the viewpoints from both sides and decide for yourself which positions more closely match the evidence and history.

That link was
Uncorrected Evidence 32

in which McIntyre said:

8. Although there was no scientific basis for such an arbitrary adjustment, peer reviewers of Briffa et al (1992) did not object. "Bodging" then seems to entered into the CRU toolkit to get reconstructions to "look" right, as evidenced by the Climategate documents containing annotations that the method contains "fudge factors" or "very artificial corrections for decline" (e.g. http://di2.nu/foia/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro)

Briffa's Tornetrask Reconstruction

Here is one of McIntyre's articles on this. It gives his attempt at reconstructing Briffa92, gives examples of papers that used the Tornetrask series, and finishes up with a description from the Journal paper of how the bodge was accomplished.

1992? To find an example of this near universal fudgery, we have to go back 24 years?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Really, that's rather surprising. You heartily recommended the link. Does this sound familiar?

I highly recommend that people visit the link in mamooth's post. It contains many of the problems in climate science over the last decade, with links to support it. It is a good starting point to do your own investigations. Read the viewpoints from both sides and decide for yourself which positions more closely match the evidence and history.

That link was
Uncorrected Evidence 32

in which McIntyre said:

8. Although there was no scientific basis for such an arbitrary adjustment, peer reviewers of Briffa et al (1992) did not object. "Bodging" then seems to entered into the CRU toolkit to get reconstructions to "look" right, as evidenced by the Climategate documents containing annotations that the method contains "fudge factors" or "very artificial corrections for decline" (e.g. http://di2.nu/foia/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro)

Briffa's Tornetrask Reconstruction

Here is one of McIntyre's articles on this. It gives his attempt at reconstructing Briffa92, gives examples of papers that used the Tornetrask series, and finishes up with a description from the Journal paper of how the bodge was accomplished.

1992? To find an example of this near universal fudgery, we have to go back 24 years?

I have gym shoes that are older then 24 years sOn. This might explain the AGW cult, all young pups with minds easily molded and indocterated in their ways, with no common sense what so ever.

 

[IanC]

Really, that's rather surprising. You heartily recommended the link. Does this sound familiar?

I highly recommend that people visit the link in mamooth's post. It contains many of the problems in climate science over the last decade, with links to support it. It is a good starting point to do your own investigations. Read the viewpoints from both sides and decide for yourself which positions more closely match the evidence and history.

That link was
Uncorrected Evidence 32

in which McIntyre said:

8. Although there was no scientific basis for such an arbitrary adjustment, peer reviewers of Briffa et al (1992) did not object. "Bodging" then seems to entered into the CRU toolkit to get reconstructions to "look" right, as evidenced by the Climategate documents containing annotations that the method contains "fudge factors" or "very artificial corrections for decline" (e.g. http://di2.nu/foia/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro)

Briffa's Tornetrask Reconstruction

Here is one of McIntyre's articles on this. It gives his attempt at reconstructing Briffa92, gives examples of papers that used the Tornetrask series, and finishes up with a description from the Journal paper of how the bodge was accomplished.

1992? To find an example of this near universal fudgery, we have to go back 24 years?

Are you being deliberately obtuse crick?

You get a history lesson on when and how tree ring series came to be mangled by corrupt methodology, and you complain because it started so long ago? How many reconstructions use Tornetrask? Do you really want a list?

 

[Crick]

Just curious why you didn't find one in, say, the last decade.

Look, you and I both know that AGW is real and a threat. The difference is that you choose to play your game of nit-pickery while I worry about the lives of my children.

 

[jc456]

Just curious why you didn't find one in, say, the last decade.

Look, you and I both know that AGW is real and a threat. The difference is that you choose to play your game of nit-pickery while I worry about the lives of my children.

Can you explain the threat?

 

[IanC]

Just curious why you didn't find one in, say, the last decade.

Look, you and I both know that AGW is real and a threat. The difference is that you choose to play your game of nit-pickery while I worry about the lives of my children.

Are you fucking kidding me!?!?!?

You whine for days, then finally come up with an actual complaint against McIntyre. I answer your complaint and show that McIntyre was correct and vindicated, then you accuse me of going back decades when it was YOUR fucking question!

I argued the science, and when you lost you change the subject to some unknown phantom menace unsupported by evidence and accuse me of being uncaring to your children. You're a scumbag, and a bad loser.

 

[Crick]

McIntyre is a dick. We both know that as well. You just like him because he's YOUR dick. And you do need to pay more attention to the future of all our children. They're more important than the return on your investments.

1992... Was I out of primary school back then? Had they invented the computer?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We deny that 58>62

 

[jc456]

I also deny that 3X4 = 11 as was stated by the common core rep in this video from youtube: