Steve Mac, Gavin, And Omn; Nutters Beclown Themselves Again, And Again, For YEARS!!!!!

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAA!!!!!!! (gasp, breathing)  HAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAA!!!!!!!

This is a repost of Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit post…..

CRU Abandons Yamal Superstick

Unreported by CRU is that they’ve resiled from the Yamal superstick of Briffa 2000 and Briffa et al 2008 and now advocate a Yamal chronology, the modern portion of which is remarkably similar to the calculations in my posts of September 2009 here and May 2012 here, both of which were reviled by Real Climate at the time.

In today’s post, I’ll demonstrate the degree to which the new Briffa version has departed from the superstick of Briffa 2000 and Briffa et al 2008 and the surprising degree to which it approaches versions shown at CA.

First here is a comparison from CA in Sep 2009 here of the Briffa 2008 superstick to a version that simply incorporated Schweingruber’s Khadyta River data, applying the method used by Briffa for Taimyr in Briffa et al 2008. Real Climate screeched in fury against this comparison.

Okay, I won’t show all the graphs Steve Mc does.  But, for newbees in the climate wars, this has been an ongoing battle for years.  And, I won’t bother with the details and specifics of this years long spat.  But, the long and short of it all is that Steve Mac has been telling them that they’re doing it wrong!!!

He even showed them where and how they were wrong.  And, showed them pictures.  Each time he did it was met with howls of protest, indignations, gnashing of the teeth, with scorn and derision. 

Our friend Omn, Maurizio Morabito (omnologos)  managed to dig up this quote….

The irony is of course that the demonstration that a regional reconstruction is valid takes effort, and needs to be properly documented. That requires a paper in the technical literature and the only way for Briffa et al to now defend themselves against McIntyre’s accusations is to publish that paper (which one can guarantee will have different results to what McIntyre has thrown together).

by Gavin, the Skeptics’ BFF

You can read it from the source here

So, how did Mac do?  Now that the lunatics have quietly and tacitly admitted Mac was correct?

image 

This is how Briffa and gang were represent the chronology…..

image

Looks like vindication to me for one fellow.  Looks like there are several other fellows who need to do a little less talking and writing and start paying attention to people who know wtf they’re talking about.  Maybe even go back and start taking notes. 

Again, Steve Mac suffered a lot of mouthing for being right.  For years. 

Folks should pop over and congratulate him. 

How many times do the nutters have to be shown that they’re wrong before people stop believing their dumb asses.

h/t Lat 

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Steve Mac, Gavin, And Omn; Nutters Beclown Themselves Again, And Again, For YEARS!!!!!

  1. Latitude says:

    but but but…..all the warming went away!

  2. miked1947 says:

    It is about time, but he still believes we should do something to reduce our carbon emissions. He even thinks the climate models are reasonable facsimiles of reality.

  3. Latitude says:

    as Biden would say…

    this is a big f’in deal!!!!!!!!

  4. HankH says:

    Holy cats! That’s 4 standard deviations difference between Briffa 2008 and Briffa 2013 (from the chart over on CA). Trying to put it into perspective, in most trend analysis scenarios, 1.5 to 2 standard deviations from baseline calculation is considered to be outside of a normal range of variability. In most cases it is seen as unacceptable – something has gone out of calibration. 4 standard deviations is considered to be so far out that whatever it is, it is surely broken.

    Briffa 2013 is some serious career salvage back peddling.

  5. omnologos says:

    Too late for AR5, isn’t it? …

    ps thanks for the mention!!!

  6. kim2ooo says:

    Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
    Thanks Mr McIntyre!!!

  7. PaddikJ says:

    I haven’t followed this particular controversy that closely and am still getting up to speed, but in the meantime, you might want to parse your headline for what it actually says! Maybe a colon or dash after “Steve Mac”?

  8. HankH says:

    I went over to Mac’s site to congratulate him. I’ve been stuck in moderation since yesterday.

    • suyts says:

      Strange. But, in the past I’ve had strange things like that occur there.

    • HankH says:

      Yeah, I think sometimes comments wind up in the empty bit bucket in the sky. It’s not a perfect world.

    • HankH says:

      I reposted a congratulation. This time it went right through. With temps hitting 112 here yesterday maybe the electrons were getting baked leaving my home.

      We’re looking at a high of 116 today and 117 tomorrow. Someone switched on the furnace (albeit a little later than usual).

  9. cdquarles says:

    James, if you want to get a bit more about the math underlying what Steve Mac, et. al. are fussing about, you might want to look at Jim Bouldin’s site.

    That said, I have to wonder if any real life science types (physiologists, pathologists, patho-physiologists) have done anything with this. What I do know from past training is that biological specimens can surprise you if you narrow your focus too soon.

    Macroscopic life forms ultimately have species specific stress responses on top of the more generalized ‘class’ responses such as the general mammalian dive response. In disease states, these result in final common pathway states. If you only look at the end result and don’t know or look for multiple causes of the initial pathological state, you will fool yourself when making a diagnosis. For physicians, this is called forming a differential diagnosis. You start with the most common things and go to the library to see if there are rare forms that you’ve never seen before. Most of the time, you can go by ‘common things occur commonly’ and base your initial treatment plan on that. If that fails, you scratch that one off and go down the list. Most of the time, you’ll get the right answer and find your treatment options. Sometimes you won’t. That the ‘slip and fall’ lawyers refuse to accept this is part of our medical care system’s ‘tort lawyer’ problem.

    • HankH says:

      … all scientific studies must of course be evaluated in terms of the claims they make relative to the evidence presented. On that basis this study still falls short of what is needed, and moreover, what is needed may in fact not even be achievable. If it addressed these problems, it would be a significant step forward, but it doesn’t; it addresses only relatively minor issues.

      Bouldin’s article is off to an interesting start.

      http://ecologicallyoriented.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/briffa-et-al-2013-part-one/#more-1349

    • suyts says:

      cd, I’m not really interested in the numbers. I don’t believe tree rings are that informative. I view this as a numbers exercise only. Steve M knew how to properly run the numbers, and he did a great job. But, the value of these studies…… well, I don’t see any. See my next post. It may interest you. It’s a repost from over a year ago.

      • cdquarles says:

        Thanks. Tree rings are informative, but not for teasing out singular ‘climate’ effects. A tree ring tells you how good or bad the growing season was. That’s it. I do like Steve Mac’s non-linear mixed effects ideas. That really won’t help the climastrologists, for biological organisms live and respond to weather. They either survive it or they don’t. The climate is meaningless.

      • suyts says:

        They’re very limited to a specific season because many of the past seasons constitute what makes up the tree ring. And, we don’t know how many of the past seasons, or what their weight is.

        • cdquarles says:

          That though, varies from tree to tree, within a species and across species. It is also quite true, which is why the basic physiological and patho-physiological experiments must be done that show how the mixed effects are integrated into the biological resposes.

        • suyts says:

          Well, right. I was referring to the knowledge we have now. But, yes, they could be.

        • Latitude says:

          cd, it can’t be done…it can never be done
          until we have a way back machine and see exactly what happened

          …then we wouldn’t need to do it at all LOL

    • HankH says:

      Wow, just wow! So Bouldin, who has a PhD in plant biology with a background in molecular biology, genetics and paleoclimatology, gets disappeared over at RC.

      @ Jim Bouldin: I haven’t even looked at RC since my last comments a couple of days ago–lots going on–looks like I’ll have to. The really critical issue there (among many such) is the deletion of my response to Martin Vermeer. That’s really serious.

      Update: Deletion of my response to him appears to have now happened a second time, on a separate comment. And your comment there was restored from the trash folder, along with another one.

      Now I don’t feel so bad that I got disappeared so many times at RC.

      http://ecologicallyoriented.wordpress.com/2013/06/24/round-and-about/comment-page-1/#comment-3505

      • suyts says:

        LOL, zebras and stripes, leopards and spots. Some things never change.

      • HankH says:

        Yeah, so they come out with their little marketing campaign at RC saying in essence, “We’ve got nothing to hide. Lookie here – we’re even addressing three [very minor] criticisms from those evil skeptics.”

        Oh, they’ve got something to hide if they won’t let experts in the field ask questions. I need no further proof that their science is total rubbish (not that I didn’t already know that for years).

      • suyts says:

        It’s a shame and it’s a sham.

      • DirkH says:

        Wait a moment – even a guitar playing government scientist ecologist hippie notices that something is rotten in the warmunist kingdom? Uh oh…

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