Before we get started, I have to make a disclaimer. I'm not a climatologist. I haven't read the tree ring construction papers McIntyre criticizes, nor have I read his detailed critiques. I can't argue the merits of using one method of climate reconstruction from tree rings versus another. I can argue that Mr. McIntyre doesn't seem to be following normal scientific practice in "publishing" his critiques.
Whew! Now that that's over. Let's get down to business.
Earlier this week Andy Revkin at DotEarth reported about recent exchanges between McIntyre and several climate scientists including Thomas Crowley, Keith Briffa, Michael Mann, and the folks at RealClimate.org. Here's a brief description of the controversy (see McIntyre's post and RealClimate's response for details).
McIntyre regularly challenges the broad scientific consensus reflected in the 4th IPCC report that recent warming of the earth's climate is unusual. In the post linked to above, he challenges a particular data set used for reconstructing climate history -- tree ring data from nortwhestern Siberia, the Yamal data set. McIntyre burrowed into the details of the data set and found what he claims are large inconsistencies. He further claims that climate reconstructions depending on the Yamal data set are not robust and could be misleading.
The folks at RealClimate.org have a detailed response. They argue, among other things, that McIntyre's claim of inconsistencies is flawed and that even if the Yamal data set were flawed, paleoclimate reconstructions depend on several different proxies and the likelihood that errors in any one of them would have a large impact is small.
Fine. Sounds like a normal scientific controversy doesn't? Well, it would be, except that it's all playing out in the blogosphere, not in scientific journals. Why does that matter?
Whew! Now that that's over. Let's get down to business.
Earlier this week Andy Revkin at DotEarth reported about recent exchanges between McIntyre and several climate scientists including Thomas Crowley, Keith Briffa, Michael Mann, and the folks at RealClimate.org. Here's a brief description of the controversy (see McIntyre's post and RealClimate's response for details).
McIntyre regularly challenges the broad scientific consensus reflected in the 4th IPCC report that recent warming of the earth's climate is unusual. In the post linked to above, he challenges a particular data set used for reconstructing climate history -- tree ring data from nortwhestern Siberia, the Yamal data set. McIntyre burrowed into the details of the data set and found what he claims are large inconsistencies. He further claims that climate reconstructions depending on the Yamal data set are not robust and could be misleading.
The folks at RealClimate.org have a detailed response. They argue, among other things, that McIntyre's claim of inconsistencies is flawed and that even if the Yamal data set were flawed, paleoclimate reconstructions depend on several different proxies and the likelihood that errors in any one of them would have a large impact is small.
Fine. Sounds like a normal scientific controversy doesn't? Well, it would be, except that it's all playing out in the blogosphere, not in scientific journals. Why does that matter?
Well, it's not uncommon for scientists to argue about how data should be interpreted. In evolutionary biology, for example, there have been heated debates about the role of natural selection in the evolution of genomes, about the decoupling (or not) of evolutionary processes above the level of species from those below, about the importance (or not) of internal constraints on the pace and direction of evolution, and on and on. Granted, most of those debates took place before the advent of the blogosphere, but they took place in professional journals. That meant that advocates of each position had to produce data and arguments convincing enough for their position, even to their opponents, that reviewers and editors in the field agreed that the position being argued was at least reasonable.
Who does McIntyre have to convince that his position is reasonable when he makes a post on Climate Audit? For that matter who do the folks at RealClimate.org have to convince when they post there? Only themselves.
Now forget for a moment we're talking about the global climate and imagine we're talking about your health. Say you're diabetic and you need advice on your diet. Are you going to listen to the advice of someone who sounds very smart but who's never been able to get her/his opinions past a critical set of reviewers at a medical journal or the consensus opinion of endocrinologists associated with the American Diabetes Association? It's your life, and you're free to do with it what you want, I suppose, but I think you'd be crazy not to listen to the ADA.
That's the situation here. McIntyre seems like a smart guy, but at least as far as the Yamal data set is concerned, the only critique he's published is a letter in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences to which Michael Mann and his colleagues responded. If McIntyre's critique of the Yamal reconstruction, in particular, or paleoclimate critiques, in general, has any merit, then he should be able to get them published in prominent peer-reviewed journals. It may not be easy to convince reviewers and editors that his critique is sound, but if he's not willing to put his work through that meat grinder, he can't complain about the sausage that comes out the other end.
Warning! Thin ice ahead.
As I said, I'm not a climatologist, so I can't evaluate the details of the arguments McIntyre makes, except to say that when he's either not willing to or not able to publish his critiques in peer reviewed scientific journals and when his arguments contradict the consensus of a couple thousand climate scientists, I'm inclined to think he's full of beans. One other thing that makes me suspicious is simply the manner of his presentation and critique. Take a look at that series of graphs he has again, and then compare them to these. Do you see any similarities?
Who does McIntyre have to convince that his position is reasonable when he makes a post on Climate Audit? For that matter who do the folks at RealClimate.org have to convince when they post there? Only themselves.
Now forget for a moment we're talking about the global climate and imagine we're talking about your health. Say you're diabetic and you need advice on your diet. Are you going to listen to the advice of someone who sounds very smart but who's never been able to get her/his opinions past a critical set of reviewers at a medical journal or the consensus opinion of endocrinologists associated with the American Diabetes Association? It's your life, and you're free to do with it what you want, I suppose, but I think you'd be crazy not to listen to the ADA.
That's the situation here. McIntyre seems like a smart guy, but at least as far as the Yamal data set is concerned, the only critique he's published is a letter in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences to which Michael Mann and his colleagues responded. If McIntyre's critique of the Yamal reconstruction, in particular, or paleoclimate critiques, in general, has any merit, then he should be able to get them published in prominent peer-reviewed journals. It may not be easy to convince reviewers and editors that his critique is sound, but if he's not willing to put his work through that meat grinder, he can't complain about the sausage that comes out the other end.
Warning! Thin ice ahead.
As I said, I'm not a climatologist, so I can't evaluate the details of the arguments McIntyre makes, except to say that when he's either not willing to or not able to publish his critiques in peer reviewed scientific journals and when his arguments contradict the consensus of a couple thousand climate scientists, I'm inclined to think he's full of beans. One other thing that makes me suspicious is simply the manner of his presentation and critique. Take a look at that series of graphs he has again, and then compare them to these. Do you see any similarities?
Just an update after the recent debacles, since this page shows up quite highly on search results:
Firstly, using it as an argument against McIntyre that he has not published in a peer-reviewed journal is bunk. This is because extremely influential scientists have threatened journals that they would A) start boycotting them and B) encourage other scientists to stop citing papers in them (thereby destroying the journal, as readership and notability is the single factor for someone to decide where they want to publish) if they published research by climate-skeptics.
I guess the quote itself where they talk about drumming up a science-wide boycott would burn your eyes if I put it here, but anyone interested can find it.
Secondly, on graphs: Briffa hand-picked 12 trees to cover the last 30 years. The period prior to this uses 2000 trees. A single tree in Sibaria biased the data to show warming. In fact, fuck all that - the graph is clearly visible to anyone, showing the data using ALL trees versus the data using ONLY BRIFFA's trees: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168
Briffa has refused to provide a detailed methodology for how he picked the 12 trees that form the last red part of the graph.
If this was done by a firm in the financial sector and the recommendations sold to clients, the proposer would have gone to jail. Briffa isn't in jail and still tries to sell his result to clients and have them change their life based on it. I do not see the difference between being deceitful and fraudulent when you make financial recommendations for how someone should live their life, and being deceitful and fraudulent when you make climate-related recommendations for how someone should live their life.
Lastly, if climate science 'works', how come it was the 'flat-earther' 'saboteur' McIntyre who initially discovered this problem, rather than the thousands of dedicated, dispassionate, critical, highly educated, professional scientists? Seems like the odds of THAT is one to several billion! It's quite funny how ALL the scientists missed it, and the person who discovered the problem was supposedly the LEAST educated of them all!
But at least one person in the world loves McIntyre though, a bit down on the page:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024995.php
"Dear Professor Briffa, I am pleased to hear that you appear to have recovered from your recent illness sufficiently to post a response to the controversy surrounding the use of the Yamal chronology; (urlsnip) and the chronology itself; (urlsnip) Unfortunately I find your explanations lacking in scientific rigour and I am more inclined to believe the analysis of McIntyre." by Dr. D.R.Keiller, environmental plant physiologist. He never got a reply from Briffa but didn't raise a stink regardless, presumably because he didn't want his head bashed in with a baseball bat in a dark alley.