Climate Denial Crock of the Week/Birth of a Crock

Tue, 2009-10-06 12:01Peter Sinclair
Peter Sinclair's picture

Climate Denial Crock of the Week/Birth of a Crock

The observation that natural climate variability exists is not a new one.

Early in September 2009, at a gathering of experts on global climate change, one of the world’s most respected and experienced climate modelers, Mojib Latif, made some observations on climate, media and human nature.

The message seemed clear-
natural variations in the long term warming might be misinterpreted 
by the media. out of ignorance, or malice.

Climate deniers were quick to take Latif’s remarks, and begin
doing exactly that.

You can listen to Latif’s original remarks, here, by clicking on the
recording titled “Advancing climate prediction science”.

Original powerpoint is here:

Analysis is here:

Anatomy of a Lie

Key Excerpts


Previous Comments

So what motivates Beck and others to jump on decadal variation as evidence against impending climate disaster?

1)general lack of confidence in experts and their predictions.
Experts in fields dealing with predictions are known to fail spectacularly at times. No doubt folks like Beck desperately want to see the experts fall on their faces.

2)lack of trust in government solutions.
Countries that can be described as “socialist” are generally full of impoverished people and strong man type leaders.

So I don’t believe we can pin this all on Exxon. It’s also a matter of historic failure of the leaders and the learned making way for a readiness and an appetite for doubt

So I expect Beck to swing to the offensive. Imagine, a senior researcher(Briffa) cherry picks data, then hides the data from replication for 10 years.. all the while he chairs a IPCC science review of his own bogus efforts!

Go get ‘em Gen Beck. The world needs to know how shoddy the science is on these “unprecedented” temperatures.

I used to be a Beck fan but he needs to drop the preachy tone, the tears and the one man saving the world bit. It’s gotten old.

McIntyre just admitted to having had the data since 2004, obtained from the original authors.

Of course, McIntyre also claims Briffa most likely did NOT cherry pick data, but that won’t stop EdB crying “fraud”…

Honestly, I wish someone would sue McIntyre and every other denialist for libel.

“McIntyre just admitted to having had the data since 2004, obtained from the original authors” LInk?
comment 80

He just “wasn’t sure it was the same data Briffa used” (cop out), something he could just have asked, of course…

Anyone who reportedly hides data not only from McIntyres requests but also for peer reviewers and colleagues deserves being called a fraud artist imo..

A potential Bernie Madoff of science!

The guy should be tossed out of his profession imo.

IPCC and the world get a hockey stick based largely on ONE tree???? insanity!!

You surely don’t pay attention. McIntyre HAD the data! There was no hiding of data, it all went through the proper channels (the owners of the data), and still McIntyre claims “stonewalling”, and EdB claims fraud. It’s McIntyre’s claims that are closer to fraud than Briffa’s research!

Oh, and it’s not one tree. The Yamal series is one of MANY treerings that have been used, and in the various climate reconstructions it is invariably amongst the least significant. But don’t let the facts ruin your delusions.


Looks very much like McIntyre being honest to say he should have followed up, only to let that admission follow by a complaint that others didn’t do it for him…

He *could* have asked Briffa to explain him the RCS procedure. He *could* have asked him whether the data he had received was the same data (as it turned out to be). He could have done many things, but instead he only kept bugging people about data he already had, and then gets all surprised people stop answering him.

He also makes the stupid claim that it only takes a few minutes to archive data. It only takes a few minutes to put numbers on a website. To make it available such that it is understandable to all is not. Especially when the data also contains information that was not used in the paper, possibly even data that will be used in subsequent publications.

As per Henry post on CA:

Where is Briffa employed, shouldn’t a formal request for academic investigation of Briffa’s actions and or inaction in the matter be filed with the proper authorities or office.

1) Even if Briffa didn’t cherry pick the use of the Yamal data, he should have known the counts were inadequate therefore the Yamal data was inadequate.

2) Briffa allowed the inadequate Yamal data to be used repeatedly. Briffa’s inaction resulted in the huge waste of public resources in many different studies producing faulty conclusions.

3) Briffa repeatedly over 10 yrs refused to provide data or methods used, even if as he claimed the Russian’s had control of the Yamal data he could at the minimum made clear which data sets he used and methods. The only logical conclusion can be that Briffa was knowingly covering up the fact that the Yamal data set was inadequate.

4) Abusing his position at IPCC as editor to ensure no challenges or criticisms of the Hockey team’s published papers, would appear in the IPPC report even though Briffa knew his paper and many of the papers of the Hockey Team were based on faulty Yamal data.

(to paraphrase.. it is time to fire the guy for gross incompetence and negligence!)


As of January 26, the California Department of Water Resources reported that snowpack statewide was at just 27% of its normal level, which is 15% of the average for April 1, the point at which snow is typically expected to stop accumulating and begin to melt.

Which means, of course, that California is in for another dry year. Melting snowpack provides water to streams and rivers and replenishes reservoirs that are used for drinking water and agriculture.

In a cruel irony, a dry year...

read more