Sometimes they forget
Posted by Jeff Id on May 11, 2012
So I left a comment at RC today bolded below. The boys are stinging again because they are as good at PR as most engineers I know.
You know the lack of disclosure of data not used, is nearly equivalent to the regression methods which automatically reject data not preferred. The mere fact that the reconstruction with ALL of the data wasn’t published is not enough to counter the obvious possibility of pre-selection.
[Response: In any statistical analysis there is always a possibility of pre-selection to get a signal, or the possibility of trying different combinations until the signal disappears depending on what the conscious or unconscious bias might be. Yet the scientific literature is not full of people saying that other authors are deceptive or guilty of misconduct because they got a different result. No one can ever prove that they didn't do a calculation, and ever more insistent demands that they must, are pointless. McIntyre is dead wrong here - both in his conclusions and his conduct. - gavin]
The sophistry here is that we have a history of post-hoc selection of methods (hide the decline), brow-beating of those with different results (the Trenberth travesty), and blocking of papers which refute results (many references). Now we find that many more Yamal region proxy series were available than stated and a reconstruction from such a strong hockey stick temperature region (usually a 3 month project) has taken years to reach the public eye. Unsurprisingly, now that a basic estimate was published by Steve McIntyre, the data doesn’t seem to support the six sigma Yamal trend. So, in context, the request is hardly unreasonable.
In addition, the problem here is that Gavin understands full well the regressomatic techniques of paleoclimate. I flatly don’t believe he is too stupid to miss how the auto-enzyte algorithms work. To sum up: The likelihood of Gavin’s misunderstanding of the probability of a paleoclimate regression (post-selection) to get a signal (hockey stick), is inverse to the probability of actually finding said signal. IOW, he knows damned well how this works.
Of course even Steve’s obviously non-temperature result will work fine in a RegEM, TTLS, TLS, etc…… regression. When doing multivariate regression, noise works fine for creating unprecedented temperatures.