RC Off the Deep End
Posted by Jeff Id on October 2, 2009
There are two responses by Gavin which were left on RC that I cannot get past. He is stooping to making up crimes now for Steve McIntyre’s apparently pending trial. The crime of propagating slander. Steve McIntyre has them so wound up that they cannot make a scientific argument to discount why his tree rings are incorrect and Briffa’s are. In the process they’ve created some of the most fantastic irony I’ve ever read in print.
I’m sorry but what’s required is specific quotes, with URLs of course, to refute nonsense immediately. Replies like yours just feed nonsense claims of “snark”.
Response: Fair enough, so here goes (a couple of allied quotes as well): 1) “In my opinion, the uniformly high age of the CRU12 relative to the Schweingruber population is suggestive of selection”, 2) “It is highly possible and even probable that the CRU selection is derived from a prior selection of old trees”, 3) “I do not believe that they constitute a complete population of recent cores. As a result, I believe that the archive is suspect.”,4) (Ross McKitrick) “But it appears that they weren’t randomly selected.”, 5) (Anthony Watts) “appears to have been the result of hand selected trees”, – gavin]
Quotes 4) and 5) are not McIntyre’s and are not relevant to your accusations against him.
[Response: Oh sure. He’s just ‘asking questions’ – and yet the innuendo and implication was perfectly clear to his friends and to the greek chorus and no correction of McKitrick’s or Watts’ comments were made. Strange that. At absolute minimum McIntyre is complicit in propagating slander – and if that makes you feel better about this, than good for you. It doesn’t do much for me. – gavin]
How is Steve supposed to control what others say? Sounds like Dr. Hansen requesting prison for disagreement to me. However, you may wonder why is it so ironic.
Well ya see……..
In law, defamation–also called calumny, libel (for written words), slander (for spoken words), and vilification–is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image.
A negative image! However, in paleoclimatology the sorting of data for ‘temperature signal’ – while disingenuous in my opinion is actually STANDARD PRACTICE.
Esper et al 2003:
“However as we mentioned earlier on the subject of biological growth populations, this does not mean that one could not improve a chronology by reducing the number of series used if the purpose of removing samples is to enhance a desired signal. The ability to pick and choose which samples to use is an advantage unique to dendroclimatology.”
Reconstructions were performed based on both the ‘‘full’’ proxy data network and on a ‘‘screened’’ network (Table S1) consisting of only those proxies that pass a screening process for a local surfacetemperature signal.
The same or similar procedures are used in large numbers of hockey stick reconstructions either behind the scenes by choosing which study’s result to include or directly in the studies themselves. Decentered PCA is in fact a method of choosing which data you want to see and that was used in Mann98.
So the possible sorting of data suggested in the quotes given — is actually standard practice.
It get’s better though!
Right there in front of our eyes, right on the RC page, a few hundred lines above Gavin’s INSANE accusations are a bunch of graphs. You might ask yourself how these grahs are made? Maybe you don’t know yet.
Well here’s gavin’s dirty little secret..
The graphs that gavin promotes are made by sorting the data for curves that show what they wanted to see.
So here’s my question to Gavin, if the mere suggestion by people that the data was potentially sorted is harmful to peoples reputation and propagating SLANDER,,,,,,,
How do you resolve the intent to harm a persons reputation with the fact that you promote the same process?!!
He’s really lost it this time.