13. As McIntyre demonstrates in his most recent
post, AGW theorists still withhold data.
Let's examine that post.
McIntyre has demanded that he be given data by people who don't own the intellectual property rights to it. He feels he's entitled to look at anything he wants (hence his presumed opposition to SOPA). When Neukom states :
"Most of the non-publicly available records were provided to us for use within the PAGES LOTRED-SA initiative only"
McIntyre calls that an "excuse" (his quotes), not a good reason. The data itself is clearly not being concealed because its owners do make it available for specified purposes. McIntyre
could go to them for it - but then he'd have to specify his purpose, and we know he never
does anything with data. He just demands more and implies that
something is being hidden from the honest light of day. As a propagandist it's his purpose to imply such things, but he's careful not to make an actionable claim. He's very sly that way, as I'm sure you've noticed.
With regard to
why some data isn't publicly available : scientists and institutions have gone to great effort and expense to gather this data. They did so with the intention of producing useful papers on the subject. That's their right, and is not uncommon. The scientists involved want the first bite of what they've brought in.
Neukom
et al's paper does not conflict with the papers which these scientists intend to publish and so they'll make it available. Neukom isn't going to just pass it on, because that's the agreement. It is shared amongst his co-authors (that's "cronies" to McIntyre) because they're all working on the same thing.
So having got the obligatory conspiracy innuendos McIntyre goes on to one of his favourite subjects - the IPCC. The IPCC AR5 draft makes reference to Neukom
et al's peer-reviewed paper and McIntyre thinks that's wrong because firstly, McIntyre hasn't been given the data to ignore, and secondly, the IPCC's remit is to examine and report on the latest peer-reviewed science
without checking it. McIntye's assumption is that all science is lies until it's checked (unless it's from Chris de Freitas, or Spencer, or indeed any of McIntyre's cronies). The IPCC (and pretty much everybody else) thinks that science which passes muster, including pre-
and post-publication peer-review, is kosher until proven otherwise.
So having got the second requirement (attack the IPCC) out of the way, with a side-swipe at "the various models" (on which he promises more to come, have you seen it yet?), he moves on to the paper itself. Which he seems to like a lot.
For instance (from the IPCC AR5 draft) :
"A multi-proxy reconstruction for southern South American (Neukom et al., 2011) finds austral summer temperatures between 900 CE and 1350 CE that are mostly warmer than the 20th century climatology (though associated with large uncertainties), with a sharp transition after 1350 CE to colder conditions that last until approximately 1700 CE."
Before this he gets into making some stuff up, viz :
... the Medieval Warm Period (you know, the one that is supposedly regionally restricted to Greenland and a few counties in England) ...”:
This, of course, is not what is widely supposed. McIntyre either doesn't understand the difference between the MWP and the LIA or he's just lying. The MWP is recognised as a global phaenomenon in a period which saw very little vulcanism, and so little of its cooling impact. The Greenland reference presumably ties into criticism of those (Singer for one) who cherry-pick Greenland records because they show an amplified response.
"Warmer than 20thCE climatology" refers to the
average of the 20thCE, not just the 20-30 year period in which AGW has been making itself felt. It's not controversial to say that the MWP may have been as warm as the early 1980's. The 80's got warmer, the 90's were warmer than the 80's, and the 2000's were warmer than the 90's (but that's 21stCE, of course). So no big story.
So then
"Citation of Neukom et al 2011 by IPCC clearly takes its use outside the realm of LOTRED-SA associates, but Neukom has thus far taken no steps to ensure that proxy data of Neukom et al 2011 (now used by IPCC) is available to anyone outside his circle of cronies."
which revisits the concealment and IPCC themes, and another use of "cronies". (These things are as structured as a symphony.) This fits with McIntyre's "Team" motif, which means ever scientist except his own cronies - de Freitas, Singer, Lindzen, Soon and his A-Team, you know the crowd. Curry seems to
think she's a crony, but I don't see it myself.
Moving on :
'Series said to be available “upon request from the original owners” are, for the most part, the same series that had previously been described as only “available on request for LOTRED-SA contributors”.'
A blatant lie, of course, I'm surprised you missed it. Remember Neukom's reason?
"Most of the non-publicly available records were provided to us for use within the PAGES LOTRED-SA initiative only"
Where has the data previously been described as only “available on request for LOTRED-SA contributors”? Nowhere - McIntyre is lying, but he knows his target audience has a limited attention span.
On it runs, with reference to Slime-It Gate and all the usual stuff. It essentially boils down to : everything's about the Hockey-Stick; McIntyre's all about the Hockey-Stick;
therefore everything's about McIntyre. This is why he hates Monckton.
