The bunny is right on top of it. He quotes an excellent comment from ClimateAudit about the fact that McIntyre was being told who to contact about the data. It is written in a very non-judgemental way, but in between the lines the message is clear. I.e. some of McIntyre’s writing tactics are being used to convey the message. Eli calls it a work of art.
Craig Allen over at Deepclimate brings the news that McIntyre was already provided with the data 5 years ago (!), but was unsure that they were the real deal, so he wasn’t ‘immediately’ satisfied. Deepclimate’s post itself details how the Russian scientists (and originators of the data) have an analysis based on a much bigger sample that basically confirms Briffa’s results.
If this wasn’t already a tempest in a teapot, then it most definitely is now.
Update: Tim Lambert (Deltoid) has a round-up as well, with some relevant quotes.
My view on climate change 
October 8, 2009 at 22:23
Of course did have the data it’s, but he did not know which part of it was used by Briffa, until a few weeks ago. And remember Briffa reprocessed the Hantemirov ringwidths to create a new chronology which retained the decadal and centennial components.
duh.
October 9, 2009 at 07:47
Hans, any evidence he did not know which part was used by Briffa? Or even better, if he had this uncertainty, any evidence of McIntyre asking Briffa which part of the data he used? So far, the evidence is that McIntyre asked Briffa for the data, upon which Briffa noted it wasn’t his, and that he would refer the request to his colleagues. I would not be surprised if they informed Briffa that McIntyre already had the data (or that they would send him the data, as they apparently have).
And yes, Briffa reprocessed. That reprocessing method is described in his papers.
October 9, 2009 at 08:58
Hans Erren,
The accusations -err, insinuations, of stonewalling, not sharing data, dishonesty, etc, seem to be off base, even more so with this new information. What you say doesn’t change that.
October 9, 2009 at 16:52
The data itself wouldn’t answer these questions. The paper would answer the questions.
I couldn’t agree more.
October 9, 2009 at 18:50
Shorter Hans Erren:
“but, but but…”
October 10, 2009 at 17:09
The art of reverse engineering.
A simple reference to another author as “the source” is not sufficient these days, given the vast amount of “grey” proxy series circulating within the paleoclimate community.
Read mcintyre’s rebuttal by himself http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7328
Besides that, without additional information NOBODY was able to know that Briffa only used 10 proxies in the tail of his chronology, and that Briffa himself considered 10 treerings not enough for a robust chronology, a fact that was concealed for 10 years.
Two pertinent questions come to my mind:
Why did Briffa never report that his chronology (according to his own rules!), was statistically unsound?
Why did Briffa not use the available Schweingruber Larches – sampled less than 15 miles away – to create a statistical sound chronology?
October 10, 2009 at 19:11
Hans, McIntyre’s rebuttal is hilarious. He starts with quite a few “I could have”, followed by explanations why he didn’t (“busy”), but forgets the options of ASKING Briffa about the RCS procedure and ASKING Briffa whether this was the same data. And then ends up with the complaint that it only takes a few minutes to archive data (errr…no it doesn’t), but it took Briffa a whole year (boohoo). That is, he complains about something that took a year, but doesn’t even realise the same excuse as to why he himself did not follow up for years would be at least as valid for Briffa. Who, notably, still depended on the co-authors who owned the data to actually archive the data.
Let’s wait for Briffa’s response to the final questions, but I’m pretty sure those answers will contain so many field-specific comments that the vast majority of us mere mortals will not be able to see the validity. Just like most of us are unable to judge the validity of all those calculations used in e.g. quantummechanics.
October 11, 2009 at 06:10
Bart, don’t forget to check out Tom Fuller’s take on all of this.