Are deniers laughable or just pathetic with their latest scheme to make all climate science look fraudulent?
Yesterday there were attacks on physicists and every day they attack mainstream climate science. Will they end up doing damage to science as a whole in their attempt to continue the unsustainable burning of fossil fuels.
All I ever needed to prove AGW was a fraud is history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
The e-mails talking about using a trick to hide the decline are quite damning in themselves.
"From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil"
Since we are obviously not the big brain climate scientists you people claim to be, explain what is meant by "Mike’s nature trick…to hide the decline." Use small words please.
EDIT: MTR, thank you for the honest explanation. That is what I’ve read too. It is telling, to me, that all of these self proclaimed climate scientists who regularly post in this section have made no attempt to answer this simple question in simple english.
But we accept tree ring data for the Sporer Minimum. Fossilized tree rings are considered reliable for reconstructing ancient climates as well.
Let’s see, you told lies, so we’re pathetic or laughable for noticing.
Great defense.
Arthur Dent:
‘Since we are obviously not the big brain climate scientists you people claim to be, explain what is meant by "Mike’s nature trick…to hide the decline." Use small words please.’
The ‘decline’ being referred to is the decline in latewood tree ring density since 1960. Tree ring growth depends on many things; often temperature is important. So by looking at tree rings you can reconstruct temperatures.
When you reconstruct your temperatures, you compare them with other ways of measuring temperatures, like thermometers. The e-mail you quote (from 1999) seems to be referring to the trick performed in this paper (from 1998, a year before the e-mail):
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0.html
And again here:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0277379199000566
If you can’t access the last one, this graph from it speaks volumes:
http://www.4shared.com/file/156582772/861a7c9a/Briffa1999.html
In the public, peer reviewed literature they discussed the decline, showed that it didn’t agree with real measurements of temperature and decided thermometers were better. They recommended not using post 1960 tree ring records and subsequently didn’t.
That’s the extent of the ‘trick’ – they demonstrated a problem, told everyone about it, and subsequently did what they said they would (which seemed sensible…).
Proxy records without tree rings are available, and they are also compared with boreholes, stalagmites, ice cores etc to ensure that they don’t diverge as much in the past. However, there are still pretty big uncertainties in paleoclimate reconstructions. This is made obvious if you read the literature.
Mann throws Jones under the bus:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6718183/Climategate-Phil-Jones-accused-of-making-error-of-judgment-by-colleague.html
The "deniers" seem to be confused on the matter of traditional science — hypothesis, experiments, conclusions, reproducible results.
Nowhere in that process do I see manipulating and suppressing data to attain favorable outcomes for conclusions that can’t be reproduced…especially when the raw data seems to have gone missing?
Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated ! Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere
rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series ! Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar
to MBH. The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!
I’m going to say this as neutrally as I possibly can because I’m not trying to judge anyone, but who am I kidding thumbs down are coming regardless.
The most detrimental thing that could possibly happen to science would be for speculation and uncertainty to be reported with the confidence of certainty, especially if policy decisions that affect the public, or public safety, are based on these decisions and they prove to be incorrect, underestimated or overestimated.
Dana, even you have to admit that climategate is a pretty major black eye for the AGW crowd, if for nothing else, how it points out the lack of scientific methodology.
Now we see that the main research institute in New Zealand has been falsifying their data. We also see that CEI is getting ready to sue NASA because they will not release their GISS data. Then there is the whole "Yamal" thing.
Remember, for science to be valid, it must be reproducible….yet the common theme here is to not let anyone have access to the raw data that "proves" all of these claims.
I think if the AGW crowd didn’t spend so much time trying to shut down inquiry it would help them alot, but I do not see that happening….clearly….based, if on nothing else, than the way this question is worded, and your response.
So called "climate science" is the fraud. Thank goodness it has finally been exposed for the pathetic manipulation of data at its core. All science that makes the data fit the model and not the model fit the data is doomed to be cast aside. I’m going out in my backyard and burn 40 or 50 tires to celebrate!
I think laughably pathetic is a fair characterization.
I mean, half of denier Q/As over the past week and a half have been "ClimateGate proves AGW is nothing more than a massive hoax". Then you press them on specifically how the emails prove that, and they say "uhhh well Phil Jones said ‘hide the decline’ which means global warming stopped!’. Then you point out the email was written in 1999 and they say ‘uhhh well I guess it means tree ring data is worthless so the hockey stick is dead’. Then you point out the 2008 ‘hockey stick’ shape was the same even without using tree ring data and they say ‘uhhhh well Michael Mann is a big poopy head!’.
Their only real valid complaint is that Jones talked about circumventing the FOIA, which it’s true, he shouldn’t have done. But when you consider that as soon as his emails were stolen, deniers jumped all over them, totally misrepresented what he said, and then dragged his name through the mud, can you really blame him for not wanting to voluntarily give more ammunition to these smear campaigners? And anyway, while one scientist trying to circumvent the FOIA would be immoral (and there’s no evidence he actually acted on these statements), it in no way even supports the claim that AGW is a massive fraud.
All this episode has demonstrated is that deniers are a pathetic bunch of conspiracy theorist smear campaigners so devoid of scientific arguments that they’ll pounce on any bit of dirt like a man wandering in the desert who spots a mirage of water.
lol I think the damage has already been done to the science (NON) peer review process.
Blame the right people lieing religous warmers.
Oh, its laughable. After all they were too stupid to analyze the data anyway so why are they whining about the destruction of all most all the raw data used to generate the global temperature averages for the last 150 years. What business is it of theirs if the climate model used to make the global warming predictions had to be tweaked and some of the graphical outputs required that data points be entered manually instead of generated by the model. Real science isn’t about facts and figures and reproducible results. Its about what is right and consensus.
they may be scientific idiots, but they’re not half bad at public relations and manufacturing controversy. perhaps they know where their strengths lie. gotta give them that, at least.
The truth hurts, but it’ll be ok, I promise. You’ll find another BS theory to believe. For you lack the critical thinking it takes to sniff out BS.
For you see, the real thinkers have that ability to know by COMMON SENSE never bought the foolishness in the first place.