the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Hidden in Plain Sight – A Criticism of Media Coverage

Posted by Jeff Id on November 25, 2009

Well the drive by media is getting a part of the story but we all know they cannot be counted on to figure anything out on their own.  You wonder why circulation is down my friends, here is a great example.  This scandal is the biggest thing to hit climate science ever, and the leftist media took several days to even begin covering it.  Now they’re covering it incorrectly.  At the same time the conservative side declares global warming has ended.  What the media doesn’t know because they don’t read the climate blogs is that ‘HIDE THE DECLINE’ is not unusual.

Let’s start with this point by Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate – a website exposed in these emails to be a global warmest advocacy group.

Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

Now Gavin correctly points out the data’s decline is  “HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT”!!!.  Right where everyone can see.  He also points out that the ‘authors’ have always ‘recommended’ to hide the decline.  This is absolutely correct as the original authors are Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn – featured heavily in the climate gate email and code.  They have their own recommended ‘hide the decline’ quotes.

This next quote is from Phil Jones email, Phil Jones was lead author of an entire chapter of the IPCC.

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 [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

This statement is about hiding the widely known downslope in the data. It clearly does not only apply to post 1960 but from 1981 onward in other data. Again this is repeated in the Keith Briffa/ Tim Osborn code in a dozen places with the following remark:

Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually ; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.

But that’s not all, it’s also quoted in papers such as Mann08:

Because of the evidence for loss of temperature sensitivity after 1960 (1), MXD data were eliminated for the post-1960 interval.

And in another spot in the code 1940 is recommended for the same reason:

; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid the decline

And in Gavin’s comment below at surreal climate – everyone knows about it as I also pointed out in my original post.

As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682).

Gavin and the media need to understand that we also see in Phil Jones quote that the last 20 years of other data were replaced.  What we have is bad science which is known to be bad by the original authors.  Phil Jones was then caught in public making what appear to be false statements twice (once WRT deletion of FOIA emails and once below).   Remember these are known issues yet this is how Phil replied to his ‘hide the decline’ email.

“That was an email from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?”

This does NOT jive with Gavin Schmidt’s correct interpretation that everyone knows about this issue in paleoclimatology.  So then the media should be asking,  how unusual is it? Here is an email from “scientist” Mick Kelly which is every bit as bad as Phil Jones email.

From: Mick Kelly
Subject: RE: Global temperature
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:02:00 +1300

Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used
to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a
longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you
might expect from La Nina etc.

Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also.
Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I
give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects
and the recent cold-ish years.

Enjoy Iceland and pass on my best wishes to Astrid.


It’s right there again from a different subject on a different topic and a different scientist.  Despite the massive surface temperature corrections to ground stations which add using a plus sign MOST of the WARMING signal “IN PLAIN SIGHT” we still have cooling so cut the data.

Why can’t a scientist admit the thermometer has dropped????!!  Why can’t they admit the planet has cooled???  What pressure of consensus has corrupted the science to such a degree that we cannot agree about a thermometer or release the CRU thermometer data?!!.

But it doesn’t end there and this where the media simply cannot be trusted to do proper work anymore. If these things are “hidden in plain sight”, someone should be asking  – um guh… anything else “hidden in plain sight”?

The answer is unequivocally –  Oh hell yes!!

And it’s done by the same people in some of the same papers but don’t you get your hopes up that it’s only limited to these people.   I and others have discussed Mann 2008 hockey stick.  Steve McIntyre made a formal criticism to PNAS  on Mann08 where he points out among other things they are using data upside down – (hot is cold, cold is hot).  The recent decline then becomes an increase — i.e. (hockey stick).  Here was Mann’s reply:

The claim that ‘‘upside down’’ data were used is bizarre.
Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of

Now it’s complex sounding if you’re not familiar, but what it says is simple.  The claim that temperature data was used upside down is bizarre because we already know the math doesn’t care if the temperature data is used upside down.  That was Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick’s point!!! The bizarre thing is that Mann was able to get this reply back through the ‘editors’  — ARE YOU IN THE MEDIA GETTING THIS YET?!!

But of course that’s not the real problem with Mann08, the paper is actually so obviously an advocate piece of crap that it actually chooses which data they want to use based on whether it makes the best hockey stick.  They actually go through all the proxy data and remove data which doesn’t support their conclusions  -IMAGINE GETTING THAT THROUGH YOUR HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS CLASS. But just as Gavin says — IT’S HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT!

Below is another quote from Mann’s reply to the complaint about data sorting in the 08 hockey stick. I’ll highlight some of the fun points in red so the media doesn’t hurt their little heads.

McIntyre and McKitrick’s claim that the common procedure
(6) of screening proxy data (used in some of our reconstructions)
generates ‘‘hockey sticks’’ is unsupported in peerreviewed
literature and reflects an unfamiliarity with the
concept of screening regression/validation.

Well Michael Mann was absolutely right – we are not familiar of ‘screening’ data for what you want.  Nobody in science is actually familiar with screening data for what you want.  We bloggers have been reporting this gorgeous shit for a long time now. It’s much much bigger than ‘hide the decline’ but hide the decline is part of it.  Here’s another Michael Mann quote from the hockey stick posts linked in the header where Dr. Michael Mann contradicts his reply, the wording is complex but the meaning is there.  This is in reply to CORRECT blogger criticisms of Mann08.

Obviously, if one generates enough red noise surrogate time series (especially when the “redness” is inappropriately inflated, as is often done by the charlatans who make this argument), one can eventually match any target arbitrarily closely.

If you have enough noise and you sort for what you want – one can eventually match any target arbitrarily closely.

How does this keep sliding through peer review?  This is the question with an obvious answer.

Climategate, is a sliver in their toe compared to the real scope according to my studied opinion.  I wish to god the emails were from computer climate modelers (I’m certain those would be fun) but this situation is what you get when you create political organizations like the IPCC which need global warming to survive  and increase funding.  There are dozens of quotes from alleged scientists exaggerating the case for warming and hiding recent cooling.

The IPCC was formed with 3 questions; Is man affecting climate?, What problems will those effects create?,  How should we react to them?  Leaving aside that the last two questions which formed the IPCC automatically assume a yes answer to the first– If ANY of these questions is answered in the negative BILLIONS  of government dollars vanish completely. For continued IPCC funding, the questions must be answered – Yes there is climate change by man, Yes it’s very very dangerous and YES it’s expensive to fix.

The conclusion was pre-determined before the organization was formed.  The corruption, through necessity, followed.  Every lead author of Every chapter needs to be thoroughly investigated for corruption, including emails, papers and any correspondence WRT IPCC reports. Some may be clean but it seem pretty obvious that many are not.

My new favorite video:

42 Responses to “Hidden in Plain Sight – A Criticism of Media Coverage”

  1. edward said

    I will change stripes from a skeptic to a warmer if Phil Jones can publicly replicate his own temperature record without “fudging” the results while being taped and broadcast live in front of an audience of skeptics .

    “Expose the code”
    “Bust the Anti-Trust Climate Team”
    “Busted not Robust!”

  2. Plimple said

    “Why can’t they admit the planet has cooled???”

    Are there any cherry picked 10 year periods during the last 15 years that yield statistically significant cooling trends for the whole globe? Not to my knowledge. Maybe you should start turning down the hyperbole.

  3. Jeff Id said

    #2 I realize you don’t read here often enough. I don’t think very much of the statistical significance argument. All it says is was the cooling created by typical weather noise or is it ouside of weather noise. It’s a crap argument, however, it is also an argument that works both ways. If you say no cooling in the last 10, I say no warming in the last 15.

    These points above are not hyperbole, they go directly to the heart of the issue. Also, note that the negative trend did reach statistical significance for a few years – not that it means anything.

    The planet has cooled -a bit. It’s real, it’s measured and the rest of the statistical significance argument is based on the assumption of continued warming. The cooling has even been measured using highly corrected surface station data which I sure as hell have no confidence in.

  4. Eric said

    I know that you have discussed this thoroughly but I just can’t get past the divergence issue.

    if the proxy data isn’t sensitive to the current, well known (and well adjusted) temp record, how on earth can they justify an assumption that the proxy is sensitive to temperature in the less well known past?

    Do they even offer a justification?

    thanks Jeff – love the blog

  5. Ursus maritimus said

    –“Why can’t they admit the planet has cooled???”

    –Are there any cherry picked 10 year periods during the last 15 –years that yield statistically significant cooling trends for —the whole globe? Not to my knowledge. Maybe you should start —-turning down the hyperbole.

    Why yes. How about CRU data from 2001 to present?

  6. Jeff Id said

    #4 You’ve hit that right on the head – no explanations I’ve seen. They will not be verified explanations, that’s not how paleo works. Also, how can Mann08 reject 60% of the data which was assumed to be temp in other publications?

  7. JAE said

    Great post, Jeff. It is really scary that McIntyre first pointed out these problems YEARS ago, but the “science” took no notice. It took this Climategate to get a majority of folks to notice the absolutely horrible practices followed in much of climate “science.” These guys should be stripped of their PhDs and sent to Siberia to continue their study of climate.

  8. […] Air Vent notes how the recent inconvenient temperature data has been deleted from many ’scientific’ […]

  9. […] 2009 Leave a comment Go to comments Here is a nice runthrough of the events sofar, by JeffId of The Air Vent. In other news, Obama is now going to promise unncessary emission cuts to the extent of 17%, making […]

  10. mrpkw said

    Great post.
    What will it take to get the MSM to really notice and investigate this story?
    I would LOVE to see a reporter stick a microphone in ALGORE’s face and ask him “When did you learn that the data was faked etc”

  11. crosspatch said


    Yeah, that is the point everyone seems to be missing. While deriding “skeptics” for not publishing in peer-reviewed media, they themselves have gone to great lengths to avoid peer review of their primary products (GISSTemp and HadCRUT) Apparently finding a potential problem in the data and wanting to take a look to see what that problem might be is grounds for immediate disqualification from looking at it. Having posted on a blog such as CA is apparently doubly disqualifying. In order to maybe have a look at what is going on, one apparently has to have a demonstrated track record in peer-reviewed literature of papers that agree, support, and extend their conclusions. Apparently a “peer” is someone who agrees with you beforehand.

    There is nothing “peer reviewed” about CRU’s temperature product.

  12. Mike said

    This post is still too technical and too lengthy to stand any chance of being read and digested by the pinheads in the media.

    I think working from comment #4 would be good – point out they are deliberately hiding the fact that the foundations of their work are proven false by empirical evidence.

    You know the shame is not only on the media, but also on us, the supposedly scientifically educated members of the public. We just swallowed it, when a mere 45 minutes of scrutiny would have told us the story, at least enough of it, even WITHOUT any FOI requests. I for one feel pretty ashamed of that.

  13. Plimple said

    “The planet has cooled -a bit. It’s real, ”

    From when till when? You neglected to mention quite how selective you need to be in order to yield a statistically insignificant cooling trend.

    You may think it’s OK to base conclusions upon the whims of natural variability but don’t expect to get taken seriously.

    Eric, yes they do offer various explanations. This is in the peer reviewed literature along with an open discussion of the divergence problem. The favourite seems to be a connection between tree growth and sulphate emissions. There is some literature out there supporting that hypothesis i.e. acid rain and sulphate aerosol impacts on tree growth under monitored and controlled conditions.

  14. D. Robinson said

    Hi Jeff,

    This email from (1254108338.txt) caught my attention.


    Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip.

    If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).

    So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip.

    I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.”

  15. AMac said

    I brought up the issue of the Upside-Down proxies in a recent thread. The comment is currently #132, mirrored at

    Gavin Schmdt:

    [Response: This issue was discussed ad nausem at Stoat – bring it up there. However, note that Kaufmann’s study and Mann’s study were different studies with different methodologies. Kaufmann’s used a straight up average of a priori selected and normalised temperature proxies – in that case there is no calibration step nor a validation step as there is the method used by Mann et al. In that case, the calibration of the records to the instrumental record is needed and that determines how a specific proxy fits in the scheme. If the varved proxy is contaminated by new non-climatic issues over the calibration period, it can’t be used in the Mann methodology (though the truncated version could still be useful for Kaufmann). Thus it is important to test whether the Mann results were robust to the non-inclusion of the potentially problematic proxies. Which he did. There is no other possible reconstruction that would use the proxy in another orientation. It is either in the way it was, or it isn’t included at all. Both options were published together in the PNAS paper. No correction needed. For Kaufmann the issues are different and he does have a choice about how to enter it in the process. Hence the correction in Science. – gavin]

    This is interesting at many levels, among them:

    (1) Schmidt’s description of cherrypicking proxies as a feature not a bug;

    (2) “No correction needed” alongside the tacit concession that Mann ’08 used a proxy in an inverted orientation with respect to Kaufmann’s use of it;

    (3) Invoking Mann ’08’s Supplemental Fig. 8a as a defense of his procedures and results, instead of as an embarrassment.

    (3a) The original Fig. S8a (still at the PNAS website) showed that removal of the tainted proxies had no noticeable effect on the CPS paleoclimate reconstruction, but the revised Fig. S8a showed substantial differences. The re-revised Fig. S8a again shows no effects.

    (3b) There’s no record for the PNAS reader or the Penn State website visitor to consult to make this pattern of Fig. S8a substitution transparent.

    (3c) If removal of an upside-down proxy from a paleoclimate reconstruction leaves it unaltered, what does that say about the reconstruction?

  16. […] on media bias here by Air […]

  17. Harold Vance said

    # 11, that’s only the half of it. Not only is the Team whining about skeptics who won’t publish “peer-reviewed” “studies”, they are also actively seeking to prevent said skeptics from publishing anything at all.

    A scientist is by definition a skeptic. People who discourage skeptics (and this group surely includes Jones) are not scientists. Rather, they are cheerleaders.

    In my mind, peer review in climate science has devolved into one big circle jerk.

  18. Harold Vance said

    btw, can anyone explain why Real Climate censors its readers comments?

  19. mjt1st said


    “You may think it’s OK to base conclusions upon the whims of natural variability but don’t expect to get taken seriously.”

    Too funny…don’t suppose you would care to apply that comment to yourself or other pro-agw’ers who, without the various debunked hockey sticks, find it tough to attribute the current warming to anything outside of natural variability.

  20. AMac said

    Harold Vance #18,

    Despite many reports of skeptical comments at RC failing moderation, mine passed, and Gavin responded (see #15 supra). However… traffic is very heavy, moderation is very slow, and there’s an active Amen Chorus. The host disposes of off-message comments through in-line rebuttals, and with many semi-conversations taking place at once, any follow-up is likely to be lost in the clutter.

  21. crosspatch said


    Their explanation for censoring the comments is “signal to noise” where apparently disagreement or questioning of their reasoning = noise.

  22. timetochooseagain said

    2-Why restrict oneself to ten year periods? There has been no warming in the last twelve years in HadCrut, UAH, or RSS.

    13-“You may think it’s OK to base conclusions upon the whims of natural variability but don’t expect to get taken seriously.”

    What conclusions exactly do you object to as based on the “whims of natural variability”? Here are the conclusions which should be drawn based on the recent climate behavior, as I see it:

    1. For whatever reason (“natural variability” is a hypothesis, what evidence of it do you have as the reason for the pause in warming?) warming has been occurring more slowly than expected from climate projections made by AR4. The decadal rate should be moving towards .2 C by now but it isn’t even close. The last twelve years there is nothing and the last thirty one it’s .15.

    2. Warming is NOT accelerating. Al Gore would do well to adjust his rhetoric-he may say anything which isn’t outright false, so even “warming will accelerate” isn’t prohibited, but the past and present tense are for the moment WRONG and he should say that.

    3. Unless warming suddenly reemerges at a very rapid rate, projections of large future warming are at least a little less believable than they were.

  23. crosspatch said


    It does appear that they are allowing more comments than usual in that vein. It might be more PR than anything else. We will have to see if it continues.

  24. twawki said

    Yeah and the big losers overnight were the Australian people

    As Joanne Nova said ; “Australia is in the extraordinary position of passing legislation that is known to be based on fraudulent science“

    And Terry Mc Crann said “We had a prime minister who declared economic war on his own country. And an opposition leader who spent the rest of the day trying desperately to make it unanimous

  25. Jeff this is an excellent post but I agree with #12 Mike, tweak it a little for the pinhead MSM.

  26. Phil said

    “In my mind, peer review in climate science has devolved into one big circle jerk.” – Harold Vance

    You just said what I’ve been thinking (but not quite daring to post!) for several days now.

    Darn it, how the hell do we rewind climate science 10 (?) years and rerun it from zero? We can’t trust the data (can we even get back the original?); we can’t trust the papers that have been published; we don’t know what good science has been shut out (and what potential good scientist’s careers ruined) by not being allowed publication; and we can’t trust any of the scientific institutions or journals who should have been stamping on these climate scientologists, not cheerleading for them.

    Like Star Trek, climate science needs a reboot. With new actors…

  27. Stevo said


    “btw, can anyone explain why Real Climate censors its readers comments?”

    ‘The Mann’ can. See 1139521913.txt in the archive.

    “Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.

    You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC comments as a megaphone…”

    That all seems perfectly clear and unambiguous, doesn’t it now?

    Of course, it was pretty obvious what they were doing from their visible behaviour even without us being told. They do let through a few softballs so they can slam them down, then not allow follow-up comments rebutting their ‘rebuttals’, so it looks like RC nobly allowed the idiot denier to comment but that they then fled, defeated in the face of Superior Science. But anything they don’t have a good answer to…

    I hear there’s a new wind of Glasnost blowing over there, and far more is getting through. But I expect it’s because they feel under scrutiny. Once all the fuss dies down again…, well, we’ll see.

  28. John of Cloverdale WA said

    “……hide the decline”. Looks like the government funded climate scientists of New Zealand were doing the same thing see:

  29. John of Cloverdale WA said

    “……hide the decline”. Looks like the government funded climate scientists of New Zealand were doing the same thing see:

  30. mrpkw said

    Lucy Skywalker said
    November 25, 2009 at 6:25 pm

    Jeff this is an excellent post but I agree with #12 Mike, tweak it a little for the pinhead MSM.

    Lucy, I am as dumb as a box of hammers and I can understand Jeff’s post VERY well.
    Granted, a box of hammers may be smarter then MSM reporters……..

  31. Joe NS said

    The MSM are hopeless. Die Scheiss hits the fan, and Jones reacts by defending the word “trick” while ignoring the words “hide the decline,” as if the method used to deceive is more important than the lie itself. That is called a plea bargain, confess to the misdemeanor to evade indictment for the felony. And of course tools like Revken jump in up to the adenoids, gravely explaining to their readers that they must understand that the word “trick” is a term of art in this context. And so it is. And who in heck said otherwise. Had Jones used white-out or masking tape to “hide the decline” it would be less “tricky” for damn sure but NOT more dishonest. Colorful illustration: REPORTER: “Professor, what about this accusation that you beat your wife with a cricket bat?” PROFESSOR: “Repeat that again and I’ll sue. I use a yard of garden hose.”

    For shysters like Jones et al., dealing with the dedicated dupes in the media is as much as to toss turds at monkeys. After sniffing, licking, and sticking the turd in their ears, they’ll happily toss it to the chimp on the branch next door.

  32. crosspatch said

    After wading through Harry’s readme I think they should change the name to HadCRUFT and I would be be willing to be it has been called that a few times.

  33. Jason said

    Dear Plimple:

    Are there any cherry picked 10 year periods during the last 15 years that yield statistically significant cooling trends for the whole globe? Not to my knowledge. Maybe you should start turning down the hyperbole.

    Brilliant cherry pick, I have seen this before! But it is out of date, it does not cherry pick 1998 automatically any more.

  34. Jason said

    BTW Plimple, if the temperature flatline while CO2 continues to increase, bye bye to CO2 as prime mover of temp change.

  35. Jeff C. said

    This is a good post for those who desire to understand the issues at stake here. Unfortunately, I don’t think the calls to dumb it down for the MSM help much as the media has no desire to devote the effort required to understand the issues. Speaking for myself, I read Climate Audit for months before what Steve was saying started to sink in. In an earlier comment, Jeff Id mentioned he had been studying the issues several hours a day for over a year. No one in the MSM is willing to expend 5% of that effort. The environmental reporters who should understand this (Revkin, Boringtheme et al) are driven by ideology and hopelessly in the tank. Lost causes.

    Instead of fretting about the MSM, we should focus on how these documents change the rules of the game and be prepared to press forward on all fronts. A few things that have crossed my mind:

    The team will never again be able to tout the overwhelming consensus of peer- reviewed studies without bringing on a firestorm of protests. This will severely harm their ability to uncritically drive the news cycle.

    The team will no longer be able to line up their cronies for peer-review of their papers. If the journals are to retain any credibility, they will insist on more impartial reviewers.

    Journals will need to enforce their data archival policies or lose credibility.

    The journals will now be much more willing to publish skeptical papers for no other reason than to show they are fair and credible.

    Public agencies will be much more willing to release information via FOI requests. None will want to be tainted by the stench emanating from UAE regarding possible criminal activity.

    The team will no longer be able to dismiss Steve as some sort of a bumbling crank. He has been shown to be right on just about every issue.

    I’m sure there are many more. The entire AGW propaganda machine has been dealt a serious blow. If those of us who expect an impartial review of all the evidence keep up the pressure, they won’t recover from it.

  36. vjones said

    I had a really good go at the Harry_read_me file today. I have only the vaguest of gleaned knowledge on programming and I expect to be proved wrong on this, but I think ‘Harry’ got the temperature side to work relatively quickly, but ran into problems with ‘cloud’ and other bits, because this is not just a temperature model but a climate model, to which cloud/sun and precipitation have been added.

    A surprise to ‘Harry’ (and to me) was that the programme produced anomalies first (+ or – deviations from a mean) rather than actual values, and it seemed to do this using ‘synthetic cloud data’ to which the actual data was added afterwards. This is not unusual for a model. But this set me thinking – what if each part of the model was derived like this? It would be easy to introduce bias – accidental or otherwise.

  37. Arn Riewe said


    Jeff – Let me see if I get this right. Treemometers have been known to fail in the post 1940’s. Other than the 100 year window from 1850 until 1940-1960 where I assume calibration periods were developed, the paleo has a free ride pre-1850. The assumption is that a treemometer that worked during that 100 year period but may have failed in the last 50 years was infallible for the 1800 years prior to 1850?

    Just checking because I wouldn’t want to be accused paleophobic if I don’t know the politically correct answer.

  38. ed said

    I have not been able to publish any comment on Realclimate for the last 12 months. If you are identified as a skeptic on the site they must have the ability to screen you based on your email address or ip address. Real climate is pretty well sanitized to keep skeptics with substantive postings out.

  39. Jason said

    May I throw out a thought?

    Jones “trick” was to snip off the end of the tree ring graph and replace it with some other (maybe faulty too) temp record. Since he had to deploy this simple trick, perhaps this indicates the attempts to mess with the code were ultimately unsuccessful? If so, perhaps do not expect to prove a fraud by restoring the code to operation. Save time too.

    Please correct if I am wrong.

  40. Jeff Id said

    #27 yup, Where’s the bubble headed blond press when you need thinkers?

  41. Follow the Money said

    “as is further research to understand why this happens.”

    This is amazing sophistry. He means, we are going to keep using this as a temperature proxy, and since further research will, of course, validate that supposition, in the meanwhile we will graft on something from another proxy altogether.

  42. crosspatch said

    New post on Anthony’s site says NZ was in on the action, too. Someone working at NWIA slipped out the “adjusted” data files.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: