Steve has a nice post for the world.
New!! Data from the Decline
For the very first time, the Climategate Letters “archived” the deleted portion of the Briffa MXD reconstruction of “Hide the Decline” fame – see here.
Gavin Schmidt claimed that the decline had been “hidden in plain sight” (see here. ). This isn’t true. The post-1960 data was deleted from the archived version of this reconstruction at NOAA here and not shown in the corresponding figure in Briffa et al 2001, though pre-calibration values were archived in a different NCDC file here. While the decline was shown in Briffa et al 1998 and Briffa 2000, it was not shown in the IPCC 2001 graph, one that Mann, Jones, Briffa, Folland and Karl were working in the two weeks prior to the “trick” email (or for that matter in the IPCC 2007 graph, an issue that I’ll return to.) For now, here is a graphic showing the deleted data in red. A retrieval script follows.
Figure 1. Two versions of Briffa MXD reconstruction, showing archived and climategate versions.
See the rest here:
Does this look familiar, this is from a post at the Air Vent last year:
First noted by Steve McIntyre HERE.
I can’t pull up Steve McIntyre’s plot of the same thing from last year – original CA is still buried. The point though that Steve is the star in these emails and much of the impetus behind their release. While it’s all hidden in plain sight NOW, Steve’s point is that when it was first released — it was …..NOT.
HIDE THE DECLINE. DA DA DA DA.
146 THOUSAND VIEWS!
the Air Vent 
And ….Mann just published a new paper
http://www.physorg.com/news178459644.html
Mann discovers the MWP.
I know this is not related to the above post, but I was browsing through the archive of emails, and came across this:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=304&filename=1048799107.txt
It is not addressed to anyone in particular and I could not find any mention of the content in any emails preceding or following it, but I find it strange that it is there at all. Well, I can’t say I find it strange…it’s actually not a surprise. These emails have revealed what so many have suspected for so long!
Of course, if I am mistaken somehow, please let me know.
1) – The BBC version reads like a bad satire:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8381317.stm
It’s not something that spams my email box. I thought it was a scam when first reading. It’s good old fashion communism – after all it’s worked so well everywhere else. Let’s try again!!
Climategate reaches White House.
Holdren conspires with Mann and Jones to bash Soon/Baliunas when they write about Hockey Stick validation
From FOIA file
1066337021.txt
Jeff – I’m trying to get back up to speed on this stuff after being out of the loop for a while. I do have a couple of questions
Do you have a link to tAV post on the Schweingruber plot? I vaguely remember this from CA but as you mentioned, the original CA site is still down.
I understand that the team recons are truncated (Briffa in 1961, Mann in 1980), but how does Scweingruber fit into this? Is this a different recon from Briffa using his cores of was this from Schweingruber himself?
Happy Thanksgiving!
Jeff,
Here you go. It was from crazier days at tAV though.
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/10/05/mxd-tree-removal-service-choppin-wood-off-a-hockey-stick/
I also found a couple emails that mention some less than honest use of grant money. I’ve found two so far, but only have one on hand:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=332&filename=1056478635.txt
Thanksgiving Day Invitation to the Climate Change Skeptics
All the data and what models exist seem to indicate that we have reached a peak in oil production and a long steady decline is ahead of us.
This chronic oil depletion crisis happens to be occurring in parallel with climate change awareness, although peak oil has gotten much less publicity. This is serious stuff, yet the government barely acknowledges its significance because it has serious ramifications on the economy.
So, unfortunately, much of the public has no awareness of our petroleum predicament, and further, a significant number of people actively question the phenomena of peak oil.
Like it or not, a sizable cross-section climate change skeptics also happen to be oil depletion skeptics. There is no arguing this, as you hear it on radio talk shows constantly and you read about it in opinion pieces such as by George Will and a host of others.
So the challenge to the climate science skeptics who claim to be hot-shot statistics wizards — why don’t you “audit” those of us who post on http://theoildrum.com and other oil depletion blogs?
We are waiting, all of our data is open, we only discuss matters in open daylight, and we will kick your asses with our skillz. Seriously, we have to change our energy policy and soon. Whether it is due to a crisis in climate change, or due to an inexorable decline in easily accessible petroleum, things will change, like it or not. Here is your chance once more to prove someone wrong. Good luck.
And BTW, whatever data we uncover does not belong to us; oil reserve estimates are usually locked up in some corporate or foreign nation-state vault totally immune to FOIA requests. Double good luck in getting that. You will get to see how the people with the REAL money play hardball.
It looks like you have finished mopping the floor with the climate science crowd, and you should be ready for your next conquest. Yes, we are waiting for you, and we knew this day would come.
Twit by name…
#10, Keep your data in the open, after climate gate settles down, maybe we’ll get time to check your stats too. Be honest and open and you will win.
Just how many fields are we supposed to cover? I studied plane wings for god’s sakes.
Re #10:
The main reason nobody is “auditing” you is that our government isn’t using oil depletion as a pretext for entering into liberty-smashing treaties and imposing draconian taxes that will cripple our economy.
I seriously doubt we are facing an oil supply “crisis”. But even if we are, the free market will provide the next best alternative. As the low-hanging oil fruit is depleted and it becomes more expensive to process, other forms of energy will become more and more attractive and eventually take over. No heavy-handed government intervention needed.
Jeff:
What’s the Reynolds number of a Yamal Larch?
I think the Team boundary layer has detached and they are facing turbulent flow 😉
#14 30 billion.
haha.
#7 Jeff Id – thanks for the link, it and the post immediately before gave me a much better understanding. BTW, you’ve mellowed in your old age.
re: 1 and 3 – at least the Telegraph get the point:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100018066/bbcs-paleo-news-site-finally-runs-a-real-scoop-story-on-climategates-michael-mann/
BBC should hang their heads in shame:
“”What this gives us is an independent reality check,” said Professor Mann.”
#10 Twit – I am inclined to a similar viewpoint. But I tend to agree with #13 MattY
and I have other reasons as well, for dealing with Climate Science first.
As Willis Eschenbach’s recent piece shows, this is not only about taxes, it is a full frontal attack on the fundamentals of Science, Scientific Method. It is also a groupthink gone critically dangerous, as with Jim Jones, Madoff, Hitler. It is a threat to democracy as Monckton has shown recently. There is a groupthink belief in the climate science scam, a groupthink denial of peak oil possibilities, and a groupthink abandonment of the fundamentals of Science and Truth which we need to practice in order to find our way through this one. Close on the heels of the above comes the need for courtesy and debate – and the ability to practice courtesy in all situations, without needing to be “politically correct” and stifle all venting, or be bullied by trolls.
So, as Jeff says, as soon as ClimateGate settles down, we may have time to check your stats and science. I think this audit is very necessary – but don’t assume that the science there is less corrupt than Climate Science, or less able to successfully hide that corruption – as Climate Science did with me for a while. I also want to have space to bring Abiotic Oil issues into debate – but this will need very firm handling to avoid a polarization of fanatic / uninformed / naive believers versus fanatic / uninformed / naive disbelievers.
Curious: Ironically enough, according to Jean S on CA, it appears that Mann has again used Tiljander upside down and, perhaps more significantly, he hasn’t truncated it to remove the proxy contamination explained in the original article! This has to be the WTF?! moment of the day!
“”What this gives us is an independent reality check,” said Professor Mann.”
There is no such thing as “independent” when The Team are involved…
Sean: Re: 1048799107.txt and “Earth Government”
I plunked one of the referenced URLs at the end of the message (http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov/EarthGovernment.htm) into the Internet Wayback Machine (http://web.archive.org/web/20030419122203/http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov/EarthGovernment.htm) and found a homepage dating back to April-June 2003 that was hosted using a personal web site account on Shaw Communications (ie. western Canada) servers.
Appears to be a manifesto of some sort – and it didn’t last long. The page is now defunct and the wayback machine has no record of it beyond mid-2003.
IOTW: The referenced email may have been a notifcation from the site, especially given the timestamp. While I wouldn’t read too much into it, given the careful selection of all the other emails, this one sticks out like a sore thumb.
Jeff C inspired me to look closely at the UEA release and its two graphs. Here follows what I’ve garnered – open to corrections from readers of course!:
Hat trick – more tricks
UEA and CRU have not, it seems, stopped their tricks. Here, at the bottom of their recent release, are two graphs. The first graph was prepared for the WMO and it shows three separate proxy temperature reconstructions (from Jones et al, Mann et al, and Briffa et al) smoothly spliced to the proper thermometer record. The second looks like it has been prepared in a hurry… separating the coloured proxy curves from the black temperature curves.
Superimpose the second graph on the first to glimpse the differences
Home in closer – the first is to “hide the decline” but – oops – it’s clearly there in all recons when the thermometer records are separated out.
Home in still closer to see six tricks.
(1-3) Each proxy record starts to show a decline from 1960 on, the red (Jones), the blue (Mann), the green (Briffa).
(4) The splices used in the original graphs SOAR up to year 2000 – to outdo both the proxies and the thermometer record. WTF??
(5) The original is said to be anomalies from 1961-1990 baseline. But when we see the 1961 and 1990 lines, the baseline looks way off. WTF??
(6) There are TWO black temperature lines. The notes say instrumental temperatures (annual & summer in black) shown separately but summer temperatures should be consistently higher than annual, not criss-crossing as here. WTF??
Twit
What an appropriate name and an appropriate thanksgiving question.
I THANK YOU
As a longtime geo in oilfield exploration I will state
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!
The amount of oil and new discoveries is commercially sensitive.
YOU DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE DATA!
I was privy to some secret seismic done in Iran.
A cursory inspection indicated that there may be more oil in the 30+ untapped structures than has ever been discovered throughout time.
MAKE OF THIS WHAT YOU WILL
Also I will mention deep water discoveries off Brazil and West Africa, offshore and land are bigger than have ever before been discovered.
There is also untouched huge acreages off the U.S. continental shelf. Money in the bank??