By Steve McIntyre from his camirror.wordpress.com site.
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. Nor was the decline 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.)
A retrieval script follows.
For now, here is a graphic showing the deleted data in red. 
Figure 1. Two versions of Briffa MXD reconstruction, showing archived and climategate versions.shown below, clearly does not show the decline in the Briffa MXD reconstruction.
Contrary to Gavin Schmidt’s claim that the decline is “hidden in plain sight”, the inconvenient data has simply been deleted.
The reason, as explained on Sep 22, 1999 by Michael Mann to coauthors in 938018124.txt, was to avoid giving “fodder to the skeptics”. Reasonable people might well disagree with Gavin Schmidt as to whether this is a “a good way to deal with a problem” or simply a trick.
Figure 2. IPCC 2001 Fig 2.21 showing Briffa, Jones and Mann reconstructions together with HadCRU temperature.
Retrieval script:
##COMPARE ARCHIVED BRIFFA VERSION TO CLIMATEGATE VERSION
#1. LOAD ARcHIVED DATA
url<-"ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/n_hem_temp/briffa2001jgr3.txt"
#readLines(url)[1:50]
Briffa<-read.table(url,skip=24,fill=TRUE)
Briffa[Briffa< -900]=NA
dimnames(Briffa)[[2]]<-c("year","Jones98","MBH99","Briffa01","Briffa00","Overpeck97","Crowley00","CRU99")
sapply(Briffa, function(x) range( Briffa$year[!is.na(x)]) )
# year Jones98 MBH99 Briffa01 Briffa00 Overpeck97 Crowley00 CRU99
#[1,] 1000 1000 1000 1402 1000 1600 1000 1871
#[2,] 1999 1991 1980 1960 1993 1990 1987 1997
Briffa= ts(Briffa,start=1000)
#2. LOAD CLIMATEGATE VERSION
loc="http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=146&filename=939154709.txt"
working=readLines(loc,n=1994-1401+104)
working=working[105:length(working)]
x=substr(working,1,14)
writeLines(x,"temp.dat")
gate=read.table("temp.dat")
gate=ts(gate[,2],start=gate[1,1])
#Comparison briffa=ts.union(archive= Briffa[,"Briffa01"],gate ) briffa=window(briffa,start=1402,end=1994) # plot.ts(briffa)
X=briffa
par(mar=c(2.5,3,2,1))
plot( c(time(X)),X[,1],col=col.ipcc,lwd=2,ylim=c(-1.2,.5),yaxs="i",type="n",axes=FALSE,xlab="",ylab="")
for( i in 2:1) lines( c(time(X)),X[,i],col=i,lwd=1)
axis(side=1,tck=.025)
labels0=seq(-1,1,.1);labels0[is.na(match(seq(-1,1,.1),seq(-1,1,.5)))]=""
axis(side=2,at=seq(-1,1,.1),labels=labels0,tck=.025,las=1)
axis(side=4,at=seq(-1,1,.1),labels=labels0,tck=.025)
box()
abline(h=0)
title("Hide the Decline")
legend("topleft",fill=2:1,legend=c("Deleted","Archived"))
Sponsored IT training links:
Using 70-646 virtual exams, you’ll pass your 350-030 exam on first try plus get free demos for next 640-822 exam.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Note to US readers, here in UK the warmists are still running interference in the MSM. Check out (ex-commie) Aaranovitch in The Times.
sample:
“They somehow believe that the whole global warming schtick is an amazing confidence trick performed upon the peoples of the world by a group of scientists and socialists, and pursued by politicans keen to get their hands on green taxes (though for what nefarious purpose we do not know), and which has taken in almost all the governments of the world, from the US to China.”
Note the use of the word ‘trick’.
Keep up the pressure guys n gals. Don’t let them get away with it.
(PS – great work so far – props to you all)
It is all clearing up. We have several cheats working together and a handfull are in agreement with the cheating.
No wonder Hansen, Jones and Mann attack and mess with McIntyre when he wanted data.
Just watching “Question Time” on BBC, and the second question is “Is global warming a scam?”
The first person answering was a sceptic,
Mind you Marcus Brigstock than well known scientist is a zealot of warmist, UEA – CRU is insignificant.
At least it is the open.
So either 70ties were as cold as deep LIA – or trees are bad thermometers, probably underestimating real temperatures.
Hide the declineeeeeee – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
Time for criminal charges to be placed on the appropriate scientists. The sooner this happens the sooner we can get to the bottom of all this.
The wiki “Climategate” page needs attention. It is being redirected to a locked page called “Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident”.
There is another problem with their graph…they preferentially adjusted all of the data DOWN in the 1500s and 1600s…look at the reconstruction…I see a lot of years with very similar anomalies to the 20th century.
The scientists posting the emails are the IPPC experts.
(They get plenty of money and fame from it.)
These scientists plot (see emails) put their theory
to the IPPC and public and goverments follow.
What is unbelievable to me is the miss direction used by the offenders. They say things like “These e-mails will ultimatly show the integrity of the scientists”, hoping that people will not read the e-mails, but will just think “ya, he is right, some may look bad, but in the end it is all good”.
Then there is the notion that this is only 1 or 2 pieces of evidence out of hundreds. What they don’t realize is that most of this data is re-used in many other studys, and that realy this is the only quantitative evidence. The rest (arctic ice etc) is all qualitative, and could be interpreted many different ways.
Every time I look at such graphs, it strikes me that manipulators thrive where anecdotal and academic history go missing.
Though born in ’49, I learned from parents and grandparents about weather conditions between the wars. Apart from a brief but serious spell of drought around 1960, it was clear that the earlier period had been hotter and drier. The dustbowls in the US seemed to co-incide with Aussie conditions. Anecdotal, yes, but deeply ingrained.
As to accepting the absence of Medieval Warming in Mann’s original graph…you’d just have to be dumber than dog’s-do and more ignorant than a highly paid news-anchor.
Sorry guys, being a mere mortal…what does this all mean (well, not the deleted data bit, but the data itself)?
Regards
Mailman
From the band “Toto”, 1979, I give you the satirized version of the song “Hold the Line”:
Hold the decline
Warming isn’t always on time
Oh, oh, oh
Hold the decline
Warming isn’t always on time
Oh, oh, oh
Somebody please make a YouTube music video of this! 😀
I wait for the first of the Climatatii to step out of the closet….
Mailman it means tree rings are not robust proxy thermometers. The hockey stick shaft is a nonsense
I presume this is the beginning of analysis of the DATA files (not emails)?. This is where AGW will be buried and legal action will ensue. Expect to see massive resignation within weeks.
Maybe when the ‘world climate alarmist leaders’ arrive back from Copenhagen we should just take them straight to a specially constructed climate crimes unit and that can be the new reality TV. Milliband comes to mind, daddy was a Marxist after all.
Adolphe (Ralph) Miliband (7 January 1924 – 21 May 1994) was a notable Marxist political theorist. He was the father of two British MPs.
David Wright Miliband Member of Parliament, who is/was the current Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Member of Parliament for the constituency of South Shields ….
and
Edward Samuel Miliband is a United Kingdom Labour Party politician. He is/was the Member of Parliament for Doncaster North and the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change….
Both are part of the Brown Ministry of deception on climate change.
I think the wiki article is actually quite balanced given how coverage of climate science in wiki has been subject to manipulation itself by immediate “corrections” of updates to critical articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate
Larry
I am in total agreement with Finbar (14:55:39) :
“Don’t let them get away with it”.
But that’s not all.
From John Holdren to Al Gore who will be in Copenhagen together with Obama.
Don’t let them get the away with it and don’t allow them to make further legal commitments based of crooked and corrupt data. Stop Copenhagen.
Re Question Time
Should be on BBC iPlayer soon. Second question in, worth watching for those who can access the iPlayer. The person who raised the question gave a good account of the facts – Roman warm period etc. Also Melanie Philips of the Daily Mail nailed her colours to the skeptic mast.
Has to be said most of the audience were converts to the church of warming.
SandyInDerby (15:06:44)
I also watched this item in BBC’s Question Time.
Melanie Philips was given a reasonable chance, but a promise she could come back with a response to a point which basically required “weather is not climate” didn’t materialise.
David Davis was also reasonable, stating that the science isn’t final and never will be, though admitting his opinion to be 80% confident in the AGW idea.
The argument that “most scientists” agree with the AGW view was again pushed. I think this is one area where there needs to be more clarity out there, along the following lines:
(a) Just how big is the climate science community? What percentage of this is involved in the IPCC papers (and Climategate)?
(b) Most scientists are not climate scientists. Before I retired I was a physicist. However I have been pretty dismayed by some of the data handling that appears to have been going on in the climate science community from what has been revealed recently (from Yamal to Climategate). I used to think that climate science was being done properly – now I am far from convinced, to say the least. I hope that most of it is – but most scientists don’t have the time to get into another field sufficiently well to be able to be sure; they expect other scientists to be working honestly. At least that’s how it used to be!
(c) The “peer review” idea needs to be explained – especially if the relevant community is as small as it appears to be. If it is really the case that a very small group has been peer reviewing all this stuff then of course we can expect problems.
Still, at least there’s a discussion with views on both sides on the “Question Time” follow up discussion on the web:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=7278&edition=1&ttl=20091126232705
Tim S.: is the what you’re looking for?
By Minnesotans for global warning, posted at Air Vent.
REPLY: on our main page too -A
Tim S – after all the talk about “true believers”, maybe something more like…
I thought science was nothing more than fairy tales
Meant for someone else but not for me
Facts were out to get me
That’s the way it seemed
Disappointment haunted all my dreams.
Then I made this trace
Now I’m a believer
Not a trace of doubt in my mind
Hockey stick – ooh!
I’m a believer, IPCC-er and I lie.
Who thought data had to be a static thing?
Seems the more I changed the less I plot .
What’s the use in tryin’?
Just fix the maths again.
Medieval sunshine is now rain.
And I saw my trace
Now I’m a believer
Not a trace of doubt in my mind
Hockey stick – ooh!
I’m a believer, IPCC-er and I lie. 🙂
I wonder if in fact RC has basically closed down? re Thanksgiving etc. I mean it would be hard for G Schidmt to continue in public given this and CA re hide the decline posting? I suspect there getting the feeling the game is up with the data analysis JUST starting…. I would tremble knowing CA is going to have a look at my data and analysis LOL….
I just fear that Post Modernism and Relativism plays a large part in this saga. I blame the Universities for disseminating this tripe, it really means that they feel immune from criticism, producing the “my reality is as as good as your reality” attitude.
This is far, far, removed from the spirit of scientific enquiry, it is as if we live on two different planets.
Joe A (15:12:32) : Time for criminal charges to be placed on the appropriate scientists. The sooner this happens the sooner we can get to the bottom of all this.
As my old man always said Joe “there’s no dignity in haste” and another “revenge is best served cold”.
Is there no wonder Gav and his Team say they refuse to visit this blog as doing so would certainly give them very very bad nightmares however I doubt anybody this side will be losing any sleep over that thought.
Anthony and Steve and all your associates – Unbelievably amazing information coming through each day resulting from your collaboration, combined expertise and diligence.
Thank you