Playing hide and seek behind the trees

Still Hiding the Decline

by Steve McIntyre

Even in their Nov 24, 2009 statement, the University of East Anglia failed to come clean about the amount of decline that was hidden. The graphic in their statement continued to “hide the decline” in the Briffa reconstruction by deleting adverse results in the last part of the 20th century. This is what Gavin Schmidt characterizes as a “good thing to do”.

First here is the Nov 2009 diagram offered up by UEA:

Figure 1. Resized UEA version of Nov 2009, supposedly “showing the decline”. Original here ,

Here’s what UEA appears to have done in the above diagram.

While they’ve used the actual Briffa reconstruction after 1960 in making their smooth, even now, they deleted values after 1960 so that the full measure of the decline of the Briffa reconstruction is hidden. Deleted values are shown in magenta. Source code is below.


Figure 2. Emulation of UEA Nov 2009, using all the Briffa reconstruction.

 

R SOURCE CODE:

##COMPARE ARCHIVED BRIFFA VERSION TO CLIMATEGATE VERSION
#1. LOAD BRIFFA (CLIMATEGATE VERSION)
 # archive is truncated in 1960: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/n_hem_temp/briffa2001jgr3.txt
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])
#2. J98 has reference 1961-1990
 #note that there is another version at  ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/jones1998/jonesdata.txt
loc=”ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/jones2001/jones2001_fig2.txt”
 test=read.table(loc,skip=17,header=TRUE,fill=TRUE,colClasses=”numeric”,nrow=1001)
 test[test== -9.999]=NA
 count= apply(!is.na(test),1,sum)
 test=ts(test,start=1000,end=2000)
 J2001=test[,"Jones"]
#3. MBH :  reference 1902-1980
 url<-"ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/mann1999/recons/nhem-recon.dat"
 MBH99<-read.table(url) ;#this goes to 1980
 MBH99<-ts(MBH99[,2],start=MBH99[1,1])
#4. CRU instrumental: 1961-1990 reference
 # use old version to 1997 in Briffa archive extended
 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")
 Briffa= ts(Briffa,start=1000)
 CRU=window(Briffa[,"CRU"],start=1850)
 tsp(CRU) #  1850 1999  #but starts 1871 and ends 1997
 delta<-mean(CRU[(1902:1980)-1850])-mean(CRU[(1960:1990)-1850]);
 delta  #   -0.118922
 #used to get MBH values with 1961-1990 reference: compare to 0.12 mentioned in Climategate letters
#get updated version of CRU to update 1998 and 1999 values
 loc="http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/diagnostics/hemispheric/northern/annual"
 D=read.table(loc) #dim(D) #158 12 #start 1850
 names(D)=c("year","anom","u_sample","l_sample","u_coverage","l_coverage","u_bias","l_bias","u_sample_cover","l_sample_cover",
 "u_total","l_total")
 cru=ts(D[,2],start=1850)
 tsp(cru) #  1850 2009
#  update 1998-1999 values with 1998 values
 CRU[(1998:1999)-1849]= rep(cru[(1998)-1849],2)
#Fig 2.21 Caption
 #The horizontal zero line denotes the 1961 to 1990 reference
 #period mean temperature. All series were smoothed with a 40-year Hamming-weights lowpass filter, with boundary constraints
 # imposed by padding the series with its mean values during the first and last 25 years.
 #this is a low-pass filter
 source("http://www.climateaudit.org/scripts/utilities.txt") #get filter.combine.pad function
 hamming.filter<-function(N) {
 i<-0:(N-1)
 w<-cos(2*pi*i/(N-1))
 hamming.filter<-0.54 – 0.46 *w
 hamming.filter<-hamming.filter/sum(hamming.filter)
 hamming.filter
 }
 f=function(x) filter.combine.pad(x,a=hamming.filter(40),M=25)[,2]
## WMO Figure at CRU
 #http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
 #WMO: http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.138392!imageManager/1009061939.jpg
 #2009: http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.138393!imageManager/4052145227.jpg
X=ts.union(MBH=MBH99+delta,J2001,briffa=briffa[,"gate"],CRU=cru )  #collate
 Y=data.frame(X); year=c(time(X))
 sapply(Y, function(x) range(year [!is.na(x)]) )
 #      MBH J2001 briffa  CRU
 # [1,] 1000  1000   1402 1850
 # [2,] 1980  1991   1994 2009
smoothb= ts(apply(Y,2,f),start=1000)
xlim0=c(1000,2000) #xlim0=c(1900,2000)
 ylim0=c(-.6,.35)
 par(mar=c(2.5,4,2,1))
 col.ipcc=c("blue","red","green4","black")
par(bg="beige")
 plot( c(time(smoothb)),smoothb[,1],col=col.ipcc,lwd=2,bg="beige",xlim=xlim0,xaxs="i",ylim=ylim0,yaxs="i",type="n",axes=FALSE,xlab="",ylab="deg C (1961-1990)")
 usr 1960
 points( c(time(smoothb))[temp],smoothb[temp,"briffa"],pch=19,cex=.7,col=”magenta”)
About these ads

157 thoughts on “Playing hide and seek behind the trees

  1. It still amazes me why you deniers are willfully accepting that millions of species going extinct every month and the polar caps being bombarded by solar radiation. Do you enjoy watching your planet explode like a kitten burned alive in a microwave on high for 10 minutes? I think something is wrong with you people :(

    Reply: I’m allowing this unsnipped for entertainment value. Challenge to you Aimee. Name ONE species that went extent in the last 3 months. ~ charles the moderator.

  2. Still hiding the decline.

    How about hiding the assumption that post-1960 tree rings aren’t correlated to temperature but pre-1960 are? Did the trees join the counter-culture and start taking drugs?

    They aren’t un-hiding anything. They are just digging a deeper hole.

  3. Yep Aimee we like science and things that work. That’s what’s wrong with us, that plus we dont have nice haircuts.

    None of us pretend to god like powers. Just people trying to get stuff right so naff off.

    AS for deniers, my father was a guest of the Nazis, would you like to run that by me in broad daylight.

  4. Dear Aimee

    As an hysterical alarmists you don’t have to exaggerate everything. I’m sure 5 minutes would be more than enough.

    Regards

    Michael

  5. Using that word is an insult to the victims of the holocaust Aimee. How can you continue to believe what these scientists say when they are clearly either delusional or outright liars? Summer Arctic Sea ice has increased for 2 consecutive years. Global Warming hasn’t happened for 10 years. Why do you still believe that CO2 causes global warming?

  6. Aimee, I just came across this comment on the WSJ, and felt it relevant to what you have said. It was authored by one Bill Gnade.

    “Yes, yes. Our skepticism is but a ruse to distract folks of the truth you’ve descried: we are heartless brutes. We are naught but crass egotists who care for no one but ourselves. We might as well proclaim ourselves solipsists, as nothing but our own relentless self-interest exists to us, for us. Seriously, we are myopic misanthropes. We hate life; the living. We pray for a melted earth. We hope with a lover’s zeal for the heat death of the planet. We dream of little else but toxicity, of leaving the earth worse off than we found it. We don’t seek to leave our mark on life. We seek to leave our stain.”

    Enjoy.

  7. Hi Aimee You should check out AGW warming sites data on ice Global ice: It in fact completely normal see here:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg Here is your Artic ice extent see how in fact (the red line its getting greater not smalller!

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    Antarctica has been ABOVE (MORE ICE) anomaly for about 2 years now check it yourself

    You see this is only ONE why I dont buy it. Go check all the temp[erature data ect. I agree completely with species exctinction with you but its due to land clearing and too many people so no problem or disagreement there. The only argument is that human produced C02 does NOT cause global warming thats all. Good luck but You are being woodwinked

  8. DRE (23:24:22) :

    Hence Mann’s new paper where he discovers the MWP, which can only make me wonder about the timing of its release and the meaning of its release. Honestly, at this point, one can only wonder what else is hiding under the carpet.

  9. Keeping with PhilW’s children theme…

    One of these rings ain’t like the others, one of these rings just doesn’t belong

    Aimee, step back from the koolaid.

  10. Isn’t this anything more than a theoretical discussion ? Let there be (and there was) some warming in the Middle Ages. And yes, some tried to deny that and present graphs without this warm period. On purpose. To make us scared. But does that change anything about the fact that we are living in a relative warm period. Since 10 years there is no additional warming observed any more, but there are also almost no moments that the global temperature did drop below the used reference temperature.

    Does the presence or absence of the Medieval warm period on a graph change something on the fact that humans puts biljons of tons of CO2 in the atmosfere ? And maybe you can argue that CO2 is almost armless in this low concentrations. Yes but CO2 is never emitted alone. Always there are a lot of other co-emissions that are much more dangerous for environment and health.

    So does the recognition or denial of the Medieval Warm period remove our moral duty to take the best possible care of our planet ? Is the presence or absense of some tree ringdate a sign to waste our natural resourses and to blow anything we like into the atmosfere ? I don’t think so. Maybe CO2 reduction will not keep us cooler, but certainly it will make us beter humans.

  11. aimee, you dork-ish authoress, you-

    Case here hinges on the first fact-numbers added to increase temperatures, not actual observed.

    Case closed-they lied.

    Now, go take care of your cat…..

  12. Aimee.

    Chill out. Have an ice cold carbonated beer. It works for me.

    In fact, it’s working right now.

    Cheers!

  13. Willem de Rode (23:40:50) :

    So does the recognition or denial of the Medieval Warm period remove our moral duty to take the best possible care of our planet? Is the presence or absense of some tree ring date a sign to waste our natural resour[c]es and to blow anything we like into the atmos[ph]ere? I don’t think so.

    OK. The problem is that now the current warm period cannot be directly linked to CO2 because a past warm period is in need of explaining without the effects of CO2. This is a problem for the idea that our burning of fossil fuels is the cause of the current warm period. Just because the two are correlated does not mean that one causes the other. We do not “blow anything we like into the atmosphere”. There are very strict emissions laws in the U.S. on what can and cannot be emitted without proper cleanup, and lest we forget HFCs are banned. We also have a moral duty to ensure that we take care of humanity, a concept that sadly seems lost in American society today. I could elaborate but this website is not the place for that argument. Suffice it to say that many people would suffer if they were not allowed to use CO2 producing fuels for heat or electricity. Hospitals use an enormous amount of electricity to care for patients, for example.

    Maybe CO2 reduction will not keep us cooler, but certainly it will make us bet[t]er humans. Maybe CO2 reduction will not keep us cooler, but certainly it will make us be[t]ter humans.

    I find the last sentence of this especially perplexing. If CO2 reduction may not keep us cooler, how would it make us better humans?

  14. As a non-techie person, have I got this right? They deleted ( cut off short ) Briffas own 2,000 data on the first graph to hide the fact that his data shows temps declining to a level not seen since 1820s ?
    Someone on another blog described this as ” hidden in plain sight”, even on the fiddled version.
    Just to the left the graph also shows the steep rise in temps C1700 while the Global Cooling Deniers still maintain that recent rises are entirely unprecedented.

    Reply: They cut off evidence that tree rings might not track temperature, thus calling into doubt the entire reconstruction based on tree rings. They are not hiding “global cooling” per se. ~ ctm

  15. @Aimee Gardens,

    Perhaps you could back, with evidence, some of your statements. Science estimates thath there are 10 million species alive on Earth at the moment with somewhere around 1.4 million currently known, although some say there may be up to 100 million. That said, by your reckoning we have somewhere between one month to 10 months left, perhaps less than a month if we are not the last species on the short end of the stick.

    Also the Polar caps are, as you quite correctly say, being bombarded by solar radiation every moment. All that radiation from 370-700 nM has a nasty side effect of causing a very serious electro-chemical reaction called photosynthesis. This process has caused a multitude of unwanted organisms to flourish on our one and only mother.

    Nothing is ever wrong with asking questions even if that means you are denying things like the Earth being flat. In fact there are many people who deny the increase in Polar Bear populations contrary to all evidence.

    What is truly dangerous? Rank anti-intellectualism that embraces pseudo- science, hysterical emotionalism, and neo-pagan ideologies of sacrifice to appease the Earth because we are dangerously out of balance and facing tremendous disaster. This is nothing new, sadly, it was a main plank of a particularly virulent political ideology in Germany from the 1920’s to the mid 1940’s but rather than being called Conservation it is now Environmentalism.

  16. Also @ Aimee, it is entirely possible that the domestication of certain animals has saved them from extinction, including kittens.

  17. Aimee Gardens (23:20:28) : It still amazes me why you deniers are willfully accepting that millions of species going extinct every month and the polar caps being bombarded by solar radiation. Do you enjoy watching your planet explode like a kitten burned alive in a microwave on high for 10 minutes? I think something is wrong with you people :(

    Your post belongs in the humour section, not here. That graph and code up there shows our planet exploding like a kitten. We find it very entertaining.

    Why does it still amaze you? We are very accepting people, get used to us.

    As a compromise we will accept you taking an umbrella to the icecaps to save them from solar radiation, and I will turn my microwave down to medium.

  18. The Climategate alleged scientists just can’t seem to resist putting their hand in the cookie jar when they don’t think anyone is paying attention. How can they possibly think they’ll continue to get away with fraudulent science when they are being watched by so many eyes? Still after the emails too! Wow, that takes brazen huge ones.

    They remind me of that story of the monkey that reaches into a jar with a narrow opening to pick up the apple inside but can’t get it’s hand out of the jar because it won’t let go of the apple! They really want that decline hidden just like a monkey wants that apple.

    Talk about dedicated to one’s hypothesis and methodology till the end.

  19. I thought Aimee G. was spoofing or whatever. Does anyone know if this is meant to be serious? And why? If it was meant to be serious – someone needs help!
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    While being skeptical all along this “climategate” stuff just keeps getting more ridicules. The sad thing is that while before I was inclined to think the academic folks providing research reports to support the AGW crowd were mostly misdirected and not good at being scientists, now I think they are frauds and incompetent as well. I am resentful that I cannot now read a peer-reviewed report on the subject of climate without checking for reviews of it by others such as Steve and the folks commenting on CA, WUWT, The Air Vent, The Blackboard, Pielke(s), ICECAP, and so on. Jones, Mann and “the team” have done a disservice to all of Science.

  20. Guys and Gals, let’s leave Aimee alone she’s too easy a target.

    Aimee, you are entitled to your views, but please don’t call people who don’t hold them “deniers” it is meant to associate sceptics with those who deny the holocaust, why would anyone with the arguments on their side do that?

    As for Briffa, the question being begged by all this is why they had confidence in the data before 1960 once they noticed the downtick. Surely then without instrumental temperature measurements to compare to the earlier proxies they use of those proxies would have been invalid?

  21. “Reply: I’m allowing this unsnipped for entertainment value. Challenge to you Aimee. Name ONE species that went extent in the last 3 months. ~ charles the moderator.”
    ————————–

    Could we also challenge people to name species that go extinct due to the removal of their natural and ancient habitat to make way for “green” bio-fuel plantations too? I am of course thinking of the magnificent Orang-utan. I know that they are not extinct – yet,

    So can we have a competition to list of all the species that environmentalists are driving to extinction?

    If the good hearted and well meaning idiots who get so steamed about people leaving on a light bulb actually fired more than one neuron at once and got steamed about REAL pollution and destruction of habitat and the destruction of ancient, irreplaceable forests, instead of the increase in a trace gas plant food, then perhaps the world would be in a better state today.

  22. “As an hysterical alarmists you don’t have to exaggerate everything. I’m sure 5 minutes would be more than enough.”

    LOVE IT!!! Funny, as in, hot coffee on my monitor funny! Thank you!!!

  23. Willem: The point is in fact that implementing desperate means to cut CO2 may actually make us the opposite of “better humans”. In fact, it may already have killed hundreds of thousands: The ridiculous and very short-sighted political decisions to force the use of biofuel may have been partly responsible for the food crisis of the last couple of years. The 2006-2008 food price rally probably was partly due to a financial bubble, so it’s hard to tell how many people were really killed by biofuel promotion, but there’s no doubt it will get much worse if this crazy (in its current incarnation, i.e. using food for fuel, future biofuel technologies may be better) biofuel promotion continues.
    And to Aimee: Stupid, short-sighted promotion of biofuel most certainly also has made species go extinct! E.g. in Indonesia, where rain forests have been replaced with palm oil fields, releasing so much CO2 in the process that CO2 saved by using palm oil diesel will have to “pay back the upfront CO2 payment” over several hundred years before it’s balanced.
    Let’s start being better humans by protecting our environment from dangers that we KNOW are real: E.g. help developing countries build clean, modern coal power plants to avoid the brown clouds that kill thousands of people (and that may even be the main cause of e.g. the melting Himalayan glaciers). And let’s not stop the developing countries from economic development by denying them these power plants. Then we’re really being “better humans”.
    Another small example of how political decisions may actually harm the environment: The EUs decision to ban normal light bulbs at a time when the “green” light bulbs still contain mercury, which necessarily will make it into the environment (I stockpile the old Edison-bulbs I find, I live far north where we mostly need light in the heating season, and we have electrical heating anyway, so the heat from the light bulbs isn’t wasted).

    As long as the scare scenarios of a “burning world” are very far from “settled science”, those of us who have /real/ concern for the environment understand that one needs to thread carefully. The road to hell is paved with good intentions…

  24. Give Aimee a break..

    For more than ten years I have listened to, and lived my life believing that AGW was true. I also pushed my convictions on my children.
    The obvious shock in the posts by those of you who suspected this scandal is is glaringly obvious. For me, and millions of others like me coming to terms with this scandal, has been, and still is an extremely painful process.
    We are waking up, but coming out of a 10 year sleep is a slow process, and the shock of the “Climategate” sirens and it’s social implications is frightening. It’s tempting to snuggle back under the bed covers, and pretend non of this is happening.

  25. Willem de Rode (23:40:50) :
    Maybe CO2 reduction will not keep us cooler, but certainly it will make us beter humans.

    As long as you don’t mind being party to the death of millions in the third world due to food shortages that will be caused by the AGW fraud. I can’t see how that is being a better human?

  26. PhilW: Very good comment! I’ve taken AGW more or less for granted for almost 30 years (!) – since around 1980, after watching Carl Sagan’s Cosmos as a very young man. I think that what made me check the facts must have been Al Gore’s movie. I never saw it myself, but the scare scenarios reported by my kids (and the fact that they were shown it in a public school) made me want to check the facts better. And the facts, to me, are that we simply don’t know yet. A little AGW is very probable, but exactly how high climate sensitivity to CO2 is, is not yet “settled science” at all. Also, a high-CO2, warm world may not be as bad as the alarmists will have it: The most scary parts of our earth’s recent history were the Ice Age maxima, where the earth was very cool and very dry.

    Given that I don’t think the science is settled at all, I used to think that fast cuts in CO2 emissions would still be the best way to go, since we eventually need to move to new sources of energy anyway. It took me a long time to understand that trying to stop CO2 emissions too fast may create problems of its own, which may, if we don’t thread carefully, strangle human development for decades or centuries, especially in the third world.

  27. For those who want to watch exploding kittens. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Doh3InpBq4g

    For the rest of us, I had to watch the travesty of melting Glaciers in the Himalyas as the harbinger of doom as the lead item on our NZ National TV news, followed by how Copenhagen will save us all and that our PM has committed us to pay $25 million – or up to $50 million as our guilt tax. The MSM do live on a different planet. Climategate only appears on blogs here, the MSM is completely subverted to AGW.

  28. The Aimee comment is just precious.

    “It still amazes me why you deniers are willfully accepting that millions of species going extinct every month”

    There are currently 1.8 million known species of plants and animals living on the planet Earth. According to Aimee, every living creature on planet Earth will be extinct by the end of this month…

    That’s some real interesting news. You would think that even CNN would be covering this mass extinction.

    Cheers

    Cheers

  29. Aimee,

    “and the polar caps being bombarded by solar radiation.”

    I think you’ll find that 1/2 of the World is always being bombarded by solar radiation – it’s called daylight.

  30. Interesting – the AGW crowd due to the high traffic here are now sending their messages to wuwt.
    Interesting their arguments they are not about science but touchy feely like: save your grandchildren, save the animals, save the planet. I did design of furnaces and thought radiation heat transfer in college and was a skeptic for a long time. I am also a proponent of thermal efficiency and the reduction of NOx, particulates and SOx in the atmosphere; I am an Engineer that designs respecting the environment.
    In my case my children bought the PR of AGW and told me I was wrong, and now after this evidence they tell me yes dad you were right, but it was for the good of the planet. The true believers keep talking about the poles melting, how they are in the side of “good” whatever that is.
    In conclusion the AGW crowd works for: the end justifies the means. This is NOT SCIENCE or ENGINEERING

  31. doctorbulldog ;

    RE: “It still amazes me why you deniers are willfully accepting that millions of species going extinct every month”

    Well, when you line on a planet this small with a core temperature of a few million degrees, that sort of thing is bound to happen every now and then.

  32. “Name ONE species that went extent in the last 3 months.”
    ~ charles the moderator.

    A very high probability would be the species inhabiting East Anglia University working on Climate Change.

  33. Aimee, you’ve got lots of replies but I can’t resist. Serious question about values:

    If you had the ability to reduce human population down to 1 billion, would you do it?

    (remember, before modern technology, the whole of Europe had maybe 30 million people).

  34. CRU Fraudsters Continue Publishing Scare Stories in MSM

    This is the shameless headline from the Times today

    “Major cities at risk from rising sea level threat”

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6938356.ece

    And here are some choice quotes from that article:

    “Sea levels will rise by twice as much as previously predicted as a result of global warming, an important international study has concluded.

    The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) calculated that if temperatures continued to increase at the present rate, by 2100 the sea level would rise by up to 1.4 meters — twice that predicted two years ago.

    Such a rise in sea levels would engulf island nations such as the Maldives in the Indian Ocean and Tuvalu in the Pacific, devastate coastal cities such as Calcutta and Dhaka and force London, New York and Shanghai to spend billions on flood defenses. [note: get into flood-defense construction now!]

    Even if the average global temperature increases by only 2C — the target set for next week’s Copenhagen summit — sea levels could still rise by 50cm, double previous forecasts, according to the report….

    …In an interview with The Times, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, said that geo-engineering, where carbon is stripped from the atmosphere using specialist technologies, would be necessary to control runaway damage to the climate. “At some point we will have to cross over and start sucking some of those gases out of the atmosphere.” [Note: Pachauri seems never to have heard of trees.]

    …The IPCC report predicted that the melting of ice sheets would contribute about 20% of the total rise in sea levels, with the majority coming from the melting of glaciers and the expansion of the water as it warms. It said that it was not able to predict the impact of melting ice sheets, but suggested this could add 10-20cm….”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I went to the SCAR website to understand who they are, etc. Because of the dearth of ground weather stations on Antarctica, they appear to have had help from NCAR “to estimate near-surface temperatures over a 50-year period”.

    …OK, but…

    There is a certain CRU email from Kevin Trenberth, head of CA section of NCAR, regarding “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”.

    Do all roads of investigation always lead back to these guys? – bear in mind, Trenberth was also one of the lead authors of the 1995, 2001, 2007 IPCC reports (per his bio) and Pachauri, head of the IPCC, says the leaked emails “have no effect” on what the IPCC has reported.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    By the way, Aimee, kittens will only explode after 10 minutes if the microwave is on low. Turn the power up to full, and it only takes 1 minute 42 seconds. Yeah, makes a mess, but it cuts down all that screeching from the kitten.

  35. Aimee: I like my pets, especially my cat. I have no plans to nuke him. But, there are people out there who have proposed to take away our historical companions to save the planet.
    I like trees too. But I have no plans to engage in frivolous lawsuits, like certain groups do, to halt management of of our forests to satisfy their vision of the good old days. I don’t care for placing wildfires on the endangered species act.
    If you want to save the Planet, Aimee, fine, do your part. But make sure you address the hypocritical lifestyle that Al Gore lives.

  36. Without being rude to Aimee, im afraid she’s what termed as ” a useful idiot”.

    Can someone please just think of the polar bears?

  37. PhilW (00:32:11) :

    A very good post. I’ve been sceptical since the day Jim Hansen did his air conditioning trick in The Congress back in 1988 – I was a geology student at the time.

    On topic, I was born in 1960 and I’m starting to get a complex.

  38. ” Espen says: I think that what made me check the facts must have been Al Gore’s movie.”

    I was luckier – I had read his book “The Earth in the Balance” which dates from 1992. This showed that he was clearly an eco-extremist, completely oblivious to science or economics. I’ve ignored everything he has said ever since, and so should any responsible journalist.

  39. Capn Jack Walker (23:28:14) :
    FergalR (23:31:23) :
    Using that word is an insult to the victims of the holocaust Aimee.

    You live in a strange world. Most would accept these definitions as acceptable use:

    wiki
    Denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too painful to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.

    websters
    denier1 definition de·nier (də nir′; for 2, den′yər; Fr də nyā′)
    noun
    1.a small, obsolete French coin of little value
    2.a unit of weight for measuring the fineness of threads of silk, rayon, nylon, etc., equal to .05 gram per 450 meters
    Etymology: ME dener < OFr denier < L denarius, denarius
    denier2 definition de·nier (dē nī′ər, di-)
    noun
    a person who denies
    deny definition deny (dē nī′, di-)

    transitive verb denied -·nied′, denying -·ny′·ing

    1.to declare (a statement) untrue; contradict
    2.to refuse to accept as true or right; reject as unfounded, unreal, etc.
    3.to refuse to acknowledge as one's own; disown; repudiate
    4.to refuse the use of or access to
    5.to refuse to grant or give
    6.to refuse the request of (a person)
    7.Obsolete to forbid

  40. Aimee – click the link below for a live webcam image showing that poor kitten being microwaved in Barrow, Alaska: In case you didb’t know, the large flat white area beyond the lights is called the Arctic Ocean. Wunderground has the current temperature as -17C and windchill -24C: http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=Barrow,%20AK&wuSelect=WEATHER

    But if -17C is too warm for the little kitten, how about a little further north to Alert where is it is currently -27C: http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=Nunavut&wuSelect=WEATHER

    Okay, you mentioned solar radiation so lets be fair and try Antarctica, where midsummer is only 3 weeks away, and it is sure to be too warm for the little kitten. But wait, Dome A is a nippy -35C just now: http://www.aad.gov.au/weather/aws/dome-a/index.html

    How about somewhere on the coast like Mawson: http://www.aad.gov.au/asset/webcams/mawson/default.asp – no temperature reading currently but the sea is still frozen – how can that be when the BBC, the Guardian and the NYT etc all say it has melted?

    So lets try Davis – where is it positively tropical (+1.4C) but the sea still looks frozen to me: http://www.aad.gov.au/asset/webcams/davis/default.asp

    That leaves Casey: http://www.aad.gov.au/asset/webcams/casey/default.asp
    and yes, it is even warmer at +1.5C, and open sea! Fancy a swim? Or would that drown the little kitten?

  41. A French person tipped me off to it. Said I needed to go look into it for myself.
    I have to say that just before that, I got a shock when I read what their Doomsday Mitigation plans were.

    How long do you think it will be before some noteables in the AGW camp jump back to the Coming Ice Age alarmism?

  42. I think Aimee’s a troll. And a damn good one.

    Kevin wrote:

    What is truly dangerous? Rank anti-intellectualism that embraces pseudo- science, hysterical emotionalism, and neo-pagan ideologies of sacrifice to appease the Earth because we are dangerously out of balance and facing tremendous disaster. This is nothing new, sadly, it was a main plank of a particularly virulent political ideology in Germany from the 1920’s to the mid 1940’s but rather than being called Conservation it is now Environmentalism

    Hey Kevin, I’d like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  43. Just an observation, but after reading Aimees comments, but I do tend to find that the comments and arguements I’ve read from various sources, of those entrenched in the “warmist” camp, tend on the whole to verge on the hysterical and many a time extremely insulting to those who have opposing or even alternative views. Whereas the discussions from those in the ” skeptics ” camp, on the whole, are considered, deal with the data, and encourage further thought, discussion and perhaps pave the way to some positive conclusions.
    I won’t make any cheap comments about people like Aimee, but I know which side of the fence I’m comfortable in sitting !

  44. Mike Nicholson (02:41:03)
    ………entrenched in the “ warmist” camp, tend on the whole to verge on the hysterical and……….warmist”

    It was hysteria that frightened us all in to the warmist camp.
    A whole generation of “warmists” are popping their heads over the parapet,
    to see ask what’s really going on, unfortunately, the the only language we have learned in the camp is full of hysteria, this is reflected in our questions. Please be Patient.

  45. While following the Briffa comments in this post, I came across an interesting graph on northern hemisphere temperature in this article regarding the startup of CERN’s Cloud experiment testing Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/16/cern_cloud_experiment/

    It looks like they stop using tree-ring proxies sometime in the early 1900’s, but have what looks like quite a hockey stick trend towards the end of their instrumental record ending in 2000 as well as one line simply labeled “hockey stick”. That line doesn’t have a Little Ice Age. If that is Mann’s, I think it’s too funny they’d just refer to it as “hockey stick”. That may reflect their assessment of its value.

    Perhaps others can enlighten me on this.

  46. Scientificus Hubristicus (Mucho Moola)
    Although there are reports that gametes have been collected and stored by Environmentalists.

  47. Our Aimée – French for “beloved”, and indeed so should she be – seems to have been adopted as the blog mascot, so in that spirit…

    I am trying to repeat the experiment with a Polar Bear as this would seem to be more appropriate given the bombardment at the Poles which unsettles her so.

    Can it be done without scorching the fur – I have a coat in mind given the plummeting global temperatures nowadays?

    Can’t get the damned door closed however. Any tips anyone?

  48. Aimee appears to be echoing a view often heard from Greens – massive species losses are occurring due to tropical deforestation. For a reality check see Whitmore & Sayer (eds), 1992, Tropical Deforestation And Species Extinction, chapter 6 by Brown and Brown. Much of this is available on Google Books. The chapter cited examines the Brazilian rainforests – and concludes that the Greens are engaging in outrageous hype once again. While areas of high species diversity can be found in the Amazon rainforest, these high-diversity areas are confined to particular regions. They are not characteristic of the rainforest as a whole. The authors therefore challenge the Green claims of enormous species losses.

  49. “Aimee Gardens (23:20:28) :

    It still amazes me why you deniers are willfully accepting that millions of species going extinct every month and the polar caps being bombarded by solar radiation. Do you enjoy watching your planet explode like a kitten burned alive in a microwave on high for 10 minutes? I think something is wrong with you people :(

    Reply: I’m allowing this unsnipped for entertainment value. Challenge to you Aimee. Name ONE species that went extent in the last 3 months. ~ charles the moderator.”

    This is just too funny, but sadly an indication of the sheer ignorance of the masses. Charles, how many posts like this do you see?

  50. MILLIONS…of species going extinct PER MONTH! LOL

    If you check the WWF website you will discover that there are approximately 10,000 documented species currently on the endangered species list. And you will also note that none of them have gone extinct in the last YEAR, let alone the last month.

    As a climate “denier” and a conservative environmentalist, I am all for taking what steps are practical and necessary to look after the diversity of our ecosystems, but there is little to no evidence that species extinction has increased in the last half century in response to the supposed severe global warming.

    You may also wish to check your facts regarding polar bears. Their population is INCREASING. By a factor of two in the last 25 years.

  51. How on earth can the science be settled? Consensus, what consensus. Of all the graphs I look at I cannot discern a signal for anything due to the noise of data being shredded and climatology phds being rippes upm

  52. Wow, I’m amazed by how many people fell for Amiee’s satire. Can’t you see that she is just making the same ludicrous ill-informed statements made by so many average Joes, but taking it to the next level? e.g. confusing global warming with the alleged CFC caused hole in the ozone layer. Classic.

    on topic-> Looking through that code reminds me of how much I have forgotten about programming since I gave up software development. My degree is mocking me.

  53. PhilW – very good comment.

    I’m sorry that Aimee has taken up so much of the posters’ space – because I think Steve’s material is important. No good blowing off too much (ctm – lesson taken in, thanks) and missing out on the science as a result – because ClimateGate all hinges on getting the awfulness of the science across to enough people, including other scientists and enough MSM. In fact, I like Steve’s snipping policy in this respect, keeping to the subject, and constantly refining and homing in.

    I found a “hat trick” of tricks hidden in those tiny details, that become clear when you overlay the original WMO graph and the new UEA release. I’ve enlarged the details, done blink comparisons, and written explanations for newcomers click

    This is an expansion of what I posted before, but done more carefully and with some new, important details (IMO). I took time out to do this because this evidence seems so central to the whole of ClimateGate, and it’s important that people can understand it easily. It takes what Steve has written here a little further.

    I hope this helps everyone. But please correct me if I’ve got anything wrong.

  54. Re Aimee–to paraphrase R. Reagan:

    ‘ It isn’t that alarmists are ignorant — it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.’

    Of course, she is correct in noting that the polar ice caps ARE being bombarded by solar radiation–but she should take comfort because:

    – The “leading” [alarmist] “climate scientists” have noted that solar effects are NOT the cause of global warming (which means she needs to get her fact harmonized with the official ‘climate change alarmist’ party line)

    – And the poles have been taking the brunt of solar bombardment for millenia (and non-stop at that!) due to the Earth’s magnetic field. A neat indicator of how much of this that has been going on is the Aurora Borealis–which is behaving pretty typically & not appearing at particularly low latitudes.

  55. What is the significance of the MWP? Please check out the graph of the accepted climatological record as of 1990 (Lamb’s temperature graph, featured in the first IPCC report in 1990) versus the IPCC TAR 2001 graph, a product of the duplicitous groups associated with CRU. You can find both graphs here:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/page2.html

    I think ethical scientists should demand that the IPCC reinstate the 1990 graph until LEGITIMATE science studies prove otherwise.

  56. bill (02:10:24) :

    Capn Jack Walker (23:28:14) :
    FergalR (23:31:23) :
    Using that word is an insult to the victims of the holocaust Aimee.

    You live in a strange world. Most would accept these definitions as acceptable use:

    No one alive today can remember when “nigger” was a simple mispronunciation of the Spanish work “negro”. “Denier” also now has a more insidious meaning than it once did. Strange world, indeed.

  57. “and the polar caps being bombarded by solar radiation . . .”

    Well said. Let me add to what is a profound point. Have all you “deniers” any idea just how long this radiation has been going on? What’s worse, if it’s not one of the poles, it’s the other one and it lasts for a good six months every year And stuff.

    Sorry for the rant but I’ve just had a not dis-similar argument with a former scientific colleague which was at almost as low a level. Pitiful.

    The stupid fools who peddle this kind of irrational tosh seem not to grasp that solving a non-existent problem on a global scale is not only highly destructive environmentally but diverts significant resources badly needed elsewhere. It is thus likely to be the direct cause of considerable human suffering.

    That is as good a practical reason for getting the science right as I can imagine however much it offends some (mostly white middle class) folks’ quasi-religious ideas.

    Deny that if you can to, say, a parent whose child has chronic malaria but not electricity. I’m sure they’ll appreciate it.

    At the end of the day, AGW theory and the greed and ignorance that surrounds its final “solution” could prove as destructive to humanity as Fascism was (which BTW also had roots in bogus science).

    I agree that the post’s a laugh – but it isn’t funny. Different things.

    Mike says above “I won’t make any cheap comments about people like Aimee”. That’s perfectly proper but OTOH I’d argue that the possible human cost of this scandal does need thinking about and those making it must think of the possible consequences of their actions should they prove to be wrong.

  58. The post by Aimee is a tragic representation of our education system and the extent to which alarmist propaganda has been able to infiltrate and pervert the minds of our young.
    The swamping of young minds with rubbish soley to cause a kind of mental failure and breakdown within the minds of our young for wholly political ends has to rank as a crime against humanity.

    Dear Aimee,

    Please be aware of the fact that you have been subjected to a form of cult brainwashing and in the present system this is not only tolerated but encouraged and there is little you can do but observe in silence, to rebel could hurt your grades so open your mind and find out the truth, you can either make the voyage of discovery or follow the ignorance of the herd.

    Best of luck in your future endeavors, the truth is a big country but worth the effort I promise.

  59. Well, I for one am inalterably opposed to exploding kittens. I believe this is something that all right-thinking humans can agree on. With millions of species going extinct every month, I don’t think we need that too!

  60. The Story of Mann:
    as reported by The Daily Collegian, Penn State students:

    Mann:

    >>> “… the basic data on the surface temperatures comes from a common data source that is still available.”

    Mann does not say where the “basic data”/”common data source” is stashed.

    Mann is sitting on the “basic data”/”common date source”?
    …-

    “The missing data concerns surface temperatures from around the globe collected by a group within the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, Mann said. A lot of this work was done “decades ago” and wasn’t stored on a computer, he said.

    “What they’re referring to is that some of the old adjustments are lost in files that disappeared into oblivion,” Mann said.

    But, he said, the basic data on the surface temperatures comes from a common data source that is still available.”

    “Climate theory e-mails missing”(sic)

    http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/12/01/climate_theory_emails_missing.aspx

    …-

    “December 1, 2009
    Y2Kyoto: Who’s The Conspiracy Theorist Now?

    The Chief Railroad Engineer for the Intergovernmental Committee On Atmospheric Sucking names a suspect;”

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/012785.html#comments

  61. Time to start awarding “Rathers”. Initially I thought they should be limited to journalists that don’t cover Climategate, or who cover it and say that never mind AGW is still valid. But then I saw statements from Carol Browner and Lisa Johnson and I thought they needed an award as well. And now with Aimee I think that she should get an award as well. So “Rahters” will be given to Jouralists and others will get “Rahterettes”. Carol, Lisa and Aimee all get Ratherettes.

    I’m having a certificate made to send to the awardees. Feel free to do the same and send them to appropriate honorees. I’m working on an award for Jones, Mann, et al.

  62. @Mike Nicholson

    There have been since the 60s, a number of cultural currents, like the rise of Feminism, the coming of Buddhism to the West, new interest in Pagan and New Age, and so on, which as a whole, have tended to value feelings and intuition above thinking. For example, go to most any Western Buddhist groups, and you’ll see people have an innate sense that to be enlightened is to have a “natural and spontaneous wisdom”. So one’s own intuitions, one’s own feelings, especially if they appear to be compassionate, are valued more highly and made more important than “technicalities”, like thinking rationally, which after all, produced the Western technological “progress” and “ruined” the environment.

    However, this Western Buddhism is merely a Western New Age interpretation of Buddhism. In the East, Buddhist monks consider philosophy and reasoning a serious matter. Zen isn’t about being in touch with your feelings, or being aloof from ordinary concerns, it is about being directly grounded in reality.

    But because Buddhism and other alternatives like it arrived in the West at a time when Westerners were going Post Modern, alternative, and New Age, what we ended up with was a whole cultural movement that interpreted those things through those lenses. Often when people think they’re doing Buddhism, they’re actually doing New Age. When they think they’re acting in an enlightened way, they’re just acting out their poorly thought out impulses. And likewise with environmentalism, it is often more New Age than anything directly practical. People believe that to be compassionate is to act by your natural intuitions, and they despise or make fun of “the intellect”.

    This is kinda the funny thing about all these Gaia types claiming “the science” is on their side—they don’t actually care about science. If science says there is no evidence that genetic modification is unsafe, they ignore it or call it evil. If science says AGW is real, they’re all over it, and act as if the science is what convinced them. If the science changes and says AGW isn’t happening, they’ll just ignore it and carry on pursuing their intuitions and feelings about harmony with Gaia anyway.

    The thing is, you can have a deep feeling of connection with the natural world, and many people do, but that doesn’t mean that you have rational well thought out solutions for how to make things better in a practical way. Many sceptics, as far as I can see, simply fall into this camp—they do care, but they are interested in practical solutions, which means getting a good understanding of the problem.

    AGW activists with a New Age slant completely miss this point.

  63. chillybean said:

    “As long as you don’t mind being party to the death of millions in the third world due to food shortages that will be caused by the AGW fraud. I can’t see how that is being a better human?”

    Oh, you mean like the millions that have died due to malaria since the greenies banned the only effective mosquito control chemical available?

  64. Aimee Gardens (23:20:28) :

    There there.. I for one can assure you that i’ll be feeding my kitten as per normal tonight. However you’ve given me an idea. Lovelock likes the idea of Gaia worship. I think you could write a new book in similar rhetorical style to Lovelock, but call it Planet Kitten revenge. The only difference is that Lovelock is a misanthrope who believes people are a virus who create their own doom, and the angry earth takes its revenge, whereas you, to your credit think that people are not so bad, but that the earth will pop.

  65. Thanks for that analogy Aimee,I didn’t need that image in my head,and you profess to care about animals?10 minutes on high?How do you know?Don’t answer,I don’t want to know.

  66. I am going to start calling the alarmists collaborators. How long do you think I will last on The Guardian?

  67. PhilW (00:32:11) :

    Give Aimee a break..

    For more than ten years I have listened to, and lived my life believing that AGW was true. I also pushed my convictions on my children.
    The obvious shock in the posts by those of you who suspected this scandal is is glaringly obvious. For me, and millions of others like me coming to terms with this scandal, has been, and still is an extremely painful process.
    ——————————————–

    PhilW, Welcome to a whole new reality, where allegations of how reality works should be provable and not taken on faith alone. I accept that it is can be a very painful and disorientating process to realise that something that you may have believed in whole-heartedly is not what you believed it to be, that people you trusted acted in a less than trustworthy manner.

    You and your fellow awakeners are most welcome here.

    Personally I feel that people from both sides of the debate should stop, reflect and acknowledge that there is, and has been, and will continue to be a debate. That there is NO scientific consensus specifically on the rate or extent of climate change, let-alone the amount of causation that can be fully laid at the door of man. (rather than Mann)

    What I find truly outrageous is the amount of time, effort and money that is poured into this CO2 debacle, and real and catastrophic localised, yet large scale, environmental disasters are happening in various regions of the world, ignored by the political classes entirely.

    Perhaps this could be a chance to get the world to stop the CO2 fraud and actually do something about the deforestation reality!

  68. Aimee’s post does make it clear why someone would feel justified in hiding declines, subverting the peer review process, and keeping papers out of IPCC by any means necessary.

    Can reeducation camps for deniers be far behind on her agenda?

  69. Phil
    “For me, and millions of others like me coming to terms with this scandal, has been, and still is an extremely painful process.
    We are waking up, but coming out of a 10 year sleep is a slow process, and the shock of the “Climategate” sirens and it’s social implications is frightening. It’s tempting to snuggle back under the bed covers, and pretend non of this is happening.”

    I appreciate that expression of feeling and others like them. A Vacuum, abhorred by nature.

    The economics of the thing scared me far more than any climate change. I knew they could never prove the CO2 influence, and I knew that once established, the tax and control would be perpetual and ever growing, no matter what the climate actually did, which no single person can ever judge. So the science has to be honest. The MSM engaged in obvious propaganda, which many of us could detect. Don’t tell me we had a hot winter locally when I’ve battled the local ice for 25 years.

    It’s very important that we conserve our resources, recycle, stop dumping poisons in the oceans and atmosphere, stop overfishing, look for new energy sources, etc. Americans’ overuse of resources was shown some years ago to be caused more by DIVORCE and mobility, as too few people were living in too many houses. Elderly living alone is unnatural in human history. At one time we had four generations and eight people in our recycled home.

    All this focus on AGW has taken our eyes off the real problems that we CAN do something about.

    I’m still hoping this depression will cull out many of the absurd excesses. Multi generational households might even help develop common sense in the young. Young people aren’t getting “bullsh*t” proofed by their grandparents anymore.

  70. “You may also wish to check your facts regarding polar bears. Their population is INCREASING. By a factor of two in the last 25 years.”

    That is why polar bears are not on the endangered species list. They are on the threatened species list. The criteria for the threatened species list are not as stringent as for the endangered species list, as their massively increasing numbers would preclude them.
    Only in climate alarmist world could the fact that the polar bear population has doubled land them on the threatened species list.

  71. Aimee, I didn’t consider that you may still be at school or not long out of it so I’d just like to apologise for my earlier post, which may have been a bit derogatory. But please don’t call sceptics deniers – it is offensive. And try to look up real world data and question what you read in the newspapers and see on TV. Sure the world has warmed a wee bit from the 1980s to 2000, but most of it can be accounted for by UHI and the rest by long term natural variation / ocean and/or solar cycles. The only ‘evidence’ for CO2 being responsible for the warming is the results from computer models, which even before the CRU emails were leaked, were highly questionable in terms of their ability to reflect the complexities of the interactions between the Earth’ s atmosphere, oceans and dry land. And that’s not even mentioning the assumption that increased water vapour will be a positive feedback. Best wishes.

  72. Re Aimee Gardens (23:20:28) :

    Aimee, it is worse then we thought.

    You said “millions of species going extinct every month.”

    Since there is a TOTAL of about two million species, all life on earth will be gone in less than two months. Start panicking. Or maybe you exaggerate almost as much as Jones and Mann and Hansen and Briffa, and Stieg and the rest of the Warmies

    Wake up girl, you been had

  73. In another thread I posted this:

    I’m sure “Aimee” was facetiously pretending to be a warmist. No actual warmist is so absurd as to say that millions of species are going extinct monthly. She was “trolling” in the true, or restricted, sense of trying to get a rise out of us with an irritating post.

  74. Aimee might well be a troll, but in my Montana university town, where a local faculty member shares a Nobel with Al, I meet an Aimee nearly every day.

  75. What are the two nearly overlapping black lines on the original graph? IMO visually they are what produces the impression of out-of-control temperature increase.

    Is there any universally agreed known good data publicly available? if so, Is anyone aware of a graphic that directly compares the dot-earth blog graph of yesterday with that data?

  76. We deniers are denying you our money. Now go back to eating your card board in the dark. I have a steak to cook with extra sauce. Pass the #salt.

  77. RE: Buddhism – go into any Buddist temple with the “ethnics” who practice real “born again / fundamentalist Buddhism” and listen to the sermon (probably in a different language, so translation may be required). The shocker – you won’t burn in Hell … no need to wait for the afterlife … you’ll be punished in the HERE and NOW!

  78. BTW – The fundamental Buddhist precepts are either identical to or overlap with multiple of the Ten Commandments. Undoubtedly, back in the 5th Century BC or earlier, rabbis made it far enough East to influence holy men in India.

  79. millions of species going extinct every month

    Are you being serious? You don’t actually believe what you wrote, do you?

    According to IUCN (since 1500):

    Box 1. Summary of the 2008 IUCN Red List update

    There are 869 recorded extinctions, with 804 species listed as Extinct and 65 listed as Extinct in the Wild;

    http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/RL-2009-001.pdf

    How do you get from 869 total, to millions a month is beyond me. It seems like you are using Mann’s code to make an uptick in extiction rates! Making a hockey stick out of species loss….nice try.

  80. “Name ONE species that went extent in the last 3 months.”

    I can, I can! It was the north-by-northwestern greenlandian south bay nematode, and I know when it went extinct because I heard the last one SCREAMING IN MY DREAMS!!!

    It had a real little high voice, and it sounded something like “ohhh nooooo!!!!!”

    and if you don’t like my methodology, well then you just aren’t very well versed in post-normal science, are you? You see I know that because if you were you would know that the Dreams of our Fathers are the pathways to the New Truth.

    Aimee knows what I’m talkin’ about, don’tcha Aimee?

  81. ****************
    Aimee Gardens (23:20:28) :

    It still amazes me why you deniers are willfully accepting that millions of species going extinct every month and the polar caps being bombarded by solar radiation. Do you enjoy watching your planet explode like a kitten burned alive in a microwave on high for 10 minutes? I think something is wrong with you people :(
    **************
    But thanks to nuclear power, there are tens of millions of new species created each month. Right.

  82. Charles the Moderator :

    Please next time delete nonsense EVEN if it has entertainment value .
    The net result of this troll is that it has very effectively KILLED a serious and interesting study by S.McIntyre .
    And I am sure that it was the intent – make people remember only a stupid troll post and ignore everything about UEA and its wrongdoing .
    It’s called deviation of attention and look how efficient it is !

  83. These warmers keep pointing to their false facts. If you go to the source for these statements they don’t match.

    This decade 2000-2009 is the hottest decade ever. False.
    The ice sheets are retreating and melting at an alarming rate. False.
    Sea Levels are rising, fast. False.
    Polar Bear population is in steep decline. False.
    Global temperatures are increasing in at alarming rate (hockey stick). False.

    My point is if you go to the sources referenced on the home page of this web page you will find that all of these are patently wrong.

    These warmers are ignoring hard facts and that brings me to my point. They are in this AGW scheme for something else and that’s Global Social Change. They have hitched their wagon to this and have everything to loose as do all of us if we succumb to their looter plans. Someone said in socialism we all lose together.

    Anthony that’s why we need a short list to these data and we thank you for your efforts. May I suggest a link to a summary with copies of these emails that prove the fraud and conspiracy of the warmers. They must be exposed and the money being spent needs to be redirected to something more worthwhile like cancer or something.

  84. Thoughts;

    Is there (there should be) a corrolary to Godwin’s Law stating that calling someone a denier is the equivalent of calling them a Nazi. Debate ended, time to move on.

    We could then have some agreement that it’s time to end this ridiculous debate.

    Possibly we could move foreward if someone could reconstitute the ‘lost’ archive data and use it to re-establish the science.

    It would really be helpful to know what our climate has done over the last couple hundred years, and more helpful to know what it’s done recently. Even if there remains some debate on that issue.

    Maybe then we could begin to establish what drives our climate, and (better still) what it’s about to do. The notion that agenda driven science has put blinders on our society and therefore could make us more vulnerable to what may be an impending LIA or MWP (modern warm period) is unacceptable.

    No more Proprietary Data, no more unsharable code or algorithms. How the blankety blank did Science (notice the capital letter there) get so distorted as this? Reproducible results from shared methodology, not just assurances from ‘peers’, who may or may not be close friends with a vested interest.

    Do you know what happens when politicians or organized religion gets too deeply involved in science? NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!

    And Aimee; you would do well to spend a few years reading and learning some serious math. 10 million per month? You sound like Al Gore and his ‘millions of degrees at the core’ b.s.

    (I notice you’ve not yet replied to anyone who has mocked your original post.)

  85. To: wws

    LMAO!! Dude, that was good. Gonna use it at my next b-day party show! In classic Eastwood: “well, don’tcha PUNK?!”

    To bad it’s this mentality, based on nothing but uninformed emotionalism (read ignorance), that MUST make up the majority of the AGW view held by John Q. Public.

    CLIMATEGATE ROCKS!

  86. John Trigge said:

    “I think you’ll find that 1/2 of the World is always being bombarded by solar radiation – it’s called daylight.”

    A greater problem is the bombardment of the sun by terrestrial radiation and that happens 24/7, rendering the sun unfit for habitation.

  87. Steve McIntyre has also noted that NOAA has also deleted the post 1960 Briffa divergence data from the Briffa study which was used in the ipcc 2001 report [TAR] and hockey stick graphs – ipcc 2001 fig. 1 and fig. 2-21 – where the Briffa data divergence was hidden by a “trick” or two .

    And NOAA used the same code for the deleted existing data as it does for years with absolutely no existent data.

  88. It’s disappointing that of the over 100 comments on this thread, perhaps two thirds relate to the Aimee troll. I agree with TomVonk, this could have been an interesting thread.

    While I’d agree that such an obvious troll should be deleted, there will be less extreme posts from genuine AGW promoters. If we get drawn into argument on every thread, we’ll diminish the useful function of this website.

    I suggest that off-topic posts of this type be moved to a daily thread dedicated to direct AGW/NAGW argument and that responses helpfully intended to educate the “opposition” be done there.

  89. Ok back to the TOPIC.
    What I cannot wrap my head around is that LINE through the middle.
    Someone told me a few days ago it was today’s temps, then I read it was 1961-90, and see it here, finally. So very month an anomaly is reported it’s a divergence from that area. It implies some kind of mean or average at first glance.

    So ok, I finally see that as evidence that 61-90 was warmer than what they could discern from history, as if temperatures were measured more accurately in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s as the cities spread.

    Who chose that particular time period and why?

    This is so crazy, we’re talking about TENTHS of a single degree C, ontological angels is all I see dancing on the head of this pin!

  90. On the troll front – I’m a daily visitor to a site [ http://www.politicalbetting.com that is infested with trolls trying to derail the agenda, these are often very amusing for their silliness.

    As political bettors need to sniff the wind rather than stake cash that fits their own opinions, I have a soft spot for trolls as they tend to come out in force when their own [real] position comes under threat.

  91. re Espen
    on EUs decision to ban normal light bulbs

    Yes that was a meaningless token decision, whatever one’s take on environmental politics.
    There is research even by EU governments themselves to show that supposed savings end up marginal, and light bulbs don’t give out CO2 anyway – power stations do, and can (and will) of course be dealt with directly.
    Even if electrical products had to be targeted, taxation is better, retaining choice, while (unlike with bans) giving government income on the reduced sales, income that can in turn give environmental spending if needs be.
    2 billion annual EU light bulb sales (=like USA) shows, or showed, the potential income possibilities just on light bulbs, though, as said, taxation is in principle wrong too, merely better for all sides than bans.

    About the unpublicised industrial politics that led to the EU ban:

    http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax

    ——————————
    Emission Policy Alternatives

    http://ceolas.net/#cce1x

    Introduction: The need – or not – to deal with emissions
    The Overall Picture
    Emission sources, land and ocean cycles, agriculture and deforestation
    1. Direct Industrial Emission Regulation
    Mandated reduction of CO2, monitored like other emission substances
    2. Carbon Taxation
    Fuel Tax — Emission Tax
    3. Emission Trading (Cap and Trade)
    Basic Idea — Offsets — Tree Planting — Manufacture Shift — Fair Trade — Surreal Market — Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs — Allowance Trading — Companies: Business Stability + Cost — In Conclusion
    4. Contracted CO2 Reduction
    Private companies compete for contracts to lower CO2 emissions.

  92. This is so depressing – reply from my UK MP [Conservative]

    “Thank you for contacting me about the integrity of climate scientists at the climate research institute at the University of East Anglia.

    I appreciate your concerns over this and that you feel it undermines the wealth of climate science already published. However, my view is that public policy on climate change has been built over many years with input from a wide variety of expert sources and I would not consider it wise to change policy in a reactive or impulsive way.

    Aside from whether you fully commit to the science surrounding climate policy, I believe that it is worth noting that efforts to make UK homes and businesses more energy efficient and reduce or national dependence on remotely and expensively sourced fossil fuels is an eminently sensible thing to do in any event.

    Despite the recent commotion over the data published by this particular research unit, I will continue to accept that we cannot consider it sensible to pollute our atmosphere with carbon and not expect it to have a destabilising effect on our climate system. For that reason, I will carry on supporting measures to decarbonise our economy, particularly when doing so can be achieved in a way that delivers so many other benefits to Britain in the form of greater energy security, more efficient homes, cleaner cities and the creation of thousands of new ‘green collar’ jobs,”

    This man is our Shadow Energy Minister :- (

  93. Willem de Rode (23:40:50) :

    “Yes but CO2 is never emitted alone. Always there are a lot of other co-emissions that are much more dangerous for environment and health.”

    You need to read some of Bjorn Lomborg. It is precisely because there are other environmental concerns which are more important than CO2 that we need to get off this fixation with a harmless gas and focus on controlling those emissions which do real harm. We can do much more good pounding down the “tall poles in the tent” than we can by wiggling the tent flaps.

  94. The fact that many such important details are hidden in the codes points to the fact that the person that leaked those documents out was not just someone from outside grabbing what ever was out there. It would certainly show that the person putting all this together had inside knowledge of the emails and codes and what they contained.

  95. I suggest you ban any more comments on Aimee. By her one post she seems to have successfully hijacked this post, which reveals what “hiding the decline” is all about.

    Willful fraud and not some innocuous statement taken out of context as RC and other warmers have claimed.

  96. “It still amazes me why you deniers are willfully accepting that millions of species going extinct every month”

    Species are being extinct at any minute and others are starting. That happens for many reasons.
    Always have been that way.

  97. “It still amazes me why you deniers are willfully accepting that millions of species going extinct every month and the polar caps being bombarded by solar radiation.”

    yeah, cause none of that stuff EVER happened while humans weren’t around.

    oh wait, yeah it did.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur

  98. well, my reply to all this is Chiefio-size-length. YOU HAVE BEEN WARMED!

    “ClimateGate reflections: Groupthink, Courtesy, Trolls, and Good Science”

    For the first time ever, I was cross with WUWT for allowing a whole thread on an important topic to get railroaded by one hysterical alarmist. It drowned Steve’s important point, namely that the “hide the decline” is still continuing, and it hid my own “absolutely essential” contribution :) ……….. rats! And Tom Vonk was also not amused… but then Plato Says said “Oh TomVonk don’t be such a square. CTM gave us all a bit of light relief.” and Plato Says also has a point.

    It made me start thinking about the conditions which brought about this…. err, emotional outburst… and also remember that whilst various climate skeptics have been faced with serious threats to profession, life and limb, I’ve now heard that Prof Jones has had to ask for police protection. This concerns me. The last thing I want is that my actions should inspire anything smacking of revenge.

    ClimateGate, as a high point in the saga of the serial corruption of Climate Science, has affected a lot of us very deeply. Many here (self included) admit to being hooked on WUWT, CA, whatever, as a lifeline to sanity. Many of us have burned the midnight oil since Climategate broke. WUWT, amazing as ever in its prolific outpouring of key material as well as courtesy, has been on overdrive yet has kept going, and is evolving to accommodate developments.

    If ever one wanted proof that you cannot objectify Science by removing the human element, this is it. WUWT and CA have above all taught and reminded me that people make or break the science, and that courtesy is the first prerequisite for… the development of good science. Courtesy gives one space to explore those “aha!” flashes of insight, without being made to feel foolish. And it is a give-and-take process, as the best of us can go over the top in the heat of the moment. Likewise, I have compassion for the belief the CRU cabal and many other warmists have, that they are latter-day Robin Hoods tackling Dangerous Global Warming. Compassion, but not respect. This belief, which has a lot to do with the phenomenon of “Group Think”, is a dangerous one.

    Here are eight symptoms indicative of groupthink according to Wikipedia sourcing Janis1977.

    1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
    2. Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group’s assumptions.
    3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
    4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
    5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of “disloyalty”.
    6. Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
    7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
    8. Mind guards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

    The collapse of the UK bank Northern Rock is thought to be a recent major example of groupthink. I would add the Challenger disaster, the Madoff financial deceptions, the mass suicide of the followers of Jim Jones, and the rise of the Third Reich. And, to some extent, every single religion – in which Scientism and Atheism and Warmism have all the worst qualities of religions. And I don’t think WUWT is exempt either. But having said this, I think that groupthink may be part of our survival psychology – perhaps it’s there for a reason – and the best we can do is become aware so that it serves rather than drives.

    Recently several posts of high scientific merit have been posted, during this time of “high noise to signal ratio” and I hope they do not just get buried. I hope that the new ClimateGate department will help archive not just the important “ClimateGate” news but also the unfolding good science, so that its development can continue. I hope this might be an opportunity to develop a contents index to the website, rather like our opposite numbers Skeptical Science, Gristmill and RealClimate have already got, IMO quite rightly. For in the end, it is the science to which we must continue to refer, even though close on the heels of this comes the question – how the heck do I communicate to a rabid warmist?

    I faced this question ages back and decided that being an amateur put me in the strong position of seeing things afresh and that I had enough grasp of science and scientific method to write up a Primer, an introduction to sceptical / realistic Climate Science, with adequate science and from the point of view of an ex-warmist – and that this would be a Good Thing.

    I could see clearly that a skeptics’ wiki would be desirable, even ideal… but lacked the skill or time to do this. But ClimateGate is another opportunity to do something like this, to consolidate the skeptics’ knowledge base, to be able to speak both to professionals like Judith Curry, to dedicated amateurs who have vital professional skills like RomanM, to dedicated amateurs who lack skills but care about good science, and even (by association) to dedicated amateurs like Aimee who lack skills and seem (to us) to lack all vestiges of commonsense, courtesy, or understanding of Scientific Method. Aimee has succumbed to the going “group think” about climate change. But are we free of group think ourselves? Do we need to step outside the whole process a bit more, to see… important breakthroughs in the whole of Science being given a chance, that would not have come about without this crisis?…. a difficult birth-process?…. the future of Science By Blog?…. how to help reclaim good science?…. how to discern and sideline the religious/groupthink elements on ALL sides?…. and perhaps recognize that it is ok to be passionate…. and even fail sometimes…. if we can also just step outside ourselves and watch, become aware…. and leave space for…. Life to unfold…. WUWT…. back to passionate curiosity.

    No conclusions, we are in the middle of interesting times… but just as the Silent Minute was the “one weapon the Germans could not match” during the second World War, so reflection is…. perpetually a source of new life and hope.

  99. Other threads in which I could make this point…but I’m here.

    While in engineering school, I didn’t understand why I had to take Engineering Economics. As it turns out, applied scientists are often constrained by more pragmatic concerns such as resources (input such as investment) and consequences (output such as benefit). In fact, some unintended consequences are the result of poor design…exploding fuel tanks, disintegrating tires, or thrown compressor blades.

    Well, it seems that AGW scientists could also benefit from understanding the trade-offs associated with the allocation of scarce resources. A little exposure to cost-benefit analysis, understanding of risk-reward, and the concept of no free lunches could be a good thing.

    Seems as if the warmists want to put off all risk (eliminate CO2 emissions for fear of questionable climatic consequences) at any cost (spend other people’s money – i.e. mine) for the purpose of …(?)…saving the planet, polar bears, whales, kittens…and millions of other species.

    Maybe Copenhagen should open with a short course/seminar in economics…and not the Marxist or Keynsian style!

  100. de Rode –
    95% of all CO2 production would be emitted even without humans on the planet.

    In 1997, Indonesian peat fires may have released 13% – 40% as much carbon as fossil fuel burning does in a single year

    I know I rely on Wiki – but the point is the same.

  101. “”” Aimee Gardens (23:20:28) :

    It still amazes me why you deniers are willfully accepting that millions of species going extinct every month and the polar caps being bombarded by solar radiation. Do you enjoy watching your planet explode like a kitten burned alive in a microwave on high for 10 minutes? I think something is wrong with you people :(

    Reply: I’m allowing this unsnipped for entertainment value. Challenge to you Aimee. Name ONE species that went extent in the last 3 months. ~ charles the moderator. “””

    Supposedly, since Europeans, and other immigrants, came to the USA, the Eastern Elk has gone extinct; about the only large species to do so in the history of the USA.

    Who would want to bet that any Eastern Elk, couldn’t breed with any Western Elk; or any New Zealand Elk for that matter; and produce perfectly normal offspring.

    This is just the first day of this month Aimee; can you give us the names of just the first ten of the 32,000 species that are going extinct today ?

  102. And NOAA used the same code for the deleted existing data [Briffa's diverging data] as it does for years with absolutely no existent data.

    So the question arises as to whether NOAA’s [NCDC's ?] archive can be trusted to not in effect hide data as non-existent when it actually exists.

    And the question arises as to whether NOAA, CRU, the IPCC, and now the UEA are all somehow linked up in the process that hides certain data which would tend to disprove the existence of the hockey stick.

  103. I don’t see where Gavin Schmidt is an expert on this. He is a computer scientist, one of the AGCM writers. He is not a statistician or paleoclimatologist. He does, however, know what the results of Briffa’s study do the end result of the AGCMs run out to the year 2100.

    Getting rid of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age makes the Hockey Stick handle straight. That will result in solar having very small influence on climate. Every single AGCM ends up having small effects due the recent Gran Maximum of solar activity. “Its not the sun doing it, no siree.”

    By truncating the graphs at 1940 or 1960, and then slapping the instrument record onto the end, that results in every single AGCM having a large effective coefficient for CO2 affecting temperature.
    This, in conjunction with UHI additions/corrections to the raw temperature data really make the CO2 coefficient large.

    Lets face it. There are very few papers upon which the coefficients for solar and CO2 are based.

    Gavins interest was as a programmer. He knew (and reviewed positively) any papers that would diminish solar and maximize CO2 effects when the AGCMs are run out to 2100.

  104. Plato Says:
    his conservative MP responded—
    “I will continue to accept that we cannot consider it sensible to pollute our atmosphere with carbon and not expect it to have a destabilising effect on our climate system. For that reason, I will carry on supporting measures to decarbonise our economy”

    Carbon polluting atmosphere? Decarbonise economy?
    Don’t use fuel of any kind, not even wood, no plastics, no rubber, no food (has carbon in it)… Someone isn’t thinking.

    Oops, my bad. I forgot he’s a politician.

    Prepare to enter the dark ages….

  105. Reply: I’m allowing this unsnipped for entertainment value. Challenge to you Aimee. Name ONE species that went extent in the last 3 months. ~ charles the moderator.

    Latecomer to the party, it’s been a busy first of the week. Thanks ctm for the late afternoon (local time) guffaw. However Malcolm Turnbull is close to political extinction.

  106. Lucy Skywalker. Very good points. I too, believe we should focus on Steve M. and your work, and not get sidetracked. Although some of the posts were hilarious. fm

  107. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.

    Emails present a look into intent.

    But the CODE represents evidence of actual wrongdoing.

    I keep hearing the media discussing the emails, but it’s the code where AGW will be broken.

    KEEP WORKING THE CODE.

  108. It looks like I am in a tiny minority to say that Aimee’s posting looks like irony (said to be an extinct species in the USA). Everything in her note is so OTT that it has all the earmarks of a spoof. Lighten up folks, life isn’t totally serious.

    IanM

  109. Lucy, good points. Mark Wagner, you’re absolutely right. I’ll keep pummelling media sources here to have them focus on the real crime not the titillating emails. And of course, Amiee’s post had me laughing out loud in public— it allowed me to get a seat all to myself on the crowded bus homeward.

  110. CTM: while I think Aimee Garden’s comment is a huge chortle, I’m concerned that you may have contemplated snipping it. I presume that this was either because she is stating views contrary to the general tenor of the blog, or maybe because they elude reality by such a large extent? Nice to know which – I’m not sure that a Comments moderation policy similar to that of Real Climate would be such a good thing.

    Reply: Her use of the word denier makes her vulnerable to cutting. We take a dim view of that word here depending on the context of the person using it. We do not moderate as RC does. We do not censor points of view although certain topics are off limits, such as creationism or chemtrails. ~ ctm

  111. All: Can you help me?

    I emailed Starbucks to tell them I am boycotting their stores for supporting cap and trade.

    **They replied, “Our decision to support cap and trade legislation is based on what we’ve learned firsthand. Our coffee buyers and agronomists work with farmers everyday and they’ve seen how climate change is impacting our business. Rainfall and harvest patterns are shifting. Communities that once could easily grow coffee are now struggling. We’ve also seen how reducing the use of electricity and water in our stores results in both cost savings and benefits the environment.”**

    It seems no one can make the distinction between conservation and environmentalism (as in reducing global population, imposing global governance, removal of nation-state, censorship and criminal punishment of objecters)

    We need to get this out.

    http://www.starbuckscontactcenter.com/?group=CR&template=CR319&CN=7697696&aspect=88721

    We can explain the difference between conservation and the treasonous beliefs of “environmentalists: behind the cap and trade laws being considered by the “free” world.

    If we can get just Starbucks to restate their position, we may accomplish something. I’m not sure where else to turn. This problem is overwhelming to me, because I love America, and believe I am watching her commit suicide.

    The multinational companies, the ones who benefited from a free market system, are turning on that system to break it.

    A list of these companies is at nocapandtrade.com. They pay the news services for advertising services. The news services hear from them on a daily basis.
    I suggest we all contact Starbucks together here.

  112. All: Can you help me? Contact Starbucks

    I emailed Starbucks to tell them I am boycotting their stores for supporting cap and trade.

    **They replied, “Our decision to support cap and trade legislation is based on what we’ve learned firsthand. Our coffee buyers and agronomists work with farmers everyday and they’ve seen how climate change is impacting our business. Rainfall and harvest patterns are shifting. Communities that once could easily grow coffee are now struggling. We’ve also seen how reducing the use of electricity and water in our stores results in both cost savings and benefits the environment.”**

    It seems no one can make the distinction between conservation and environmentalism (as in reducing global population, imposing global governance, removal of nation-states, destruction of republican forms of government, imposing censorship and criminal punishment of objecters)

    We need to get this out.

    I suggest we all contact Starbucks together here.

    http://www.starbuckscontactcenter.com/?group=CR&template=CR319&CN=7697696&aspect=88721

    We can explain the difference between conservation and the treasonous beliefs of most “environmentalists”

    If we can get just one company, Starbucks, to restate their position, we may accomplish something. I’m not sure where else to turn. This problem is overwhelming to me, because I love America, and believe I am watching her commit suicide.

    The multinational companies, the ones who benefited from a free market system, are turning on that system to break it. They believe it won’t matter to their bottom line.

    A list of these companies is at nocapandtrade.com. They pay the news services for advertising services. The news services hear from them on a daily basis. Targeting these multinationals is the only way to get anyone to listen. (Google is busily trying to control this as we speak.)

  113. Aimee looks like a stooge to me.

    Notice how; if you leave out the trees the graph looks even warmer. If they really wanted to hide anything they could have just left out the trees altogether.

    Kevin (15:01:28) is right. Jones published about this problem before the email was written.

    Some hiding.

  114. sorry for the duplication. I hit the space bar by accident and it rearranged (and POSTED) my message. The first post will be confusing.

  115. Michael Alexis (07:16:04) :

    @Roger Knights

    “Do you mean sarc-ing without a tag or mobying a warmer?”

    The first. I’m astounded that anyone here could think that any real warmist could be so obviously beyond the fringe. I’m glad I have a little company in that view in the recent post here:

    Ian L. McQueen (14:55:26) :

    “It looks like I am in a tiny minority to say that Aimee’s posting looks like irony (said to be an extinct species in the USA). Everything in her note is so OTT that it has all the earmarks of a spoof. Lighten up folks, life isn’t totally serious.”

    Lucy: Creating an index to the entire contents of WUWT would be a tough / lengthy job, even harder maybe than creating a wiki. But a set of several tables of contents, one per topic, would be not too laborious. E.g., there’d be one TOC for threads on Topic A, another for Topic B, etc. There could even be a hierarchy of TOCs, with some topics being sub-topics of others. This would make WUWT easier for visitors to navigate—and for regulars too.

    Another high-payoff value-added feature would be for persons like yourself and Pamela to be allowed by Anthony to go through the archives and flag the best posts in each thread with a star or two.

    In addition, or instead, it would be nice if there were possible to yellow-highlight good passages, because often there are nuggets in otherwise undistinguished posts.

    These flags and/or highlights would make it much easier for newcomers to skim the site for the Good Stuff and get up to speed. It would also make it easier to handle drive-by critics who re-raise a point that’s been dealt with before, by referring them to threads they can quickly skim.

  116. If people keep looking how can they hide it!

    “Someone left some evidence.”
    “We would have never found that evidence without you.”
    “I’ll analyze it…with science.”

  117. First a few words to Kathryn before I get on-topic below:
    One thing to tell Starbucks is that elevated CO2 actually may be very good for coffee growers. This article seems to indicate (I’ve not read the article and don’t know enough biology to do so, I guess) that coffee responds positively to elevated CO2: http://www.springerlink.com/content/m32315525666100x/

    Most plants that respond positively to high CO2 levels also become more water-efficient. So, it may well be that in a high-CO2 world, coffee growers can return to the environmentally friendly shadow growth method, and use less water than before.

    ***Trying to get on-topic:***

    What are the main components of the Briffa analysis discussed by Steve McIntyre? If it’s the Polar Urals or Yamal, I wonder why they would think there is a “divergence”, when in fact the nearby long-running station Ostrov Dikson has had temperatures that’s similar to the Briffa graph. I created this graph: http://i45.tinypic.com/2ns6jk6.jpg by downloading June-August temperatures for Ostrov Dikson from GISS. To avoid too much noise (arctic temperatures are extremely variable), I smoothed the curve with a centered 3-year mean. The Briffa series ends in 1994, please note that that corresponds to approximately the start of the current warm period of Ostrov Dikson. Also note that the temperature fluctuations are strikingly high, even with my smoothed curve, and despite the fact that this place is close to the Arctic Ocean: As you can see, most 3-year means between 1940 and 1960 were above 3.5 C, while the period 1965 – 1975 was below 2.5 C.

  118. To Moderator,

    To echo TomVonk and Vincent’s comments to delete such nonsense posts like Aimee’s.

    I almost fell for it then I thought this person might not be a kid but a grown up adult troll trying to take focus off the article. Even alarmist adults can’t be that silly (or maybe ….), plus the use of the word “denier” that let the cat out of the bag (or microwave / pun intended). Maybe next time you might want to consider DELAYING such early, off-topic nonsense comments till later to reduce the chances of it hijacking the discussion otherwise don’t allow, move or delete.

    Jimbo

  119. To Moderator:

    On reflection, given WUWT’s new, post-Climategate circumstances, I’d echo calls for our long-suffering moderators to deal with aimee-trolls not because they are not genuine but because they are wildly OT and waste both the site’s and visitors’ resources. (I wish I hadn’t added to the noise.)

  120. Kevin:

    You asked:
    “Isn’t the issue of “hiding the decline” discussed here? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0.html

    No. It is not. If you think it is then please explain.

    But Arch Stanton seems convinced because he asserts:
    “Kevin (15:01:28) is right. Jones published about this problem before the email was written.”

    Stating that a problem exists in one place while attempting to conceal it everywhere else is commonly known as “covering your ass”.

    In the item at the URL Jones mentions the existence of the divergence problem when he says;

    “When averaged over large areas of northern America and Eurasia, tree-ring density series display a strong coherence with summer temperature measurements averaged over the same areas, demonstrating the ability of this proxy to portray mean temperature changes over sub-continents and even the whole Northern Hemisphere. During the second half of the twentieth century, the decadal-scale trends in wood density and summer temperatures have increasingly diverged as wood density has progressively fallen. The cause of this increasing insensitivity of wood density to temperature changes is not known, but if it is not taken into account in dendroclimatic reconstructions, past temperatures could be overestimated.”

    There is a clear disagreement between the sentence that says;
    “When averaged over large areas of northern America and Eurasia, tree-ring density series display a strong coherence with summer temperature measurements averaged over the same areas, demonstrating the ability of this proxy to portray mean temperature changes over sub-continents and even the whole Northern Hemisphere.”
    And the sentence saying;
    “During the second half of the twentieth century, the decadal-scale trends in wood density and summer temperatures have increasingly diverged as wood density has progressively fallen.”

    How can there be “strong coherence” when the parameters have “increasingly diverged” over a quarter of the calibration range?

    And the following sentence is clearly disingenuous. It says;
    “The cause of this increasing insensitivity of wood density to temperature changes is not known, but if it is not taken into account in dendroclimatic reconstructions, past temperatures could be overestimated.”

    PROBLEM
    How can “this increasing insensitivity of wood density to temperature changes” be “taken into account in dendroclimatic reconstructions” when its cause “is not known”?

    SOLUTION
    Ignore “this increasing insensitivity of wood density to temperature changes” then hide the decline.

    And that was the adopted solution: see Steve’s excellent analysis (above) and Lucy’s superb presentation (mentioned above and at
    http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Climategate/hide-decline.htm ).

    Richard

  121. “Name ONE species that went extent in the last 3 months.”
    ~ charles the moderator.

    Scientific integrity in climate science.

    I think that seems to be pretty much extinct. Although the last remnants probably passed away years ago, it’s absence is only now becoming known to the public.

  122. Things we shoulda learned in hi school:

    [CO2] + [H2O] + sunlight —> [cellulose]

    The rate & quantity at which cellulose is made depends on availability of the reactants.

    The rx rate is directly, but minimally, dependant on temperature. For 1st order rx kinetics, rate doubles for each rise of 10degC. In the published graphs, there is a 3-fold increase in cellulose from min to max levels while temps supposedly only change 0.5degC.

    Temps are indirectly involved via their influence on humidiity/precipitation & cloud cover. Tree ring analyses are, at best, a lousy proxy for ambient temps.

    No need to lie about it.

  123. Aimee a troll? I do not care, it is hypocrisy to throw stones at Aimee when we are so upset at the ‘holding responses in the queue” that goes on at the website that refuses to call Steve by his name.

    Lets fast forward this Climategate debacle to its obvious resolution. Most of the deleted emails are probably stored at the ISP. I know in the U.S. they are required to be, the question is has that time expired? Because taxpayer dollars were fraudulently acquired and squandered on a non problem there will be a paper trail. As the investigation unfolds somebody will spill the beans to avoid prison time. Then, it will be CYA time on steroids. The spineless politicians will do whatever it takes to keep their jobs. The real question is, how high up the food chain does the conspiracy go? Remember, Dear Leader Obama claims that he got his start in politics with the help of the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters. Whether you like the president or not there is no denying that he is a smart man and an astute politician who needs to win just one more election. Since, for politicians the end justifies the means who will be sacrificed so that the president can continue to “do the work of the people”?

    Most Americans, even in these hard times, enjoy a standard of living that most of the world envies. The average American DOES pay attention whenever a politician attempts to reach into his wallet. As the true magnitude of this scandal unfolds everybody involved will be so busy driving the bus over everyone else that it is going to look like a destruction derby. What is sad is that when future real environmental concerns arise nobody will believe the environmentalists. Any sane human being cares about the planet. The good news is the far left will not be able to execute their master plan for world domination through control of the worlds energy. BTW, I despise the far left as much as I do the far right. All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. Thank you Steve for having the courage to do that which is right.

  124. Niclas Sand Engberg (06:36:46) :

    “Name ONE species that went extent in the last 3 months.”
    ~ charles the moderator.

    I wish I could say useful idiots went extict. But I can’t. I saw one named Bill O’Reilly on tv last night.

  125. Harold Blue Tooth (Viking not phone) (15:45:11) :
    Niclas Sand Engberg (06:36:46) :

    “Name ONE species that went extent in the last 3 months.”
    ~ charles the moderator.

    I wish I could say useful idiots went extict. But I can’t. I saw one named Bill O’Reilly on tv last night.

    Is that the best you can do, a half witted ad hominem attack on Bill O’Reilly? I guess if I could not make an intelligent argument I would be tempted to stoop as low. Fortunately, I have some class. BTW, “tv” is an acronym for television and should be capitalized. Also, you misspelled extinct. Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary? It couldn’t hurt and it might help to build character, yours! Also, by watching The O’Reilly Factor you may build your vocabulary as Mr. O’Reilly often shares interesting additions to fortify just about anyones diction.

  126. @Richard S Courtney (03:50:57) :

    Why don’t you read the paper rather than fantasize from the abstract?

    From the paper itself:

    “…Averaged around the Northern Hemisphere, early tree growth (ALL) can be seen to follow closely the decadal trends in recorded summer temperatures, tracking the rise to the relatively high levels of the 1930s and 1940s and the subsequent fall in the 1950s. However, although temperatures rose again after the mid-1960s and reached unprecedentedly high recorded levels by the late 1980s, hemispheric tree growth fell consistently after 1940, and in the late 1970s and 1980s reached levels as low as those attained in the cool 1880s. Over the hemisphere, the divergence between tree growth and mean summer temperatures began perhaps as early as the 1930s; became clearly recognisable, particularly in the north, after 1960; and has continued to increase up until the end of the common record at around 1990. The reason for this increasingly apparent and widespread phenomenon is not known but any one, or a combination, of several factors might be involved…”

    They go on to discuss potential factors.

    If Briffa wanted to “hide the decline” he would not have published about the decline in Nature (with Jones). If Jones had really wanted to “hide the decline” in the WMO chart he just could have left the trees out all together.

    But Briffa did, and Jones didn’t. Some tricky decline hiding, eh?

  127. Arch Stanton:

    Bluster all you want.

    The extended quote you provide says;

    “The reason for this increasingly apparent and widespread phenomenon is not known but any one, or a combination, of several factors might be involved…”

    So, my comment was correct. As I said;

    “PROBLEM
    How can “this increasing insensitivity of wood density to temperature changes” be “taken into account in dendroclimatic reconstructions” when its cause “is not known”?
    SOLUTION
    Ignore “this increasing insensitivity of wood density to temperature changes” then hide the decline.
    And that was the adopted solution: see Steve’s excellent analysis (above) and Lucy’s superb presentation (mentioned above and at
    http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Climategate/hide-decline.htm ).”

    And, as I also said;

    “Stating that a problem exists in one place while attempting to conceal it everywhere else is commonly known as “covering your ass”.”

    So, to paraphrase you, why don’t you comment on what I wrote instead of trying to excuse the inexcuseable?

    Richard

  128. Eddy Aruda (11:16:21) :
    Most of the deleted emails are probably stored at the ISP.

    Universities usually have their own mail servers.

Comments are closed.