In response to the question “When will they release all of the temperature data?” Appolon falsely claims that it’s available at realclimate.

There’s a mix of things there…
1) The “Team” advises that their data is publicly available, while not noting that it is unidentified as to which of tens of thousands of datasets were used and mixed in with numerous variations, and some of it apparently actually not available or incomplete.
2) The “Team” and HadCRU acknowledge that significant sections of the data have been modified – without being precise on how they were modified – and further advise that the original data is unrecoverable.
3) A large part of the question on results is why a particular dataset was used vs. another from the same locale, but with very different characteristics.

…and more.

“….it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were.”

It was absolutely necessary to remove the correct impression given by the tree rings that they did not correlate to temperature as shown by data between 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written), as the instrumental data clearly showed the rings were not actually proxies for temperature (either locally or for the far side of the planet).

Could you tell me which of the IPCC models/reports projected a .2C rise per decade if CO2 remained at 2000 levels?

Thanks

Awarding peace prizes to someone who has talked but not achieved, let alone to known tyrants etc,. simply shows that the selection process is corrupt thus the prize is worthless. (Perhaps even worse – it may become a negative on the reputation of recipients.

One problem out there is the many awards from biased groups – one neo-Marxist responded to my criticism of a speaker’s thesis by rattling off a list of her awards, which were all from groups supporting her ideology, instead of addressing the issue of correctness of her thesis.)

As you point out, I shouldn’t have written that the data are available *on* http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ which is clearly a contradiction with my previous sentence, but *from* this website. Thank you for pointing out this technicality. Luckily, anyone who visits the site would see that for herself.

But perhaps we should stick to facts and the topic of this forum, rather than searching for other people’s splinters.

Sorry, you’re right. That’s what I get for assuming.

Please, lay off the Kool Aid and reread my post a little more carefully.

Hint: the preposition is “to” not “from” an agitator.

Steve McIntyre, who with Ross McKitrick debunked Michael Mann’s hokey stick, is “an agitator with nothing substantive”? Really? Too much Kool Aid, me boy.

And Apollon (11:43:15),

In response to the question “When will they release all of the temperature data?” Appolon falsely claims that it’s available at realclimate.

As if.

Further, skeptical scientists have been requesting, both informally and through FOI requests, all of the data, methodologies, code, etc., from those making the AGW claims, with little success. Partial disclosure amounts to cherry picking what they want people to see, nothing more or less.

The rent-seeking AGW purveyors hang on to their data and methods like a primogeniture inheritance. Then when push comes to shove, they claim it was “lost.”

Are you really that credulous?

Steven McIntyre seemed to have few problems reading my posts, and in fact dedicated a couple of articles in attempting to answer them. Not quite the response that might be expected to an agitator with nothing substantive.

But what exactly of any substance are you bringing to this discussion?

In response to ansewr A, you write: “This, in turn, suggests that the IPCC models have overestimated the climate sensitivity for greenhouse gases, underestimated natural variability, or both. This also suggests that there is a systematic upward bias in the impacts estimates based on these models.”
If, as you point out in your first sentence, this may be due to natural variability, how then can you conclude that there is a systematic bias?

After answer E: “However, the key question — unfortunately unasked – …”
Fortunately, it is answered: if most (>50%) is due human action, a smaller fraction (<50%). This statement may seem vague, but quite clearly expresses the amount of uncertainty. This may be a good place to point out what a scientist means with 'uncertainty'; it is in fact a synonym for 'accuracy'. In the case of this statement, it may be that the human factor contributes for 55%, 80% or 100% – we can't tell, but certainly not for 40%, 10% or 0%.

After answer H: "Phil Jones doesn't dispute the premise that 'the MWP is under debate.' … The response is based on laughable logic. It is an “argument from ignorance”! … What about internal natural variability and other “natural influences”"
Note that Jones addressed the MWP debate in answer G: he tells us it is unknown whether the MWP is a global phenomenon, and hence it cannot (yet) be compared to the current warming, which is global.
You can call it an "argument from ignorance", but it doesn't make it "laughable". As shown in answer D, "human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system" are taken into account. This statement tells us that the current climate anomalous trends cannot be explained by natural causes (such as solar and vulcanic driving), but they can be explained when taking into account human influcences. As for the "natural variability", this explains the earlier, non-anomalous behaviour of the climate.

After answer Q: "1. Given the divergence problem, how can it be assumed that tree rings are valid proxies for temperature for other places at other times?"
The data from tree rings at other times are compatible with data from other sources, e.g. ice cores.

After answer Q: "2. The divergence problem may be well known among tree ring researchers but laymen and policy makers for whom the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers was supposedly written are generally ignorant of it."
Correct – this phrase comes from a personal email that was stolen from a Climatic Research Unit server, not from an IPCC report.

And finally (I shan't go into commenting on all comments), and answer to Stacey's important question (14/02/2010-05:28:17): "When will they release all of the temperature data?"
The temperature data are released by the various institutions around the world that measure them. They can be found for example on the website RealClimate founded in 2005): http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

You had your ears pinned back and despite several requests to unravel the mess you left at CA, you decided to not present a line-by-line exposition of your argument, a report. It was entirely impossible to follow your posts. You expected Steve/RomanM et al to go through each post and do it for you. That’s not how it works.

Why did you fail to provide a report? It appears your MO is to simply be an agitator with nothing substantive.

One valid question amidst your ranting:

“And show me the proof that Yamal is a temperature proxy at all.”

From Steven McIntyre, in discussing the Polar Urals and Yamal:

“Both chronologies have statistically significant relationships to June-July temperature, but the t-statistic for Polar Urals is a bit higher (Polar Urals t-statistic – 5.90; Yamal 4.29; correlations are Polar Urals 0.50; Yamal 0.55).”

@ Onion (05:28:27) :

I posted on the ‘Daily Mail’ thread the link to Hansen’s 1981 Science Paper:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf

I wonder if this paper forms the basis for the IPCC models. If it does, there are a few ‘interesting’ consequences:

- Hansen predicts CO-warming will dominate other climate drivers after 2000. This prediction is with a 95% confidence interval (2 SDs). What this implies, as far as I can tell, is that any warming prior to the year 2000 may be due to CO2 or other causes of climate change or a mixture, and cannot be attributed to CO2 alone with any statistically significant degree of confidence.

This alone is a bit mind-blowing. Any declaration that global warming up until the year 2000 is unprecedented and due to CO2 is, according to Hansen’s own paper, wrong.

- Hansen draws a graph showing when CO2 warming starts dominating other causes of climate change. What this implies is that we should only be looking for statistically significant warming AFTER 2000, and the absence of such warming falsifies his hypothesis of CAGW

Hansen’s rebuttal will be something like:
The increase was not seen to come on Jan 1, 2000, like a bolt from heaven. It was a gradual increase in influence. And sociopolitical events moved the date forward in time – the advent of China and the end of the Soviet Bloc caused increases in industrialization unforeseen at the time.

- Jones’ admission on the absence of statistically significant warming since 1995 appears to be evidence against CAGW as per Hansen’s original paper.

It is clearly doing exactly that. The question might really be this:

How long has Jones had such thoughts, and is he the only one among the Hockey Stick Team or others at CRU?

This puts Jones squarely among the probables for being the leaker. His stepping down so readily after the emails were leaked always implied to me that he didn’t want to fight those battles on their behalf. It seems there has been a falling out among thieves. It appears Jones has a conscience.

Mann is basically Captain Queeg, and Jones is at least abandoning ship, if not participating in the mutiny.