By Steve McIntyre from his camirror.wordpress.com site.
For the very first time, the Climategate Letters “archived” the deleted portion of the Briffa MXD reconstruction of “Hide the Decline” fame – see here. Gavin Schmidt claimed that the decline had been “hidden in plain sight” (see here. ). This isn’t true.
The post-1960 data was deleted from the archived version of this reconstruction at NOAA here and not shown in the corresponding figure in Briffa et al 2001. Nor was the decline shown in the IPCC 2001 graph, one that Mann, Jones, Briffa, Folland and Karl were working in the two weeks prior to the “trick” email (or for that matter in the IPCC 2007 graph, an issue that I’ll return to.)
A retrieval script follows.
For now, here is a graphic showing the deleted data in red. 
Figure 1. Two versions of Briffa MXD reconstruction, showing archived and climategate versions.shown below, clearly does not show the decline in the Briffa MXD reconstruction.
Contrary to Gavin Schmidt’s claim that the decline is “hidden in plain sight”, the inconvenient data has simply been deleted.
The reason, as explained on Sep 22, 1999 by Michael Mann to coauthors in 938018124.txt, was to avoid giving “fodder to the skeptics”. Reasonable people might well disagree with Gavin Schmidt as to whether this is a “a good way to deal with a problem” or simply a trick.
Figure 2. IPCC 2001 Fig 2.21 showing Briffa, Jones and Mann reconstructions together with HadCRU temperature.
Retrieval script:
##COMPARE ARCHIVED BRIFFA VERSION TO CLIMATEGATE VERSION
#1. LOAD ARcHIVED DATA
url<-"ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/n_hem_temp/briffa2001jgr3.txt"
#readLines(url)[1:50]
Briffa<-read.table(url,skip=24,fill=TRUE)
Briffa[Briffa< -900]=NA
dimnames(Briffa)[[2]]<-c("year","Jones98","MBH99","Briffa01","Briffa00","Overpeck97","Crowley00","CRU99")
sapply(Briffa, function(x) range( Briffa$year[!is.na(x)]) )
# year Jones98 MBH99 Briffa01 Briffa00 Overpeck97 Crowley00 CRU99
#[1,] 1000 1000 1000 1402 1000 1600 1000 1871
#[2,] 1999 1991 1980 1960 1993 1990 1987 1997
Briffa= ts(Briffa,start=1000)
#2. LOAD CLIMATEGATE VERSION
loc="http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=146&filename=939154709.txt"
working=readLines(loc,n=1994-1401+104)
working=working[105:length(working)]
x=substr(working,1,14)
writeLines(x,"temp.dat")
gate=read.table("temp.dat")
gate=ts(gate[,2],start=gate[1,1])
#Comparison briffa=ts.union(archive= Briffa[,"Briffa01"],gate ) briffa=window(briffa,start=1402,end=1994) # plot.ts(briffa)
X=briffa
par(mar=c(2.5,3,2,1))
plot( c(time(X)),X[,1],col=col.ipcc,lwd=2,ylim=c(-1.2,.5),yaxs="i",type="n",axes=FALSE,xlab="",ylab="")
for( i in 2:1) lines( c(time(X)),X[,i],col=i,lwd=1)
axis(side=1,tck=.025)
labels0=seq(-1,1,.1);labels0[is.na(match(seq(-1,1,.1),seq(-1,1,.5)))]=""
axis(side=2,at=seq(-1,1,.1),labels=labels0,tck=.025,las=1)
axis(side=4,at=seq(-1,1,.1),labels=labels0,tck=.025)
box()
abline(h=0)
title("Hide the Decline")
legend("topleft",fill=2:1,legend=c("Deleted","Archived"))
Sponsored IT training links:
Using 70-646 virtual exams, you’ll pass your 350-030 exam on first try plus get free demos for next 640-822 exam.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In Aristolian logic 101, one learns what should be common sensical that if the premises are invalid, the conclusions can’t be anything but invalid. The global warming fiasco starts with the false premise that CO2 is a significant green house gas that can have major impacts on climate. With CO2 comprising less than 3 percent of so-called green house gases and green house gases comprising much less than 1 percent of the total atmosphere, it defies reason and sensibility to assert that CO2 can have a significant role in climate or anything else affecting this planet.
As is often said in computerese, GIGO, garbage in – garbage out.
@czekmark
I am going to cut and paste your remark and send it to Congress. — Mr. Anonymouse.
How many salivating proponents of “ClimateGate” take Bible myths at face value with zero scrutiny? Half of Americans polled still believe in Noah’s Ark. Does that hypocrisy register? Creationists calling for “sound science” is the biggest hoax imaginable.
Denial of AGW is similar to the denial of a long list of man-made environmental problems. Acid rain pollution controls were “draconian.” Catalytic converters were a power-robbing socialist conspiracy. CFCs and the ozone hole were a “hoax” to cripple auto shop profits. Remember those days? “The economy ain’t workin’ right unless it’s destroyin’ nature!”
There’s a very good presentation on the history of such propaganda, titled “The American Denial of Global Warming.” Google it and watch it for free online. That is, if you have an hour’s attention span. Most of you would rather get dumbed-down soundbytes on everything. Just enough to keep you happy, righteous and deluded.
[REPLY – Speaking as an atheist/agnostic, religion is faith-based, not evidence-based. Provide evidence and faith itself is lost in the wash. Creationism conflicts with science, so there is no surprise that the polls are wonky in that regard. But there is no biblical conflict with Global Warming, so GW is not analogous with the creationism/natural selection spat. ~ Evan]
czekmark, your claim that CO2 can’t be significant because of its relatively small percentage is an old canard that’s completely bogus. It shows a serious lack of understanding on the topic. Are you getting that from Limbaugh or Hannity?
You could invest just 30 minutes reading about CO2’s actual properties and how it’s present in many layers of atmosphere while water vapor (etc.) effects are limited. This was learned back in the 1950s when the characteristics of different gases were categorized. Search for Gilbert Plass, et al. That is, if you’re not afraid of knowledge like most of the fringe-right.
AGW also wasn’t politicized back then because a decision had yet to be made on dealing with worst-case scenarios. Science is usually taken for granted until evidence compels people to change habits, then denial predictably kicks in and time gets wasted fighting it. Constructive skepticism is a different matter.
Something tells me that the moderator of this forum won’t allow my two comments, but what the heck.
[REPLY – Why wouldn’t we? Opposing views are allowed and encouraged. Personal abuse to posters, obscenities, and offensive material, of course, will be snipped. ~ Evan]
@ur momisugly Jim C: As a Christian global warming critic, I do have a number of irons in the intellectual fire, not all of which I should involve in a public forum with a specific focus. With focused respect to this forum’s issue, I must further separate the politics from the science once in a while. Your post bids me do so now.
I must oppose the policy fixes that claim to prevent the death of the planet’s ecological systems from AGW. These policies and treaties (Kyoto, Copenhagen, Cap-and Tax etc) do far more than tinker with the mechanics of my car or the chemical make-up of its gasoline. Attempts to improve the environment at the level of technological improvements have happily been the arena of public debate and those that cross the bar of electorate approval are now part of our culture. Well and good. The recent and radical proposals have effects reaching far beyond the merely technical. These AGW related proposals truly deserve the name ‘draconian’. Our national sovereignty, personal freedoms, free market economy and republic stand to be destroyed. On top of that, media, government, academia and AGW science cabal suppress discussion, debate and, Gaia forbid, skepticism. Example: Not one story on network TV about ClimateGate! This is a demonstration of network political intent and their monopolistic stranglehold on information that should send chills down all our spines.
I can competently investigate the policies and their ramifications and their intent, IMO. I have enough background as a reader and thinker to do that, using the variety of sources available to me.
As to the science behind AGW, specifically the points about CO2 that you raise: I will check into the site you offer, but I am truly, as an untrained person, over my head in evaluating the material. I also have a built in skepticism, thanks to the emails and data REM’s that came out of CRU. Please grant me this legitimate skepticism, one built up on on first hand testimony of AGW principals. I CAN read the REM’s and emails and know darn well what motivations, intents, purposes and behaviors they indicate. At the heart of AGW, in its Holy of Holies (EAU, Penn State etc) lies a political purpose to which all scientific integrity has been prostituted. And that’s before Harry_Read_Me shows us all the uselessness of the data that got manipulated!
To sift through the jargon of a discussion of CO2 that may be influenced by the researcher’s need to be consistent with AGW beliefs, I need sites like this and, yes, Jim, comments like yours. I expect that you will keep me-and more competent posters- honest. But please focus on the point of the post. You sound desperate otherwise.
I think it’s both strange and scary how little the press in Norway talk about the potential misjustice and misleading which have been done – on an international plan.
Lucky for me that I enjoy a good conspiracy theory, so I’ve used maybe 20-30 hours to read up on this case.. However, it was kind of hard to find a good source for information, as many of the sceptics have little or no proof.
This page and some others; I find that I can trust.
It’s not good that the climate cause has become a milk-cow for a certain group of people, so they will do whatever to maxmize the propaganda and fear, they will mislead and cheat.
Any one may copy and paste, fax, email, this letter. NO recognition is necessary except to anonymouse. Please thank anonymouse LOL. Writen last night and sent to 567 on the Hill: Every congressman, every Supreme court judge, and every unconstitutional Czar, and every Secretary and president and vice president. I use http://www.americanvoice(dot)com
An Open Letter To The President, Congress and Supreme Court:
Sirs and Mesdames:
You have ONE JOB: Your only job is to do one simple thing, You SWORE an Oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution. That is your only job: HONOR your Oath of Office and Protect and Defend the United States Constitution and defend the Liberty of the People. Anything else you do is inconsequential…. See More
1. Prove the eligibility of Obama by showing a real Birth Certificate with real facts. The one on his website is not the official Birth Certificate.
2. Cease and desist all Co2 and AGW legislation until the Unbiased FACTS are revealed. Do a complete Investigation of Climate Gate.
3. Cease and desist all deliberation on signing any treaty that cedes US Sovereignty: this includes Copenhagen Treaty, Codex Aliminatarius, Health care legislation, Jay Rockefeller’s internet control bill! This is an act of Direct TREASON ON YOUR PART if you or anyone CEDES US Sovereignty to any entity or acts Contrary to the Constitution .
4. CEASE and DESIST all unconstitutional laws that do not fall into Article I section 8 of the US Constitution. You have no authority to legislate on issues not specifically enumerated in the US Constitution.
5. Honor your Oath of office and OBEY Amendment 9 which states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others RETAINED by the PEOPLE”.
And Amendment 10 which states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are RESERVED to the States respectively, or to the People”.
6. Repeal the Patriot act! It is unconstitutional because it violates the bill of rights right down the line. Do I have to remind you that Amendment IV states: The right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation , and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
7. Stay out of FREE SPEECH! Amendment I clearly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.
8. Complete Audit of the Federal Reserve. The FED is unconstitutional from the start. The genesis of the Federal Reserve was passed with 3 Congressmen in the dark of night. The constitution is very clear who is supposed to have the authority to coin money: CONGRESS! You must STOP making unconstitutional laws.
9. It is not Constitutional for you to allow the courts to pass laws according to Article III. You are overburdening the system with bills and laws you KNOW are unconstitutional.
The Constitution does not give authority to you, our government representatives to lie to us and deceive us, nor does it give authority to the government to act without the consent of the people. When government no longer looks out for the best interest of the people, the government ceases to be the rightful, legitimate government, and as such, it is time to abolish the entire government. “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations , pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”.
This is what happens when the government is funding research. The scientist becomes a prostitute according to the agenda of the politicians seeking for power.
There has been fraud regarding funds on Climate Change research:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019956/climategate-the-lawyers-move-in-those-scientists-are-toast/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu_ok37HDuE (ClimateGate Who’s Who)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI (Armed Response to ‘Climategate’ question). This is how the UN censors questions about Global Warming.
and more fraud in the carbon trading scheme:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-european-carbon-credit-trading-system-plagued-by-fraud/
And now, the question everyone should ask: How much carbon reduction is needed to reduce the temperature to the UN target?
Answer: A minimum of 80 years without electricity and without fuel. That is, no heating, no cooking, no cars, no trucks, no tractors for agriculture, no cargo boats and no planes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLKCyk_DhVI (Climate-Gate – Michael Coren with Lord Christopher Monckton )
Follow the money….
“The carbon market in the US is expected to be trillions of dollars by 2015, and the technology we are offering is as little as 10% to half of that number”. Earning only 10% of a trillion represents an income of 100 billions a year, which is twice the total wealth of Bill Gates. Guess who is behind this corporation, to become a trillionaire? You have to watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuifVNofEtk