Guest post by Barry Woods (please bookmark his blog RealClimategate -Anthony)
Judith Curry has tackled the ‘Hide the Decline’ issue at her blog Climate Etc. The issue is that data was hidden from policymakers (and the public) so not to confuse them… and other data spliced in to perhaps give a very different message?
As published using Mike’s Nature Trick to “hide the decline”
Mike’s Nature Trick not used. Thermometers and spliced in tree ring data removed.
As temp reconstructions proxies (tree rings) were used to explain or ‘sell’ that modern temperatures were ‘unprecedented’ so global warming ‘must’ be down to humans and that policy makers should something now.
The fact that the proxies temperature decline when the thermometer readings are going up, would indicate that they are NOT a good proxy for past temperature.
I think even the most unscientifically trained politician and member of the public could see this, especially if you look at the 2 graphs above..
The screen captures are from the video Judith Curry links to (part I):
No point talking here about it here, go to where the debate is.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/23/hiding-the-decline-part-ii/
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/24/hiding-the-decline-part-iii/
At the Bishop Hill blog, at least one scientist has chimed in to support Professor Judith Curry
Professor Jonathon Jones (Physics – Oxford University)
”If you’re wondering who I am, then you can find me at the Physics Department at Oxford University.”
Professor Jonathon Jones:
“People have asked why mainstream scientists are keeping silent on these issues. As a scientist who has largely kept silent, at least in public, I have more sympathy for silence than most people here. It’s not for the obvious reason, that speaking out leads to immediate attacks, not just from Gavin and friends, but also from some of the more excitable commentators here. Far more importantly most scientists are reluctant to speak out on topics which are not their field. We tend to trust our colleagues, perhaps unreasonably so, and are also well aware that most scientific questions are considerably more complex than outsiders think, and that it is entirely possible that we have missed some subtle but critical point.
However, “hide the decline” is an entirely different matter. This is not a complicated technical matter on which reasonable people can disagree: it is a straightforward and blatant breach of the fundamental principles of honesty and self-criticism that lie at the heart of all true science.
The significance of the divergence problem is immediately obvious, and seeking to hide it is quite simply wrong. The recent public statements by supposed leaders of UK science, declaring that hiding the decline is standard scientific practice are on a par with declarations that black is white and up is down. I don’t know who they think they are speaking for, but they certainly aren’t speaking for me.
I have watched Judy Curry with considerable interest since she first went public on her doubts about some aspects of climate science, an area where she is far more qualified than I am to have an opinion. Her latest post has clearly kicked up a remarkable furore, but she was right to make it. The decision to hide the decline, and the dogged refusal to admit that this was an error, has endangered the credibility of the whole of climate science.
If the rot is not stopped then the credibility of the whole of science will eventually come into question.Judy’s decision to try to call a halt to this mess before it’s too late is brave and good. So please cut her some slack; she has more than enough problems to deal with at the moment.If you’re wondering who I am, then you can find me at the Physics Department at Oxford University.”
Feb 23, 2011 at 10:29 PM | Jonathan Jones
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What does the graph look like without YAD061?
Professor Jonathon Jones is a very brave man and I commend him on his honesty. I do hope that more scientists (I mean real scientists) will now break their silence and join in the condemnation of the “hide the decline” trick, because a trick it is. The socalled scientists who have defended it ought to bow their heads in shame. I personally no longer trust any of the “scientists” who defend and exaggerate the effect of man made emissions of CO2 and that is really a shame.
Turf Tavern: I’m sure it was built by Hobbits. Anyone visiting Oxford, find the Turf Tavern and watch your head walking in. Anyway, As a sceptical physicist, you are not alone: From the Daily Telegraph on Inflexion Point of Oil Pricing. A comment from a Harold Lewis today. Bravo to Judith
————————————————————————————–
……….Geeze, Ambrose, you need to get out and read more.
How about starting with “The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists” by Roy W Spencer
maybe followed by Andrew W. Montfords book “The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science”
“It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist”
Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group
————————————————————————————-
1. Someone has changed Jonathan Jones into “Jonathan James” near the top of the post. [Thx, fixed.]
2. Adding my voice to the chorus: Jones has shown both courage and insight.
Re: John Peter
Scientists with genuine misgivings about the state of climate science have to be “brave” to voice their concerns. What does that tell you?
I’m only seeing one graph – the “After”. Anyone else the same?
Barry, weren’t the original tree rings calibrated against only 9 years of temperature data? Some temperature/time period in the late 1800’s?
If I remember that correctly……
For years, as I have read all the crazy, convoluted efforts of team supporters to try to justify the hockey stick (or anything else), I’ve always assumed that they just thought we were stupid and they could baffle us (or at least the public) with their BS. Surely, they couldn’t be so stupid as to believe what they were saying.
I am beginning to think that they might possibly be so stupid.
Judith Curry, you are very brave, and so is Jonathan Jones (James? note typo). How sad to NEED to rescue science-scientists from being party to a global scam that is attempting to (succeeding in?) stop developed countries in their tracks and emptying the savings accounts, and sticking it to, the remaining taxpayers in those countries. The shame is so significant that scientists (and science) will never be revered again in the lifetime of anyone alive today. This heist will only impoverish the rest of the world. And too many scientists are fellow travelers.
Anthony,
The first graph seems to have gotten lost in cyber space as it didn’t post on my PC.
I concur with Dr. Jones’- “If the rot is not stopped then the credibility of the whole of science will eventually come into question.” comment.
Ken, Yes, me too – properties say “Not available”, i.e not where it is coded to reside.
Gavin Schmidt is simply attempting to bail water from the sinking ship USS CAGW…
Bail…fail…but not without flail…
Bravo Jones!
If professional scientists would spend half as much time publicly refuting the Gaian faith as they currently spend on publicly refuting the Christian faith, we’d get somewhere. The argument about specialization and subtlety really doesn’t work. The scientists who feel qualified to refute Christianity are definitely not Christian, yet they can see the basic logical problems clearly. Same with Gaianity. You don’t need to be a climatologist to see that the logic and facts of climatology are invalid.
In fact, you’re MORE likely to see problems when you’re not an insider. No vested interest means no self-created distortion of viewpoint. This is plain common sense but it seems to have vanished from all of science.
The BEFORE picture does not show – it has wrong link: http://realclimategate.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/hide-the-decline-tree-ring-data-temp-spliced-in1.jpg?w=463&h=451 .
Remove the “?w=463&h=451” to fix it.
REPLY: This is due to some weird JPEG encoding in the first image. I’ve resaved it using a proper image editor, as well as made the notations clearer for those who were confused by “before and after” – Anthony
What bugs me most about this is that the EPA has stringent guidelines for proxy correlation demonstration that were developed for hazardous waste incinerators. Not only do you have to show correlation and precisely define the parameter/proxy calculation, but the maximum value of your test becomes your limit, so no extrapolation is permitted. These methods can be quite annoying, but when you are destroying toxic waste, ensuring that it’s actually destroyed is important.
However, when they are faced with an even more important problem, the EPA is willing to accept proxies where the proxy data is uncorrelated or even inversely correllated with real data during the concurrent period. If I tried that, I’d find myself under arrest, or at least fined so heavy to find myself unemployed.
Quite frustrating, really.
During the course of my invetigations I was stunned to find that everybody who believed in AGW could not supply me with the test results and scientific answers to the questions I was looking for. In the end I found that AGW is not happening. It is not warming at all. Not for at least the last 3 decades. It is all just one pack of lies.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
Then again maybe I’m not awake enough yet and have misread the story/graphs.
I only just got around to watching the video that Judith Curry links to of Richard Muller (Director of the Berkeley Earth Project)
….and thought that a couple of screen captures from the video, describes the issue more so than all the thousands of comments.
It is good that at least one physicist and presumably a reader of her blog and the Bishop Hill blog, feels able to give her support and that this is worth serious debate.
Judith said on Muller:
“..where he discusses “hide the decline” and vehemently refers to this as “dishonest,” and says “you are not allowed to do this,” and further states that he intends not to read further papers by these authors (note “hide the decline” appears around minute 31 into the clip). While most of his research is in physics, Muller has also published important papers on paleoclimate, including a controversial paper that supported McIntyre and McKitrick’s analysis.”
Judith also said:
“The first thing that contributed to my mind change was this post at Bishop Hill entitled “Will Sir John condemn hide the decline?”, related to Sir John Beddington’s statement: It is time the scientific community became proactive in challenging misuse of scientific evidence.”
As Sir John Beddington is my country’s (UK) chief scientist, I would very much like him to explain ‘Hide the decline’ to the public, the media (BBC especially) and the politicians.
I’m not holding my breathe waiting though.
Maybe he could talk to Professor Nurse about man made CO2 % relative to natural CO2 sources whilst he is about it.
Ultimately, it comes down to, if temperatures are not ‘unprecedented’ then why is the null hypothesiss being ignored, that what we are experiencing is just climate, not assumed to be man-made climate change.
I don’t know.. I would like to be able to trust those that are doing the finding out…
AGAIN, the absolute vast majority of scientist have nothing to do with this issue..
I imagine that most would have assumed that scientists in some very small, specific fields would behave as they would do. As they become aware of this, I imagine most scientists will be concerned that ALL science is brought into disrepute because of it.
“Far more importantly most scientists are reluctant to speak out on topics which are not their field. We tend to trust our colleagues, perhaps unreasonably so, and are also well aware that most scientific questions are considerably more complex than outsiders think, and that it is entirely possible that we have missed some subtle but critical point.”
I think the above comment goes to the heart of how a small cabal of climate scientists have been allowed to get away with the idea that there is a “consensus” among scientists.
“BEFORE” and “AFTER” are reversed in the above.
The study of cults would be of more use in dealing with this problem.
Sub-study of how Barney Madoff got away with his fraud so long.
All the guilty dogs are trying to out bark the dog who e-mailed him during the hide the decline conference.
And let us not forget it was not only the deviation in thermometer readings and the tree ring proxies that was hidden. The number and identity of the proxies were mysteriously lost. And then there was the curious fact that the Russian tree ring samples, vastly larger than Briffa’s proxy choices, did not reflect the Briffa data, suggesting cherry-picking.
This whole matter was a shame. Briffa would be a respected scientist today if he had simply published his findings and the obvious conclusion that tree rings make poor temperature proxies.
Instead he willfully engaged in a fraud.
How many wheels are there left to fall off the AGW wagon before the MSM,politicians, and mainstream science to see whats being done in the name of science..or should that be money?
When scientists are breaking ranks with the Team in such a public way, it means the consensus dam is failing having been completely undermined by ClimateGate.
More to the point.
Study cults.
More likely to shed light would be to study large gangs like the Hells Angels and how the leaders of that group control the jr. members with grants of cash.