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
It is a pity trees don’t grow as much as Mann claimed.
Think about it……What if Mann had been an investment banker on Wall St. instead? Or an economic advisor to the White House?
What effect his creation had, however, has been shown to be equally devastating to our economy as anything Madoff could have devised, and equally corrupt. The result of that graph of his has cost society unnecessary billions of dollars, dollars that could have actually been productive in providing food, shelter, and energy for the world’s poor. Instead, money was shuffled into the pockets of the elite and powerful.
All under the guise of saving us.
In my eyes, that puts Mann and everyone involved with the creation and perpetuation of the Hockey Stick fraud in the same category as Madoff. But not only did they cost us money, they ruined science in the process. They should be tarred and feathered.
Professor Jonathon Jones is quoted as writing:
“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.”
Thank God for you, Professor Jones. The “hide the decline” trick is deceit but it goes beyond deceit. The so-called climate scientists collected most of the data which showed that tree-ring data revealed cooling while thermometer data showed warming. This should have been presented as a revelation. It is not just a matter of scientists being dishonest but a matter of scientists failing to be robust and hard working. Their research had revealed that forty years of data called into question the tree ring data they presented in the hockey stick. The big news was not the hockey stick but their DIVERGENT tree ring data. The fact that they did not trumpet that data shows that they were not interested in science but in maintaining an alarmist narrative. They showed that they have no energy for the science and no interest in the science if it conflicts with an alarmist narrative. There has not been a clearer case of scientists abandoning their commitment to science and betraying science in all the history of science.
Well, now the number of comments on her blog will look like a hockey stick…
Barry Woods says:
February 25, 2011 at 7:41 am
…
AGAIN, the absolute vast majority of scientist have nothing to do with this issue…
I agree – from what I’ve seen it is the “half-vast” scientists supporting AGW by CO2!
(/grin)
Has anyone updated the proxies since ?
Mycroft says:
February 25, 2011 at 8:06 am
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?
Well, as long as the AGW “wagon” can be hitched to an environmentalism “horse” of some color, I suspect we’ll be seeing it for quite a while. Those horses can pull a wheelless wagon very long distances from what I’ve seen.
I’m waiting to see how long it will be before the team admit that ‘hiding the decline’ was the wrong thing to do? Or to put it another way, which one of them will crack first.
Since I have been following “hide the decline” in 2009 I didn’t realize the scale of the misrepresentation until I saw this post. It makes me angry all over again, but my anger is tempered by the actions of the politicians in Copenhagen and Cancun. They have ben unwilling to commit precious political (and financial) capital when the basis for making such a commitment is grounded only in computer models and not backed up by real data.
I eagerly anticipate Lord Monckton’s next evisceration of the Team for its scientific dishonesty.
Barry Woods says; 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.
Proxies is plural, it is a single proxy that diverges from the temperature record. Prior to this very recent divergence the proxy record in question showed good agreement with the other proxies over a six hundred year period. From that it is reasonable to infer that the proxy is a fair historical record.
“Hells Angles”
…not to mention their rival gang, the Pythagorean Posse…
I think you will find that most of us physicists would stand four-square behind Professor Jonathon Jones in “condemning this blatant breach of the fundamental principles of honesty and self-criticism that lie at the heart of all true science”.
“Hide the decline” is unacceptable to all true scientists. It may be best practice in “climate science”, but then there isn’t much science in “climate science”.
Professor Jones – well done, sir, for defending proper science and for your integrity in identifying yourself. If only more would do the same!
Perhaps you could have a word with your Vice Chancellor about speaking to your university colleague who wrote that incredible Nature paper (severe flooding in 2000) and who has dragged your univerrsity into disrepute. (It may be best not to disturb your Chancellor (Patten), as he will have his hands full trying to sort out the mess at the BBC).
It would be terrible to see Oxford vanish into the academic dustbin of history, like East Anglia.
Plaudits to Jonathan Jones. It’s strange to find a scientist here in the UK who can stand up and be counted, during this round of cuts. I fear for his job now.
It’s got that bad here, when scientists can’t be scientists because the government may stand in the way of them if they do.
But still, we do have the best weather in the world.
Consensus = Peer Pressure = Bad Science
Anyone not yet having read the thread in question should do so. It’s simply amazing to read Gavin and his sycophants obfuscating for all they’re worth in absence of merely deleting the unfavourable questions and responses as is the first tenet of RC.
Kevin MacDonald says:
February 25, 2011 at 9:01 am
Prior to this very recent divergence the proxy record in question showed good agreement with the other proxies over a six hundred year period. From that it is reasonable to infer that the proxy is a fair historical record.
=====================================
Kevin, they are all calibrated against instrumental temperature records.
Obviously tree rings were calibrated against temp data before 1950, because in just that very short period of time, they completely fell apart.
If tree rings can fall apart that fast, they are totally worthless…………….
Were tree rings picked to match a certain period of temp data….
…or was the temp data picked to match a certain set of picked tree rings
Dear Professor Jonathon Jones. Thank you so much for saying this so eloquently: “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. ”
Exactly. This is what has infuriated me as a scientist who is not an expert in climatology. The ‘trick’ of ‘hiding the decline’ is NOT good science, in any discipline.
Mann and his gang are certainly guilty as charged.But I think they are just useful idiots who were promised purple robes and fame,we have to look further up the ladder for real truth of where this really began.A good place to see this is at THE GREEN AGENDA site.
It would make great sense for those who still support this dubious scientific process to put it to one side now. After all a train crash on the process does not mean a train crash on the content of AGW – but by fighting the wrong battle (on process) they are allowing a train crash on their content. Messrs McIntyre, McKitrick and Montford are all clear that their work in now way disproves AGW, yet the prodigious argument on Dr Curry’s blog will discredit the scientific work of climate scientists such as Dr Schmidt unless they back down on this process issue. That would not be good as their knowledge and views remain important.
Trying to be conciliatory.
There may arise a cascade of truth sayers. The next few years will be interesting politically and scientifically as to how long the money pit will stand up to this grand dececption. Blessed are those willing to stand up and be counted.
I don’t think Jon Jones is in much trouble with his physics colleagues. Coming from a physics background myself, we regularly held the other sciences in contempt for exactly the sort of reasons demonstrated in this mis-use of data. You just wait until the physics modeling community figures out what’s been going on in climate science.
Actually, is there anyone here from a computational physics background that works with climate modelers? If so, what have the discussions sounded like?
jheath:
We cannot trust the knowledge and views of people who dishonestly abuse the scientific process and cover it up for years.
Just another illustration of those who are honest and those who are not.
It is as simple as that.
Any scientist would know that the divergence problem meant that there was a problem with the data. It immediately meant one of the following:
1. That if the tree proxy data was sound then the modern instrument record was wrong (prime candidate being bad adjustments to raw data); or
2. If the modern instrument record is sound then the tree proxy data is unreliable and therefore cannot be relied upon for any period outside the instrument period to which it was calibrated; or
3. A combination of both the above.
The ‘scientists’ involved knew that this was major problem and they discussed between themselves that coming clean about this proble would dillute the message. Why would it dilute the message? Answer, even a lay person would appreciate that the record that they wished to present was unreliable and either there was a problem at one or other end of the graph.
The problem is that this was not clearly and openly set out in the summary for policy makers and the graph doctored as it was promoted to pre-eminence and used as the poster child.
It is all very misleading and no genuine scientist could possibly seek to condone the practice.
It is good to see some scientists coming out and acknowledging that this practice is unacceptable.