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
REPLY: Selective use of data, as demonstrated above, is not a substitute for science. Wishful thinking won’t make the whole Briffa dataset make a hockey stick, only selective use of the dataset after 1960 and the splicing of the instrumental temperature record will, plus “tricks” so that people won’t see behind the spaghetti. Such tactics deserve admonition. In business, such tactics would earn an SEC investigation and likely a jail term. In climate science, it get a free pass by those “saving the planet” looking for that justifiable means to an end. By accepting and arguing for the lie, you become one of those people
– Anthony
Your statement is puzzling. In the case of tree rings, even you agree that data must be used selectively. You yourself have agree that the limiting factor determining tree growth can vary with the situation. That is what makes dendochronology an important scientific specialty.
Humans must examine the data they are using for accuracy an relevance in order to do valid science. Briffa has done so and given the reasons for exclusion of the tree ring data with the divergence.
It has been pointed out to you, that even without tree rings the result of the analysis of temperature proxies by many climate scientists is a hockey stick.
REPLY: Oh rubbish. I have NOT agreed to what you are saying, and I resent you trying to put words in my mouth. OK no more on this subject, we aren’t going to convince each other. It’s a waste of time trying to get the point across to you about selective cherry picking of the Briffa data. It’s wrong, its as plain as day, it skews the results, the reasons for selectivity are bogus, and you are being a disingenuous troll.
You’ve had your say, move on to something else.
– Anthony
Anthony,
It is very nice of you to post a troll like eadler. It is extremely generous of you to reply to him. I highly recommend that you ban him.
REPLY: He’s gotten a few time outs. He’s useful to point to when it comes to showing how some people refuse to look at data and methods rationally. Mostly he just wastes time. He suffers from XKCD syndrome and has lots of time on his hands to impose on others.
Of course if I ban him, he’ll run to Joe Romm like he did last time when he got a time out and tell his tales of woe about his terrible terrible treatment here /sarc . Actually I think he’s being paid to waste our time and report back. Probably on the Think Progress payroll.
So we’ll see. He may yet earn a ban. There’s only a handful of people that have earned a WUWT permanent ban. Angry irrational people like “dhogaza” for example fit that bill.
– Anthony
Telling comment, “Judith is brave and good” for criticizing an area of science she is well qualified to comment on. You have to be brave and good to do that? Has Gavin and his ilk corrupted the scientific method and poisoned the peer review so much that proper criticism can only be done if one is brave enough?
Barry Woods says:
February 26, 2011 at 12:47 am
God Bless Judith Curry! God has given her the Grace to be forthright in defense of science. God shower Grace upon her. /serious.
She still doesn’t have a clue about scientific method, but how can you blame her? She is a climate scientist, after all. I believe that God will give her the Grace to fully understand and use scientific method in the near future. /sarc /serious
By contrast, Gavin is dug into a bunker and dares God to try to get in. /sarc
These little markers make me feel like I live under communism or some other form of government dreamed up by a lifelong third-grade school marm. /reflective /quasi-humorous.
Kevin MacDonald says:
February 25, 2011 at 9:01 am
“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.”
You are joking, right? You fail to address the fact that the ClimateGate Bozos are the people who gathered the evidence for the tree-ring proxy used after 1960. Yet they distrusted their own work, did not report it, and lied in a publication to prevent those facts from coming to light. Have they no self-respect as scientists? They just toss years of their own evidence collecting over the side because it conflicts with the Warmista narrative? Are you insane? We are not. Stop suggesting this utter nonsense!
Pamela Gray says:
February 26, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Yes! Disgusting, isn’t it? Gavin’s helpers are the MSM and the rest of the Left, with specials nods to the Al Gores and John Kerrys.
Max_OK (formerly Wren) says:
February 26, 2011 at 1:48 pm
Re Phil. says:
February 25, 2011 at 9:04 pm
Girma says:
February 25, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Let me show you this. Now we have the data. Now it has been released. This is what it is.
Plot 2. http://bit.ly/i6MqnK
Care to tell us where that data for the black curve came from?
—————
I too am puzzled by the sharp drop at the end of tree-ring temperature proxy(black line) that the second chart labels as from Apr-Sep Briffa Quatenary Science Review 19,87. It doesn’t look like any of the charts presented in the abstract of the Briffa article available at his web site:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/qsr1999/
Perhaps the black line is from a chart or data in the Briffa article not shown in the abstract, or perhaps I am misunderstanding something. It would be ironic if the criticism of Jones for misrepresenting Briffa’s data, itself misrepresented the data. Hopefully, someone will clarify where the black line was obtained.
Not likely, the fact that the graph used in the presentation didn’t come from the source claimed is being ignored. There was a certain amount of disingenuousness in the presentation, for example when addressing the subject of Arctic ice melting his response was to ignore it and say ‘what about the Antarctic?’. I’m not expecting from the Berkeley group, Muller doesn’t seem like the ‘honest broker’ he claims to be.