Where is the confession?

[CrusaderFrank]

No, Crick is not at all 'out there'. It is you fools that deny reality that are 'out there'. Nations all over the world reporting record breaking heat, and talking about the hottest year on record, and all you people do is squawk about 'adjusted data'.

Obama demanded that this be the hottest year ever!!! and by got they'll get it even if they have to adjust every fucking DENIER! Satellite!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

No, Crick is not at all 'out there'. It is you fools that deny reality that are 'out there'. Nations all over the world reporting record breaking heat, and talking about the hottest year on record, and all you people do is squawk about 'adjusted data'.

The question is not one of climate change, but of the degree that is "man-caused".

The movement is not concerned with climate at all, but rather the centralized control of nations.

 

[flacaltenn]

Are you actually going to claim the stolen CRU emails confess data manipulation? You realize, that's one RCH above flat Earth.
My response to hide the decline was the explanations and confirmations provided by numerous climate scientists and the FACT that the procedure was openly discussed in other emails (including more stolen ones) and was widely known in the field of dendrochronology.

God are you STUPID.

No -- he's correct. The whole "hockey stick" trick is revealed in those emails. Of course, most climate scientists didn't need the emails to find the fraud. But the hockey sticks themselves are "data manipulation"..

The handles of the sticks are 2 or 10 thousands years of sketchy, low sampled proxy temperature data from tree rings, and mudbugs and ice cores. HEAVILY filtered to reduce the meaning of that data to just about a mean value.

Then because the same proxies did not produce ANYWHERE NEAR the modern era temperature measurements, they LOPPED OFF their proxy data and spliced the modern temperature record to it. That's the whacker segment of the hockey sticks.

That would be like tracking the historical trading of the British pound with 70 or 80 historical records over 1000 years, filtering the results and placing the last 50 years of electronic stock market quotes on the end of the data.

It IS data manipulation. Worst than the data slight of hand are the phony claims attached to those hockey sticks. All pushed into media and the public by a HANDFUL of lying criminal zealots in science smocks..

Bountiful OTHER examples exist. Including the continuous improbable adjustments to ancient and recent surface temp data.

So no confession is gonna happen..

 

[flacaltenn]

CrickHam ----

There comes a time when you've patiently explained these things. And gotten no useful discussion from the other side. And they need to continue to ignore all those dozens of conversions about the same damn things OVER AND OVER AND OVER again..

So I'm asking the OP to please give me the courtesy of a reply and tell me why my post above is wrong. Rather than badgering and baiting and whining 12 times over things he doesn't understand or refuses to remember.

Tell me WHY my example above is NOT misrepresentation of the data for the SOLE PURPOSE of making highly MISLEADING statements to the public. The "trick" would NEVER fool anyone with even a minimum exposure to data preparation and handling.. And the claims for tacking the head of rhino onto a wart hog border on fraud and a complete lack of integrity..

 

[Crick]

Geee, let me think about this... do criminals admit to their crimes?????

All the fucking time.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by global warming sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[32]John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[33] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[34][35] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[36]

Wikipedia: Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

33) Tierney, John. "E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science." The New York Times. 1 December 2009.
34) Randerson, James (31 March 2010). "Climate researchers 'secrecy' criticised – but MPs say science remains intact". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 26 July 2010.
35) Foley, Henry C.; Scaroni, Alan W.; Yekel, Candice A. (3 February 2010). "RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Department of Meteorology, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University"(PDF). The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved7 February 2010.
36) "Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act | Regulatory Initiatives | Climate Change". United States Environmental Protection Agency. 29 September 2010. pp. 1.1.4. Retrieved 26 October 2010.

Temperature was a "Record high" in the middle of a 2 decade hiatus..... uh huh

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes..."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

 

[Kosh]

Yet the true deniers of science have yet to produce the datasets with source code that proves their religion..

Not one "scientist" has produced the "science" that shows AGW is real according to the laws of math and science.

No proof of AGW exists except in AGW religious lore..

 

[Crick]

Are you actually going to claim the stolen CRU emails confess data manipulation? You realize, that's one RCH above flat Earth.
My response to hide the decline was the explanations and confirmations provided by numerous climate scientists and the FACT that the procedure was openly discussed in other emails (including more stolen ones) and was widely known in the field of dendrochronology.

God are you STUPID.

No -- he's correct.

No, he is not.

The whole "hockey stick" trick is revealed in those emails.

What is revealed in those emails is precisely what the excerpt from Wikipedia indicates: the trick was a method for merging proxy and instrument data where the proportionality factor of the proxy data went negative.

Of course, most climate scientists didn't need the emails to find the fraud.

The emails do not reveal fraud because there was none. The number of climate scientists familiar with dendrochronology who believe those emails reveal fraud is ZERO.

But the hockey sticks themselves are "data manipulation"..

All data gets manipulated. Tree ring spacing doesn't leap onto the screen and form pretty colored lines you dolt.

The handles of the sticks are 2 or 10 thousands years of sketchy, low sampled proxy temperature data from tree rings, and mudbugs and ice cores. HEAVILY filtered to reduce the meaning of that data to just about a mean value.

Those data were never filtered to remove "meaning" and you have never been able to provide one iota of evidence even suggesting that it was. This is just another of the endless string of unsubstantiated assertions with which denier arguments are - for lack of choice - filled.

Then because the same proxies did not produce ANYWHERE NEAR the modern era temperature measurements, they LOPPED OFF their proxy data and spliced the modern temperature record to it. That's the whacker segment of the hockey sticks.

And you believe the proxy data were accurate and instrumented records false?

That would be like tracking the historical trading of the British pound with 70 or 80 historical records over 1000 years, filtering the results and placing the last 50 years of electronic stock market quotes on the end of the data.

And some whack job like you coming along with absolutely no evidence and claiming that the electronic records were all wrong.

It IS data manipulation.

It is most certainly data processing. It is not the falsification you claim (but seem unwilling to actually state)

Worst than the data slight of hand are the phony claims attached to those hockey sticks. All pushed into media and the public by a HANDFUL of lying criminal zealots in science smocks.

Find us a record covering the last thousand years that does NOT sport the blade of that hockey stick. Whizzo.

Bountiful OTHER examples exist. Including the continuous improbable adjustments to ancient and recent surface temp data.

Mud against the wall?

So no confession is gonna happen..

Wow. That would be what you call an unmerited leap. How you got from the ignorant bullshit above to that statement is a complete fucking mystery. But, of course, you missed the entire point. We know you have no confession. What we want to know is WHY and that, dear bubblebrain, with your unsupportable assertions re hockey stick graphs and this complete non-sequitur on adjustment, is something you have completely failed to do.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Are you actually going to claim the stolen CRU emails confess data manipulation? You realize, that's one RCH above flat Earth.
My response to hide the decline was the explanations and confirmations provided by numerous climate scientists and the FACT that the procedure was openly discussed in other emails (including more stolen ones) and was widely known in the field of dendrochronology.

God are you STUPID.

No -- he's correct.

No, he is not.

The whole "hockey stick" trick is revealed in those emails.

What is revealed in those emails is precisely what the excerpt from Wikipedia indicates: the trick was a method for merging proxy and instrument data where the proportionality factor of the proxy data went negative.

Of course, most climate scientists didn't need the emails to find the fraud.

The emails do not reveal fraud because there was none. The number of climate scientists familiar with dendrochronology who believe those emails reveal fraud is ZERO.

But the hockey sticks themselves are "data manipulation"..

All data gets manipulated. Tree ring spacing doesn't leap onto the screen and form pretty colored lines you dolt.

The handles of the sticks are 2 or 10 thousands years of sketchy, low sampled proxy temperature data from tree rings, and mudbugs and ice cores. HEAVILY filtered to reduce the meaning of that data to just about a mean value.

Those data were never filtered to remove "meaning" and you have never been able to provide one iota of evidence even suggesting that it was. This is just another of the endless string of unsubstantiated assertions with which denier arguments are - for lack of choice - filled.

Then because the same proxies did not produce ANYWHERE NEAR the modern era temperature measurements, they LOPPED OFF their proxy data and spliced the modern temperature record to it. That's the whacker segment of the hockey sticks.

And you believe the proxy data were accurate and instrumented records false?

That would be like tracking the historical trading of the British pound with 70 or 80 historical records over 1000 years, filtering the results and placing the last 50 years of electronic stock market quotes on the end of the data.

And some whack job like you coming along with absolutely no evidence and claiming that the electronic records were all wrong.

It IS data manipulation.

It is most certainly data processing. It is not the falsification you claim (but seem unwilling to actually state)

Worst than the data slight of hand are the phony claims attached to those hockey sticks. All pushed into media and the public by a HANDFUL of lying criminal zealots in science smocks.

Find us a record covering the last thousand years that does NOT sport the blade of that hockey stick. Whizzo.

Bountiful OTHER examples exist. Including the continuous improbable adjustments to ancient and recent surface temp data.

Mud against the wall?

So no confession is gonna happen..

Wow. That would be what you call an unmerited leap. How you got from the ignorant bullshit above to that statement is a complete fucking mystery. But, of course, you missed the entire point. We know you have no confession. What we want to know is WHY and that, dear bubblebrain, with your unsupportable assertions re hockey stick graphs and this complete non-sequitur on adjustment, is something you have completely failed to do.

Is that the same model that's coded to turn any data set into a hockey stick?

 

[westwall]

Geee, let me think about this... do criminals admit to their crimes?????

All the fucking time.

They do? Before they've been indicted? Boy all those Madoff victims are sure happy he admitted his crimes so they didn't lose all their money........oh...wait....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Are you actually going to claim the stolen CRU emails confess data manipulation? You realize, that's one RCH above flat Earth.
My response to hide the decline was the explanations and confirmations provided by numerous climate scientists and the FACT that the procedure was openly discussed in other emails (including more stolen ones) and was widely known in the field of dendrochronology.

God are you STUPID.

No -- he's correct.

No, he is not.

The whole "hockey stick" trick is revealed in those emails.

What is revealed in those emails is precisely what the excerpt from Wikipedia indicates: the trick was a method for merging proxy and instrument data where the proportionality factor of the proxy data went negative.

Of course, most climate scientists didn't need the emails to find the fraud.

The emails do not reveal fraud because there was none. The number of climate scientists familiar with dendrochronology who believe those emails reveal fraud is ZERO.

But the hockey sticks themselves are "data manipulation"..

All data gets manipulated. Tree ring spacing doesn't leap onto the screen and form pretty colored lines you dolt.

The handles of the sticks are 2 or 10 thousands years of sketchy, low sampled proxy temperature data from tree rings, and mudbugs and ice cores. HEAVILY filtered to reduce the meaning of that data to just about a mean value.

Those data were never filtered to remove "meaning" and you have never been able to provide one iota of evidence even suggesting that it was. This is just another of the endless string of unsubstantiated assertions with which denier arguments are - for lack of choice - filled.

Then because the same proxies did not produce ANYWHERE NEAR the modern era temperature measurements, they LOPPED OFF their proxy data and spliced the modern temperature record to it. That's the whacker segment of the hockey sticks.

And you believe the proxy data were accurate and instrumented records false?

That would be like tracking the historical trading of the British pound with 70 or 80 historical records over 1000 years, filtering the results and placing the last 50 years of electronic stock market quotes on the end of the data.

And some whack job like you coming along with absolutely no evidence and claiming that the electronic records were all wrong.

It IS data manipulation.

It is most certainly data processing. It is not the falsification you claim (but seem unwilling to actually state)

Worst than the data slight of hand are the phony claims attached to those hockey sticks. All pushed into media and the public by a HANDFUL of lying criminal zealots in science smocks.

Find us a record covering the last thousand years that does NOT sport the blade of that hockey stick. Whizzo.

Bountiful OTHER examples exist. Including the continuous improbable adjustments to ancient and recent surface temp data.

Mud against the wall?

So no confession is gonna happen..

Wow. That would be what you call an unmerited leap. How you got from the ignorant bullshit above to that statement is a complete fucking mystery. But, of course, you missed the entire point. We know you have no confession. What we want to know is WHY and that, dear bubblebrain, with your unsupportable assertions re hockey stick graphs and this complete non-sequitur on adjustment, is something you have completely failed to do.

yeah, I knew Mann's Fake Hockey Stick sounded Familiar

"But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records."

Global Warming Bombshell | MIT Technology Review

 

[jc456]

The deniers on this board have claimed over and over and over again that climate scientists have manipulated data - falsified the numbers - with the aim of creating or exaggerating global warming. If this were true, someone would have spilled the beans long ago. It is simply not realistic to think that hundreds if not thousands of individuals could have carried on a deception of this magnitude and duration without either fumbling their work and giving it away or simply choosing to confess.

Yet, they have NOTHING. The only evidence deniers can provide to support their charges is that the data has been adjusted and SOME (the minority) of those adjustment have made global warming look worse than before. That's it. They have no evidence whatsoever indicating from a scientific perspective that any adjustment made by the major data holders was unjustified and, even more tellling, NOT A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL HAS EVER ADMITTED HAVING FALSIFIED THE DATA AS THEY CLAIM. Not a single fucking soul.

What are the odds?

One simple answer to this OP and one option to shut us up. Give the raw data sets to the list of scientist who are skeptics and let them do their tests and see if the same warming pattern is achieved.

So, crickster, the one piece of evidence is the refusal to turn over raw data sets when asked for. And answer me this, is that really science? And why would they need to hold the raw data if the posted data sets aren't faked? It's frikn obvious bubba.

 

[Crick]

Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by global warming sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[32]John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[33] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[34][35] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[36]

Wikipedia: Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

33) Tierney, John. "E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science." The New York Times. 1 December 2009.
34) Randerson, James (31 March 2010). "Climate researchers 'secrecy' criticised – but MPs say science remains intact". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 26 July 2010.
35) Foley, Henry C.; Scaroni, Alan W.; Yekel, Candice A. (3 February 2010). "RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Department of Meteorology, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University"(PDF). The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved7 February 2010.
36) "Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act | Regulatory Initiatives | Climate Change". United States Environmental Protection Agency. 29 September 2010. pp. 1.1.4. Retrieved 26 October 2010.

Temperature was a "Record high" in the middle of a 2 decade hiatus..... uh huh

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes..."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

First, there was no hiatus.
Second, your Phil Jones quote clearly shows you're ignorant of statistics.
Third, your Phil Jones quote has absolutely NOTHING to do with the "Mike's Nature trick" discussion above.

God, are you stupid Frank.

 

[jc456]

Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by global warming sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[32]John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[33] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[34][35] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[36]

Wikipedia: Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

33) Tierney, John. "E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science." The New York Times. 1 December 2009.
34) Randerson, James (31 March 2010). "Climate researchers 'secrecy' criticised – but MPs say science remains intact". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 26 July 2010.
35) Foley, Henry C.; Scaroni, Alan W.; Yekel, Candice A. (3 February 2010). "RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Department of Meteorology, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University"(PDF). The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved7 February 2010.
36) "Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act | Regulatory Initiatives | Climate Change". United States Environmental Protection Agency. 29 September 2010. pp. 1.1.4. Retrieved 26 October 2010.

Temperature was a "Record high" in the middle of a 2 decade hiatus..... uh huh

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes..."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

First, there was no hiatus.
Second, your Phil Jones quote clearly shows you're ignorant of statistics.
Third, your Phil Jones quote has absolutely NOTHING to do with the "Mike's Nature trick" discussion above.

God, are you stupid Frank.

Sure there's one still ongoing.

 

[Crick]

Are you actually going to claim the stolen CRU emails confess data manipulation? You realize, that's one RCH above flat Earth.
My response to hide the decline was the explanations and confirmations provided by numerous climate scientists and the FACT that the procedure was openly discussed in other emails (including more stolen ones) and was widely known in the field of dendrochronology.

God are you STUPID.

No -- he's correct.

No, he is not.

The whole "hockey stick" trick is revealed in those emails.

What is revealed in those emails is precisely what the excerpt from Wikipedia indicates: the trick was a method for merging proxy and instrument data where the proportionality factor of the proxy data went negative.

Of course, most climate scientists didn't need the emails to find the fraud.

The emails do not reveal fraud because there was none. The number of climate scientists familiar with dendrochronology who believe those emails reveal fraud is ZERO.

But the hockey sticks themselves are "data manipulation"..

All data gets manipulated. Tree ring spacing doesn't leap onto the screen and form pretty colored lines you dolt.

The handles of the sticks are 2 or 10 thousands years of sketchy, low sampled proxy temperature data from tree rings, and mudbugs and ice cores. HEAVILY filtered to reduce the meaning of that data to just about a mean value.

Those data were never filtered to remove "meaning" and you have never been able to provide one iota of evidence even suggesting that it was. This is just another of the endless string of unsubstantiated assertions with which denier arguments are - for lack of choice - filled.

Then because the same proxies did not produce ANYWHERE NEAR the modern era temperature measurements, they LOPPED OFF their proxy data and spliced the modern temperature record to it. That's the whacker segment of the hockey sticks.

And you believe the proxy data were accurate and instrumented records false?

That would be like tracking the historical trading of the British pound with 70 or 80 historical records over 1000 years, filtering the results and placing the last 50 years of electronic stock market quotes on the end of the data.

And some whack job like you coming along with absolutely no evidence and claiming that the electronic records were all wrong.

It IS data manipulation.

It is most certainly data processing. It is not the falsification you claim (but seem unwilling to actually state)

Worst than the data slight of hand are the phony claims attached to those hockey sticks. All pushed into media and the public by a HANDFUL of lying criminal zealots in science smocks.

Find us a record covering the last thousand years that does NOT sport the blade of that hockey stick. Whizzo.

Bountiful OTHER examples exist. Including the continuous improbable adjustments to ancient and recent surface temp data.

Mud against the wall?

So no confession is gonna happen..

Wow. That would be what you call an unmerited leap. How you got from the ignorant bullshit above to that statement is a complete fucking mystery. But, of course, you missed the entire point. We know you have no confession. What we want to know is WHY and that, dear bubblebrain, with your unsupportable assertions re hockey stick graphs and this complete non-sequitur on adjustment, is something you have completely failed to do.

yeah, I knew Mann's Fake Hockey Stick sounded Familiar

"But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records."

Global Warming Bombshell | MIT Technology Review

Later in 2003, a paper by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick disputing the data used in MBH98 paper was publicised by the George C. Marshall Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. In 2004 Hans von Storch published criticism of the statistical techniques as tending to underplay variations in earlier parts of the graph, though this was disputed and he later accepted that the effect was very small.[11] In 2005 McIntyre and McKitrick published criticisms of the principal components analysis methodology as used in MBH98 and MBH99. The analysis therein was subsequently disputed by published papers including Huybers 2005 and Wahl & Ammann 2007 which pointed to errors in the McIntyre and McKitrick methodology. In June 2005 Rep. Joe Barton launched what Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee, called a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" into the data, methods and personal information of Mann, Bradley and Hughes. At Boehlert's request a panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council was set up, which reported in 2006 supporting Mann's findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[12] Barton and U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield requested Edward Wegman to set up a team of statisticians to investigate, and they supported McIntyre and McKitrick's view that there were statistical failings, although they did not quantify whether there was any significant effect. They also produced an extensive network analysis which has been discredited by expert opinion and found to have issues of plagiarism. Arguments against the MBH studies were reintroduced as part of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, but dismissed by eight independent investigations.

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions.

Where is your confession Frank?

 

[flacaltenn]

CrickHam ----

There comes a time when you've patiently explained these things. And gotten no useful discussion from the other side. And they need to continue to ignore all those dozens of conversions about the same damn things OVER AND OVER AND OVER again..

So I'm asking the OP to please give me the courtesy of a reply and tell me why my post above is wrong. Rather than badgering and baiting and whining 12 times over things he doesn't understand or refuses to remember.

Tell me WHY my example above is NOT misrepresentation of the data for the SOLE PURPOSE of making highly MISLEADING statements to the public. The "trick" would NEVER fool anyone with even a minimum exposure to data preparation and handling.. And the claims for tacking the head of rhino onto a wart hog border on fraud and a complete lack of integrity..

Gee I don't see a reply from the OP here. Did I MISS IT?? Tell me the errors in post ##23.. You can't or you won't. You just want to whine over and over and over again about NEVER EVER seeing any errors or misrepresentations or deliberate attempts to pervert science in order to mislead the public.

Have you gained any actual knowledge in the 1000 hours you've spent trolling and badgering folks about what you believe? Use your own words and refute the answer I gave you about the OP in Post #23.

 

[flacaltenn]

Are you actually going to claim the stolen CRU emails confess data manipulation? You realize, that's one RCH above flat Earth.
My response to hide the decline was the explanations and confirmations provided by numerous climate scientists and the FACT that the procedure was openly discussed in other emails (including more stolen ones) and was widely known in the field of dendrochronology.

God are you STUPID.

No -- he's correct.

No, he is not.

The whole "hockey stick" trick is revealed in those emails.

What is revealed in those emails is precisely what the excerpt from Wikipedia indicates: the trick was a method for merging proxy and instrument data where the proportionality factor of the proxy data went negative.

Of course, most climate scientists didn't need the emails to find the fraud.

The emails do not reveal fraud because there was none. The number of climate scientists familiar with dendrochronology who believe those emails reveal fraud is ZERO.

But the hockey sticks themselves are "data manipulation"..

All data gets manipulated. Tree ring spacing doesn't leap onto the screen and form pretty colored lines you dolt.

The handles of the sticks are 2 or 10 thousands years of sketchy, low sampled proxy temperature data from tree rings, and mudbugs and ice cores. HEAVILY filtered to reduce the meaning of that data to just about a mean value.

Those data were never filtered to remove "meaning" and you have never been able to provide one iota of evidence even suggesting that it was. This is just another of the endless string of unsubstantiated assertions with which denier arguments are - for lack of choice - filled.

Then because the same proxies did not produce ANYWHERE NEAR the modern era temperature measurements, they LOPPED OFF their proxy data and spliced the modern temperature record to it. That's the whacker segment of the hockey sticks.

And you believe the proxy data were accurate and instrumented records false?

That would be like tracking the historical trading of the British pound with 70 or 80 historical records over 1000 years, filtering the results and placing the last 50 years of electronic stock market quotes on the end of the data.

And some whack job like you coming along with absolutely no evidence and claiming that the electronic records were all wrong.

It IS data manipulation.

It is most certainly data processing. It is not the falsification you claim (but seem unwilling to actually state)

Worst than the data slight of hand are the phony claims attached to those hockey sticks. All pushed into media and the public by a HANDFUL of lying criminal zealots in science smocks.

Find us a record covering the last thousand years that does NOT sport the blade of that hockey stick. Whizzo.

Bountiful OTHER examples exist. Including the continuous improbable adjustments to ancient and recent surface temp data.

Mud against the wall?

So no confession is gonna happen..

Wow. That would be what you call an unmerited leap. How you got from the ignorant bullshit above to that statement is a complete fucking mystery. But, of course, you missed the entire point. We know you have no confession. What we want to know is WHY and that, dear bubblebrain, with your unsupportable assertions re hockey stick graphs and this complete non-sequitur on adjustment, is something you have completely failed to do.

yeah, I knew Mann's Fake Hockey Stick sounded Familiar

"But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records."

Global Warming Bombshell | MIT Technology Review

Later in 2003, a paper by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick disputing the data used in MBH98 paper was publicised by the George C. Marshall Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. In 2004 Hans von Storch published criticism of the statistical techniques as tending to underplay variations in earlier parts of the graph, though this was disputed and he later accepted that the effect was very small.[11] In 2005 McIntyre and McKitrick published criticisms of the principal components analysis methodology as used in MBH98 and MBH99. The analysis therein was subsequently disputed by published papers including Huybers 2005 and Wahl & Ammann 2007 which pointed to errors in the McIntyre and McKitrick methodology. In June 2005 Rep. Joe Barton launched what Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee, called a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" into the data, methods and personal information of Mann, Bradley and Hughes. At Boehlert's request a panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council was set up, which reported in 2006 supporting Mann's findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[12] Barton and U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield requested Edward Wegman to set up a team of statisticians to investigate, and they supported McIntyre and McKitrick's view that there were statistical failings, although they did not quantify whether there was any significant effect. They also produced an extensive network analysis which has been discredited by expert opinion and found to have issues of plagiarism. Arguments against the MBH studies were reintroduced as part of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, but dismissed by eight independent investigations.

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions.

Where is your confession Frank?

All of those investigations focused on the processing of the proxy data portion of the study. NONE of them addressed the devious and questionable decision to tack on the modern instrumentation record to the proxy data. Without doing that --- the "hockey stick" would have been ----- just a stick.

That was done to give the IMPRESSION that the MBH stick was a direct comparison of ancient and recent temperatures. Which it CLEARLY is not. Because the ancient data is virtually just a running mean value of surface temperatures. Mann et others -- CLEARLY took the occasion to make OUTRAGEOUS and devious claims about what this work meant. Not all included in the paper or the reviews or any formal scientific form.

When you are dealing with such a crappy array of mixed proxy data with HORRIBLE temporal and spatial resolution -- statisticians are gonna argue forever about the details of trying to eek ANY KIND of coherent signal from that. That's not the issue...

 

[flacaltenn]

Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by global warming sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[32]John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[33] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[34][35] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[36]

Wikipedia: Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

33) Tierney, John. "E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science." The New York Times. 1 December 2009.
34) Randerson, James (31 March 2010). "Climate researchers 'secrecy' criticised – but MPs say science remains intact". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 26 July 2010.
35) Foley, Henry C.; Scaroni, Alan W.; Yekel, Candice A. (3 February 2010). "RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Department of Meteorology, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University"(PDF). The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved7 February 2010.
36) "Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act | Regulatory Initiatives | Climate Change". United States Environmental Protection Agency. 29 September 2010. pp. 1.1.4. Retrieved 26 October 2010.

Temperature was a "Record high" in the middle of a 2 decade hiatus..... uh huh

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes..."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

First, there was no hiatus.
Second, your Phil Jones quote clearly shows you're ignorant of statistics.
Third, your Phil Jones quote has absolutely NOTHING to do with the "Mike's Nature trick" discussion above.

God, are you stupid Frank.

There was no hiatus? Means the IPCC must have been wrong then. It's right there in the Table of Contents for AR5. Fooled them didn't it?? You gotta be a real holy roller to believe that 1 MINI-paper (not even a full size study report) can just declare a new truth. That was done for the zealots like you -- who have no freakin' idea what's really going on in a continuing science debate..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by global warming sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[32]John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[33] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[34][35] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[36]

Wikipedia: Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

33) Tierney, John. "E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science." The New York Times. 1 December 2009.
34) Randerson, James (31 March 2010). "Climate researchers 'secrecy' criticised – but MPs say science remains intact". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 26 July 2010.
35) Foley, Henry C.; Scaroni, Alan W.; Yekel, Candice A. (3 February 2010). "RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Department of Meteorology, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University"(PDF). The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved7 February 2010.
36) "Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act | Regulatory Initiatives | Climate Change". United States Environmental Protection Agency. 29 September 2010. pp. 1.1.4. Retrieved 26 October 2010.

Temperature was a "Record high" in the middle of a 2 decade hiatus..... uh huh

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes..."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

First, there was no hiatus.
Second, your Phil Jones quote clearly shows you're ignorant of statistics.
Third, your Phil Jones quote has absolutely NOTHING to do with the "Mike's Nature trick" discussion above.

God, are you stupid Frank.

1. Almost 2 decades, no warming. You've posted the chart showing the hiatus. Do you not read your own posts?

2. Phil Jones admitted there's no warming

Hey post the chart again

 

[Crick]

Abstract of Karl et al, 2015 [http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469.abstract?keytype=ref&siteid=sci&ijkey=.l.kxQb89CJjY]

Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here, we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.

Full text of Karl et al 2015
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469.full