Wow - "Hide the Decline" Fully Exposed

[Sinatra]

British report rips into the now infamous "hide the decline" at the center of the climategate storm.

Check out that graph comparison - my-oh-my.

And as you look at the graph showing the steep decline in temperatures by the 1960s, don't forget that was when the scientific community started to ramp up the "Global Cooling" due to mankind's pollution rhetoric. Those of us who went to school in the 1970's remember those days well.

Such deception...

Daily Mail: Special Investigation « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

 

[Sinatra]

 

[saveliberty]

Probably one of the best discussions I have run across on this subject of global warming:

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Climate change emails row deepens - and Russians admit they DID send them | Mail Online

Over the next few days, Briffa, Jones, Folland and Mann emailed each other furiously. Mann was fearful that if Briffa’s trees made the IPCC diagram, ‘the sceptics [would] have a field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith [in them] - I don’t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!’
Finally, Briffa changed the way he computed his data and submitted a revised version. This brought his work into line for earlier centuries, and ‘cooled’ them significantly. But alas, it created another, potentially even more serious, problem.
According to his tree rings, the period since 1960 had not seen a steep rise in temperature, as actual temperature readings showed - but a large and steady decline, so calling into question the accuracy of the earlier data derived from tree rings.
This is the context in which, seven
weeks later, Jones presented his ‘trick’ - as simple as it was deceptive.
All he had to do was cut off Briffa’s inconvenient data at the point where the decline started, in 1961, and replace it with actual temperature readings, which showed an increase.
On the hockey stick graph, his line is abruptly terminated - but the end of the line is obscured by the other lines.
‘Any scientist ought to know that you just can’t mix and match proxy and actual data,’ said Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies.
‘They’re apples and oranges. Yet that’s exactly what he did.’

Junk science by global warmers.


Read more: SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Climate change emails row deepens - and Russians admit they DID send them | Mail Online

 

[Meister]

The more time that passes, I think we will see more and more data countering the man made global warming hype that has been suppressed.
It won't make any difference with barry, because he has his government expansion agenda. Hopefully, next year we can end the super majority that the dems have

 

[rightwinger]

There is alot to hide

Google Image Result for http://geology.com/news/images/global-warming-graph.jpg

 

[edthecynic]

Probably one of the best discussions I have run across on this subject of global warming:

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Climate change emails row deepens - and Russians admit they DID send them | Mail Online

Over the next few days, Briffa, Jones, Folland and Mann emailed each other furiously. Mann was fearful that if Briffa’s trees made the IPCC diagram, ‘the sceptics [would] have a field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith [in them] - I don’t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!’
Finally, Briffa changed the way he computed his data and submitted a revised version. This brought his work into line for earlier centuries, and ‘cooled’ them significantly. But alas, it created another, potentially even more serious, problem.
According to his tree rings, the period since 1960 had not seen a steep rise in temperature, as actual temperature readings showed - but a large and steady decline, so calling into question the accuracy of the earlier data derived from tree rings.
This is the context in which, seven
weeks later, Jones presented his ‘trick’ - as simple as it was deceptive.
All he had to do was cut off Briffa’s inconvenient data at the point where the decline started, in 1961, and replace it with actual temperature readings, which showed an increase.
On the hockey stick graph, his line is abruptly terminated - but the end of the line is obscured by the other lines.
‘Any scientist ought to know that you just can’t mix and match proxy and actual data,’ said Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies.
‘They’re apples and oranges. Yet that’s exactly what he did.’

Junk science by global warmers.


Read more: SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Climate change emails row deepens - and Russians admit they DID send them | Mail Online

Gee, your graph is NOT actual temp readings!!!
Only CON$ would consider ACTUAL REAL data "deceptive."

Whenever proxy data does not match direct instrument data, it's the PROXY data that is suspect, not the directly measured data!!!

 

[code1211]

]

Gee, your graph is NOT actual temp readings!!!
Only CON$ would consider ACTUAL REAL data "deceptive."

Whenever proxy data does not match direct instrument data, it's the PROXY data that is suspect, not the directly measured data!!!

The whole point of this piece was that actual data and proxy data cannot be mixed. It's not that one is preffered above the other. The presentation was to indicate that they are the same.

If the tree ring data is not accurate, and apparently it is not, then the starting point of the graph is wrong and the ending point means nothing in relation to that wrong starting point.

Did you read this before you bolded and responded?

 

[saveliberty]

Probably one of the best discussions I have run across on this subject of global warming:

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Climate change emails row deepens - and Russians admit they DID send them | Mail Online

Over the next few days, Briffa, Jones, Folland and Mann emailed each other furiously. Mann was fearful that if Briffa’s trees made the IPCC diagram, ‘the sceptics [would] have a field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith [in them] - I don’t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!’
Finally, Briffa changed the way he computed his data and submitted a revised version. This brought his work into line for earlier centuries, and ‘cooled’ them significantly. But alas, it created another, potentially even more serious, problem.
According to his tree rings, the period since 1960 had not seen a steep rise in temperature, as actual temperature readings showed - but a large and steady decline, so calling into question the accuracy of the earlier data derived from tree rings.
This is the context in which, seven
weeks later, Jones presented his ‘trick’ - as simple as it was deceptive.
All he had to do was cut off Briffa’s inconvenient data at the point where the decline started, in 1961, and replace it with actual temperature readings, which showed an increase.
On the hockey stick graph, his line is abruptly terminated - but the end of the line is obscured by the other lines.
‘Any scientist ought to know that you just can’t mix and match proxy and actual data,’ said Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies.
‘They’re apples and oranges. Yet that’s exactly what he did.’

Junk science by global warmers.


Read more: SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Climate change emails row deepens - and Russians admit they DID send them | Mail Online

Gee, your graph is NOT actual temp readings!!!
Only CON$ would consider ACTUAL REAL data "deceptive."

Whenever proxy data does not match direct instrument data, it's the PROXY data that is suspect, not the directly measured data!!!

So it was okay to use the proxy data for the earlier years to show lower temperatures, and thus boulster the dramatic increase so desired by climatologists? You also miss the point that proxy data actually showed a decrease in temps and that was left off the graph entirely, so as to not raise questions about the process. A clear move to deceive that is even mentioned in the emails.

And let us use the real data shall we? Youwant to use it so bad right? Okay, then let's look at 1999 to present direct instrument data. The data that shows temperatures have been DECREASING.

 

[Sinatra]

Probably one of the best discussions I have run across on this subject of global warming:

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Climate change emails row deepens - and Russians admit they DID send them | Mail Online

Over the next few days, Briffa, Jones, Folland and Mann emailed each other furiously. Mann was fearful that if Briffa’s trees made the IPCC diagram, ‘the sceptics [would] have a field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith [in them] - I don’t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!’
Finally, Briffa changed the way he computed his data and submitted a revised version. This brought his work into line for earlier centuries, and ‘cooled’ them significantly. But alas, it created another, potentially even more serious, problem.
According to his tree rings, the period since 1960 had not seen a steep rise in temperature, as actual temperature readings showed - but a large and steady decline, so calling into question the accuracy of the earlier data derived from tree rings.
This is the context in which, seven
weeks later, Jones presented his ‘trick’ - as simple as it was deceptive.
All he had to do was cut off Briffa’s inconvenient data at the point where the decline started, in 1961, and replace it with actual temperature readings, which showed an increase.
On the hockey stick graph, his line is abruptly terminated - but the end of the line is obscured by the other lines.
‘Any scientist ought to know that you just can’t mix and match proxy and actual data,’ said Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies.
‘They’re apples and oranges. Yet that’s exactly what he did.’

Junk science by global warmers.


Read more: SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Climate change emails row deepens - and Russians admit they DID send them | Mail Online

Gee, your graph is NOT actual temp readings!!!
Only CON$ would consider ACTUAL REAL data "deceptive."

Whenever proxy data does not match direct instrument data, it's the PROXY data that is suspect, not the directly measured data!!!

So it was okay to use the proxy data for the earlier years to show lower temperatures, and thus boulster the dramatic increase so desired by climatologists? You also miss the point that proxy data actually showed a decrease in temps and that was left off the graph entirely, so as to not raise questions about the process. A clear move to deceive that is even mentioned in the emails.

And let us use the real data shall we? Youwant to use it so bad right? Okay, then let's look at 1999 to present direct instrument data. The data that shows temperatures have been DECREASING.

Yes, the flat earth warmers are running in circles trying to catch their own tail now.

More and more of the obfuscation is becoming better known and entering the mainstream of public awareness.

 

[edthecynic]

Probably one of the best discussions I have run across on this subject of global warming:

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Climate change emails row deepens - and Russians admit they DID send them | Mail Online

Over the next few days, Briffa, Jones, Folland and Mann emailed each other furiously. Mann was fearful that if Briffa’s trees made the IPCC diagram, ‘the sceptics [would] have a field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith [in them] - I don’t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!’
Finally, Briffa changed the way he computed his data and submitted a revised version. This brought his work into line for earlier centuries, and ‘cooled’ them significantly. But alas, it created another, potentially even more serious, problem.
According to his tree rings, the period since 1960 had not seen a steep rise in temperature, as actual temperature readings showed - but a large and steady decline, so calling into question the accuracy of the earlier data derived from tree rings.
This is the context in which, seven
weeks later, Jones presented his ‘trick’ - as simple as it was deceptive.
All he had to do was cut off Briffa’s inconvenient data at the point where the decline started, in 1961, and replace it with actual temperature readings, which showed an increase.
On the hockey stick graph, his line is abruptly terminated - but the end of the line is obscured by the other lines.
‘Any scientist ought to know that you just can’t mix and match proxy and actual data,’ said Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies.
‘They’re apples and oranges. Yet that’s exactly what he did.’

Junk science by global warmers.


Read more: SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Climate change emails row deepens - and Russians admit they DID send them | Mail Online

Gee, your graph is NOT actual temp readings!!!
Only CON$ would consider ACTUAL REAL data "deceptive."

Whenever proxy data does not match direct instrument data, it's the PROXY data that is suspect, not the directly measured data!!!

So it was okay to use the proxy data for the earlier years to show lower temperatures, and thus boulster the dramatic increase so desired by climatologists? You also miss the point that proxy data actually showed a decrease in temps and that was left off the graph entirely, so as to not raise questions about the process. A clear move to deceive that is even mentioned in the emails.

And let us use the real data shall we? Youwant to use it so bad right? Okay, then let's look at 1999 to present direct instrument data. The data that shows temperatures have been DECREASING.

BALONEY!!!

The decade of 1999 to 2008 was the WARMEST in the history of direct instrument measurement.

 

[saveliberty]

Gee, your graph is NOT actual temp readings!!!
Only CON$ would consider ACTUAL REAL data "deceptive."

Whenever proxy data does not match direct instrument data, it's the PROXY data that is suspect, not the directly measured data!!!

So it was okay to use the proxy data for the earlier years to show lower temperatures, and thus boulster the dramatic increase so desired by climatologists? You also miss the point that proxy data actually showed a decrease in temps and that was left off the graph entirely, so as to not raise questions about the process. A clear move to deceive that is even mentioned in the emails.

And let us use the real data shall we? Youwant to use it so bad right? Okay, then let's look at 1999 to present direct instrument data. The data that shows temperatures have been DECREASING.

BALONEY!!!

The decade of 1999 to 2008 was the WARMEST in the history of direct instrument measurement.

Earth to Ed, come in Ed. That is not actual instrument readings. You got duped by the manipulated data again.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Earth to Ed, come in Ed. That is not actual instrument readings. You got duped by the manipulated data again.

then post the 'real' raw data supporting your assertions or shut the fuck up already

 

[Sinatra]

My oh my the flat earth warmers are a bit sensitive these days...

 

[saveliberty]

Earth to Ed, come in Ed. That is not actual instrument readings. You got duped by the manipulated data again.

then post the 'real' raw data supporting your assertions or shut the fuck up already

It was your claim the numbers were instrument readings, you prove it. I'd try NASA, they have one of two sets still available. I actually feel for you Ed. It really sucks when the scientists do stuff like that and then don't tell us huh?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

SL... I am not Ed

 

[Sinatra]

Click that link folks...

British report rips into the now infamous "hide the decline" at the center of the climategate storm.

Check out that graph comparison - my-oh-my.

And as you look at the graph showing the steep decline in temperatures by the 1960s, don't forget that was when the scientific community started to ramp up the "Global Cooling" due to mankind's pollution rhetoric. Those of us who went to school in the 1970's remember those days well.

Such deception...

Daily Mail: Special Investigation « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

 

[Sinatra]

 

[saveliberty]

Give them time Sinatra, They'll recalibrate those pesky satellite numbers.

 

[Sinatra]

Give them time Sinatra, They'll recalibrate those pesky satellite numbers.

Interesting how those NASA surface temps are so out of line with the satellite data eh?

What is Hansen cooking over yonder?

 

[edthecynic]

Earth to Ed, come in Ed. That is not actual instrument readings. You got duped by the manipulated data again.

then post the 'real' raw data supporting your assertions or shut the fuck up already

It was your claim the numbers were instrument readings, you prove it. I'd try NASA, they have one of two sets still available. I actually feel for you Ed. It really sucks when the scientists do stuff like that and then don't tell us huh?

Here's the raw data, now you show the data that you say was manipulated.
I won't hold my breath.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat