Time to drop a brick of epistemology on a table full of vibes. - Climate change

[Anomalism]

Yeah, ok. Crack open a CRC and show the math how heat can go down.

It's basic thermo and hydrodynamics that's not even controversial or strictly tied to climate science. That's the part you seem to either not understand or intentionally ignore. You're not denying climate science anymore. You're dying basic properties of dynamics.

I literally already showed you the math, multiple times. I guess you'll pretend that never happened.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, visually misleading is not the same as faking data.

The underlying thermometer data was real. The proxy divergence problem was real. The splice itself was real. The criticism is about presentation and labeling, not fabrication of measurements.

You're acting as though they invented warming that wasn't observed. They didn't. Instrumental records from multiple independent groups, using different methodologies, all showed warming regardless of the tree ring issue.

And no, replacing a known faulty proxy segment with direct instrumental measurements is not inherently unscientific if it's disclosed. The core dispute is whether some presentations made that transition sufficiently clear to non-specialist audiences.

You are trying to turn one controversial presentation choice involving one proxy into evidence that the entire field is fraudulent. That leap does not hold. If there had truly been systemic fabrication, independent observations would not converge.

The strongest critiques from serious climate skeptics are usually about climate sensitivity, attribution confidence, feedback magnitude, regional projections, and policy responses, not "warming is fake." Because the evidence that warming occurred is overwhelmingly robust independent of the tree ring controversy.

No, visually misleading is not the same as faking data.

The underlying thermometer data was real. The proxy divergence problem was real. The splice itself was real. The criticism is about presentation and labeling, not fabrication of measurements.

And what did they do with the proxy data? Spell it out.

And no, replacing a known faulty proxy segment with direct instrumental measurements is not inherently unscientific

They replaced all of it or some of it?

The core dispute is whether some presentations made that transition sufficiently clear to non-specialist audiences.

Did they make it clear, or did they "hide" it?

You are trying to turn one controversial presentation choice involving one proxy into evidence that the entire field is fraudulent.

Well, you fake enough data and sabotage enough skeptics, what else am I supposed to think about the field?

 

[Anomalism]

No, visually misleading is not the same as faking data.

The underlying thermometer data was real. The proxy divergence problem was real. The splice itself was real. The criticism is about presentation and labeling, not fabrication of measurements.

And what did they do with the proxy data? Spell it out.

And no, replacing a known faulty proxy segment with direct instrumental measurements is not inherently unscientific

They replaced all of it or some of it?

The core dispute is whether some presentations made that transition sufficiently clear to non-specialist audiences.

Did they make it clear, or did they "hide" it?

You are trying to turn one controversial presentation choice involving one proxy into evidence that the entire field is fraudulent.

Well, you fake enough data and sabotage enough skeptics, what else am I supposed to think about the field?

The tree ring proxy data was used only until it stopped matching thermometer records. After that, scientists didn’t delete or alter it; they stopped relying on it for recent temperatures and used direct thermometer measurements instead.

The criticism is about how clearly that switch was shown in some presentations, not about fabricating data. Multiple investigations found no evidence of fraud or altered measurements, only debate over how clearly the proxy to instrument transition was communicated.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The tree ring proxy data was used only until it stopped matching thermometer records. After that, scientists didn’t delete or alter it; they stopped relying on it for recent temperatures and used direct thermometer measurements instead.

The criticism is about how clearly that switch was shown in some presentations, not about fabricating data. Multiple investigations found no evidence of fraud or altered measurements, only debate over how clearly the proxy to instrument transition was communicated.

After that, scientists didn’t delete or alter it;

Are you sure?

 

[Anomalism]

After that, scientists didn’t delete or alter it;

Are you sure?

Yes. No proxy data was deleted or altered.

What happened is tree ring reconstructions were still shown in full in many papers, but for the post 1960 period they were not used as a temperature proxy because they no longer tracked observed temperatures. Instead, that portion of the curve was often visually replaced or overlapped with thermometer data in some summary graphics.

The raw proxy series remained in the datasets and literature; the issue critics raised was about how the splice was displayed in a few prominent figures, not whether data was removed or manipulated. Multiple independent reviews of the datasets themselves found no evidence of tampering or deletion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes. No proxy data was deleted or altered.

What happened is tree ring reconstructions were still shown in full in many papers, but for the post 1960 period they were not used as a temperature proxy because they no longer tracked observed temperatures. Instead, that portion of the curve was often visually replaced or overlapped with thermometer data in some summary graphics.

The raw proxy series remained in the datasets and literature; the issue critics raised was about how the splice was displayed in a few prominent figures, not whether data was removed or manipulated. Multiple independent reviews of the datasets themselves found no evidence of tampering or deletion.

No proxy data was deleted or altered.

* On November 16, 1999, Phil Jones, the Director of the CRU,[1] [2] sent an email containing the following statement to the three coauthors of the hockey stick graph (and also copied two of the authors of the chapter about proxies in the 2007 IPCC report):[3] [4] [5]


I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.[6]

You appear to be mistaken.

 

[Anomalism]

No proxy data was deleted or altered.

* On November 16, 1999, Phil Jones, the Director of the CRU,[1] [2] sent an email containing the following statement to the three coauthors of the hockey stick graph (and also copied two of the authors of the chapter about proxies in the 2007 IPCC report):[3] [4] [5]


I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.[6]

You appear to be mistaken.

That email is real, but the conclusion people draw from it often goes beyond what it actually shows. The nature trick was a graphing method. For recent decades they overlaid or spliced in instrumental thermometer data because it is the correct measurement, while the proxy series was no longer reliable in that period.

So what it does not show is data fabrication or deletion. The underlying proxy data remained in datasets and publications.

If you're focused on "altering", it depends on what you mean.

If you mean changing the underlying data values, no, that did not happen. The datasets stayed intact.

If you mean changing how data is displayed in a graph, then yes, that is a form of presentation alteration, but it’s standard scientific practice when combining different measurement types. It's not an attempt at deception.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That email is real, but the conclusion people draw from it often goes beyond what it actually shows. The nature trick was a graphing method. For recent decades they overlaid or spliced in instrumental thermometer data because it is the correct measurement, while the proxy series was no longer reliable in that period.

So what it does not show is data fabrication or deletion. The underlying proxy data remained in datasets and publications.

If you're focused on "altering", it depends on what you mean.

If you mean changing the underlying data values, no, that did not happen. The datasets stayed intact.

If you mean changing how data is displayed in a graph, then yes, that is a form of presentation alteration, but it’s standard scientific practice when combining different measurement types. It's not an attempt at deception.

For recent decades they overlaid or spliced in instrumental thermometer data

They altered the proxy data by adding thermometer data to it?

So what it does not show is data fabrication or deletion.

Adding two entirely different data sets together doesn't change anything?

 

[Anomalism]

For recent decades they overlaid or spliced in instrumental thermometer data

They altered the proxy data by adding thermometer data to it?

So what it does not show is data fabrication or deletion.

Adding two entirely different data sets together doesn't change anything?

The proxy series stayed exactly as is in the dataset.

What they did in some figures was plot two different datasets on the same timeline. Tree ring proxy reconstruction for earlier periods and instrumental thermometer measurements for recent decades.

That’s not combining them into one altered dataset; it’s a visual stitching of two independent measurements so the graph doesn’t abruptly stop where the proxy becomes unreliable.

So no, nothing was mathematically or statistically modified in the proxy series itself. The only “alteration” is in how the figure is drawn for readability, which is common practice when one dataset stops being valid and another, better one continues the record.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The proxy series stayed exactly as is in the dataset.

What they did in some figures was plot two different datasets on the same timeline. Tree ring proxy reconstruction for earlier periods and instrumental thermometer measurements for recent decades.

That’s not combining them into one altered dataset; it’s a visual stitching of two independent measurements so the graph doesn’t abruptly stop where the proxy becomes unreliable.

So no, nothing was mathematically or statistically modified in the proxy series itself. The only “alteration” is in how the figure is drawn for readability, which is common practice when one dataset stops being valid and another, better one continues the record.

What they did in some figures was plot two different datasets on the same timeline. Tree ring proxy reconstruction for earlier periods and instrumental thermometer measurements for recent decades.

They added the proxy data and the thermometer data.....together.

it’s a visual stitching of two independent measurements so the graph doesn’t abruptly stop where the proxy becomes unreliable.

It's a lie.

 

[Anomalism]

What they did in some figures was plot two different datasets on the same timeline. Tree ring proxy reconstruction for earlier periods and instrumental thermometer measurements for recent decades.

They added the proxy data and the thermometer data.....together.

it’s a visual stitching of two independent measurements so the graph doesn’t abruptly stop where the proxy becomes unreliable.

It's a lie.

That’s inaccurate.

Nothing was added to proxy data. There is no merged dataset where tree rings and thermometer readings are mathematically combined. What happened is tree ring proxy reconstruction is one dataset used for earlier centuries and thermometer record is a separate dataset used for recent decades.

In some figures, they are plotted on the same graph for continuity, because the proxy becomes unreliable after 1960. That’s a visual transition between two independent measurements, not data being altered or blended into a single modified series.

Calling that a lie only holds if the underlying data was changed. It wasn’t. The disagreement people had was about how clearly that transition was labeled in simplified presentations, not whether the datasets themselves were manipulated or fabricated.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That’s inaccurate.

Nothing was added to proxy data. There is no merged dataset where tree rings and thermometer readings are mathematically combined. What happened is tree ring proxy reconstruction is one dataset used for earlier centuries and thermometer record is a separate dataset used for recent decades.

In some figures, they are plotted on the same graph for continuity, because the proxy becomes unreliable after 1960. That’s a visual transition between two independent measurements, not data being altered or blended into a single modified series.

Calling that a lie only holds if the underlying data was changed. It wasn’t. The disagreement people had was about how clearly that transition was labeled in simplified presentations, not whether the datasets themselves were manipulated or fabricated.

HIDE THE DECLINE

It is the iconic email of Climategate. Phil Jones, one of the world’s top climate scientists, discussed a “trick” he used to “hide the decline.” It has sparked hermeneutical warfare, with some, including President Obama’s Science Adviser, Dr. John Holdren, claiming the “trick” merely means “a...

www.epw.senate.gov

 

[Anomalism]

View attachment 1254095

HIDE THE DECLINE

It is the iconic email of Climategate. Phil Jones, one of the world’s top climate scientists, discussed a “trick” he used to “hide the decline.” It has sparked hermeneutical warfare, with some, including President Obama’s Science Adviser, Dr. John Holdren, claiming the “trick” merely means “a...

www.epw.senate.gov

What exactly are you suggesting that I didn't already explain?

 

[Anomalism]

Bump

 

[Hafar1014]

Climate change is dead renewable energy is dead data centers killed them

 

[EMH]

What exactly are you suggesting that I didn't already explain?

Why was there a need to "hide the decline?"

You seem to suggest that FUDGING DATA to show "warming" that doesn't exist is "science." It isn't. It is FRAUD.

 

[Anomalism]

Why was there a need to "hide the decline?"

You seem to suggest that FUDGING DATA to show "warming" that doesn't exist is "science." It isn't. It is FRAUD.

You clearly didn't read/comprehend what I said.

 

[EMH]

You clearly didn't read/comprehend what I said.

Wrong, you are a lying little sack of science invalidity and you support the FUDGE jobs.

 

[Anomalism]

Wrong, you are a lying little sack of science invalidity and you support the FUDGE jobs.

Okay bud. Don't forget to take your meds today.

 

[EMH]

^^^^^^^


All the CHOSEN always card toss that when exposed as "not so chosen in science."