jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 150,367
- 34,513
- 2,180
No, they combined them
Well now.....A 45 second lecture destroying the global warming argument.
- Thread starter 1srelluc
- Start date
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
This conflicted with thermometer data for the same period.This isn't a machine that can break down Todd.
They did show an apparent decline in temperature after 1960. This was true for certain populations at high latitudes whose growth had been slowing, likely due to rising temperatures. This conflicted with thermometer data for the same period.
They wished for the proxy trend to align with the instrument trend.
That's what they did Todd.
They weren't dishonest and the people who assumed they were from the very beginning don't seem to care about the facts.
Clearly delineated with a legend.
Weird. It's almost like you think it matters.
Fooled by what?
Keep in mind that the change was well known among dendrochronologists long before this plot ever appeared.
Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'
Link to this page
What the science says...
Select a level... 
Intermediate
Advanced
The "decline" refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports. Climate Myth...
Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
'Perhaps the most infamous example of this comes from the "hide the decline" email. This email initially garnered widespread media attention, as well as significant disagreement over its implications. In our view, the email, as well as the contextual history behind it, appears to show several scientists eager to present a particular viewpoint-that anthropogenic emissions are largely responsible for global warming-even when the data showed something different.' (David Lungren)
There are a number of misconceptions concerning Phil Jones' email. These are easily cleared up when one takes the time to read Jones' words in context.
The "decline" is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature
Phil Jones' email is often cited as evidence of an attempt to "hide the decline in global temperatures". This claim is patently false and shows ignorance of the science discussed. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960.
Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature. Hence, tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem". Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.
The "decline" has nothing to do with "Mike's trick".
Phil Jones talks about "Mike's Nature trick" and "hide the decline" as two separate techniques. However, people often abbreviate the email, distilling it down to "Mike's trick to hide the decline". Professor Richard Muller from Berkeley commits this error in a public lecture:
Muller quotes "Mike's nature trick to hide the decline" as if its Phil Jones's actual words. However, the original text indicates otherwise:
It's clear that "Mike's Nature trick" is quite separate to Keith Briffa's "hide the decline". "Mike's Nature trick" refers to a technique (a "trick of the trade") by Michael Mann to plot recent instrumental data along with reconstructed past temperature. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.
There is nothing secret about "Mike's trick". Both the instrumental and reconstructed temperature are clearly labelled. Claiming this is some sort of secret "trick" or confusing it with "hide the decline" displays either ignorance or a willingness to mislead.
Figure 1: Northern Hemisphere mean temperature anomaly in °C (Mann et al 1999).
The "decline" has been openly and publicly discussed since 1995
Skeptics like to portray "the decline" as a phenomena that climate scientists have tried to keep secret. In reality the divergence problem has been publicly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995 (Jacoby 1995). The IPCC discuss the decline in tree-ring growth openly both in the 2001 Third Assessment Report and in even more detail in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report.
The common misconception that scientists tried to hide a decline in global temperatures is false. The decline in tree-ring growth is plainly discussed in the publicly available scientific literature. The divergence in tree-ring growth does not change the fact that we are currently observing many lines of evidence for global warming. The obsessive focus on a misquote taken out of context, doesn't change the scientific case that human-caused climate change is real.
Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'
<p>'Mike's Nature trick' refers to the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.skepticalscience.com
Yes, it stopped working.
They wished for the proxy trend to align with the instrument trend.
In the meantime, they hid the decline.
That's what they did Todd.
Before, during or after they hid the decline?
They weren't dishonest
Mixing proxy data with instrument data because the proxy data chart looked bad......that's dishonest.
Clearly delineated with a legend
Clearly dishonest.
Weird. It's almost like you think it matters.
Lying scientists getting caught in a lie matters.
Fooled by what?
Fooled by the lying chart.
Keep in mind that the change was well known among dendrochronologists long before this plot ever appeared.
So, they were only fooling the public. Good to know.
Phil Jones' email is often cited as evidence of an attempt to "hide the decline in global temperatures".
Nope. It was to hide the decline of the tree ring data. You can't scream it's getting hotter, using temperature readings, and then publish proxy data that shows, incorrectly, that the temperature is declining.
People might start to question the accuracy of older proxy data, eh? Your error bars might get bigger.
I've had enough of this Todd. I'm tired of playing your game. I assume you've read the two different explanations of what was actually done and why. Those explain everything that needs explaining. If you still think that this was dishonest and/or that this serves to refute AGW in any manner at all, that's your problem.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann would never do anything dishonest.
He probably told his young children there was a Santa Claus and his wife that he wasn't looking at the woman at the next table. But he has not been dishonest about AGW, unlike Spencer, Lindzen, Bailunas, Eastman, Pielke Sr, etc.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 150,367
- 34,513
- 2,180
Climategate is climategate for lying. Period
Identify one. That should be easy.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 150,367
- 34,513
- 2,180
one in which Kevin Trenberth said, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t".[2
It was.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 150,367
- 34,513
- 2,180
Crick , I'm sure this is your favorite spot to go to.
Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy
The international controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot of heat.
Still waiting for Michael Mann to show his data as ordered by the courts.
Still waiting for you to identify a single lie revealed by the more than 1,000 emails and 3,000 other documents stolen from the CRU email server.Crick , I'm sure this is your favorite spot to go to.
Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy
The international controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot of heat.www.ucsusa.org
Still waiting for Michael Mann to show his data as ordered by the courts.
I can't help but think that if it was all a hoax, as you'd all like to believe, that with that much stuff you would have found a great deal more clear evidence. Instead, everything you think you've got requires deliberate and demonstrable misinterpretation.
Last edited:
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 150,367
- 34,513
- 2,180
here it is again since you ignored it the first time:
one in which Kevin Trenberth said, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t".[2
Let's save some time. You are claiming that Trenberth is lying here? Where do you see a lie?
Explain it like I just arrived from Mars.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 150,367
- 34,513
- 2,180
He stated they're lying about global warming and exposed in this comment. Sure, liars.
45 second lecture destroying the global warming argument. - AR15.COM
Firearm Discussion and Resources from AR-15, AK-47, Handguns and more! Buy, Sell, and Trade your Firearms and Gear.www.ar15.com
Sadly, not an effective argument because the people that need to hear it would rather believe that the banks and realtors are lying to them instead of the media, climate change weenies, and politicians lying to them.
It's a older vid but I've never heard or read of a rebuttal to it either.
Climate Change, Central Banks and Financial Risk – IMF F&D | DECEMBER 2019
How are central banks and financial regulators starting to factor in climate change? The IMF explores why policymakers and investors are increasingly recognizing the implications that climate change has on the financial sector
www.imf.org
What are Large Global Banks Doing About Climate Change?
The Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington DC.
www.federalreserve.gov
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/MPT5BXNIJZN7XAWEEBRUYIZNKM.jpg)
Factbox: How central banks are responding to climate change
The Bank of Japan unveiled a plan on Friday to boost funding for fighting climate change, a surprise move underscoring the growing importance of the issue for central banks.
www.reuters.com
Climate change will pose a huge disruption. Are the world’s banks ready?
As the climate change conference concluded last week in Glasgow, one thing set it apart from all the other conferences before: The world’s bankers were there in force.
www.brookings.edu
How banks are responding to the financial risks of climate change - Mazars Group
Sustainable finance is expected to be a crucial factor in the post Covid-19 economic recovery period and regulators are encouraging banks to actively embed climate-related risks in their business operations and risk management frameworks. Against this backdrop, Mazars has analysed how 30 of the...
www.mazars.com
10 Things the World Bank Group is doing on Climate Change
Climate change, poverty, and inequality are the defining issues of our age. Tackling climate change will require major social, economic and technological changes, many of which are costly and will require large investments.
www.worldbank.org
He did not say anyone was lying about global warming.
Read it again.
"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t"
Might be a good time to think about context.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 150,367
- 34,513
- 2,180
his statement says that. No warming!!!!
Treberth said "...can't account for the lack of warming...". This was a pre-Tom-Karl statement made in reference to the 'Hiatus'. Remember that? Remember Tom Karl? I guess not.
So, sorry, but he was not lying. Do you have another one?
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 150,367
- 34,513
- 2,180
lack of warming based on a lie that there was warming. That's a very odd statement to make. And to say it's a travesty? hahaahahahaahaahaha meaning how can we keep lying when other people can see there's no warming and we can't fund green projects, right? LOL. The shit you buy into. His own admission is opposite of IPCC.
Trenberth never said anything remotely approaching "...based on a lie that there was warming". That is YOU saying that and you have NO EVIDENCE supporting such a conjecture.
Look up "The Hiatus" and NASA scientist Tom Karl.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 150,367
- 34,513
- 2,180
his statement says global warming is a lie. Sorry chawey All that added CO2 didn't cause more warming. Zippola
Similar threads
