Soren wrote on Jul 15^th, 2010 at 12:16pm:



Tell me specifically what you're talking about. I was talking about their reluctance to share Hadley climate data with denialist character assassins.  I can understand that on a human basis as well as on a legislative basis.

You still haven't told me what aspect of this case you're talking about.

muso wrote on Jul 15^th, 2010 at 4:31pm:



The 'hide the decline' aspect. 
What aspect are you talking about when you cite justifications for withholding data?

Right -

Let's suppose that you don't know the temperatures in the distant past in a certain region.  

You might look for indications of temperature. Let's say the thickness of annual tree rings - those get denser as temperature increases, and we can use other proxies to do a comparison to see if it holds up.

Now obviously not all trees are in the same location, so we'd have to index the density of the rings to the growth stage of the tree and a whole lot of other factors.

Taking all these factors together, you can develop a reasonably good temperature proxy using indexed tree ring density. It's not very useful as a global temperature proxy, and it's secondary data if anything. There are far better temperature proxies than tree rings.

So our researcher starts to apply that data to modern (past 100 years) data and he finds that it works for a certain amount of time, but the proxy breaks down as you get into the past 50 years or so.  Why? Well obviously the assumptions don't hold for some reason - possibly the fact that it's getting drier as well as hotter on average, and trees don't grow so quickly when it's dry, regardless of the higher temperature (or it could be something else such as air pollution, acid rain or too many bears urinating on the trees) .

So the researcher say in Arizona, states in his paper that the tree ring proxy actually shows a decline (or a divergence) after say 1960 and that the data is highly suss for that period and should not be used, because we have very accurate measurements of actual temperatures for that period anyway.  

Another researcher  in England  decides to check how tree ring temperature proxies compare over time with atmospheric temperature measurements for the purposes of an article for a  website called Real Climate.

Following the original researcher's instructions, he leaves tree ring proxy data out for the period  after 1960 for the sake of the argument, because it shows a decline that isn't there. It's not a real decline.

So he cleans up the graph, omitting the data after that year. To hide the decline that obviously isn't real.

Now because it's not an actual paper (It's just a casual request for a public domain website) he doesn't write voluminous notes to explain exactly what he's doing.

Capiche?    

A Guide to Climate Change Lunacy - Mark Lawson
$29.95
A GUIDE TO CLIMATE CHANGE LUNACY
bad forecasting, terrible solutions

Mark Lawson
Paperback, 286 pages
Release Date July 26th
ISBN: 9781921421426


Activists and even some scientists will tell you that the science behind the expected major warming of the globe is rock solid. In fact, the projections of temperature increases in coming decades are based on entirely unproven forecasting systems which depend on guesses about crucial aspects of the atmosphere behaviour and the all-important oceans. In addition, these forecasts use carbon dioxide emission scenarios that have been generated by economic calculations rather than from science, and parts of which are already hopelessly wrong less than a decade after they were made.

As Mark Lawson explains in this book, in layman’s language, this lunacy has been compounded by further forecasts based on these already deeply flawed projections and combined with active imaginations, to produce wild statements about what will happen to plant, animal, bird and marine life, as well as coral reefs, hurricanes, sea levels, agriculture and polar ice caps. The books shows that these projections are little more than fantasy.

On top of all this lunacy activists, aided and abetted by some scientists, have proposed a range of solutions to the supposed problem that are either never going to work, such as an international agreement to cut emissions, or are overly complicated and expensive for no proven return, such as carbon trading systems and wind energy. None of these proposals have been shown to be of any use in reducing carbon emissions, outside of theoretical studies. Where wind energy has been used in substantial amounts overseas the sole, known result has been very expensive electricity for no observed saving in emissions.



Mark Lawson is a senior journalist on the Australian Financial Review. He has a science degree from Melbourne University, and has been a science writer, editorial writer and Perth bureau chief for the Review. He now edits a series of reports for the AFR, including environmental reports.



Secure your copy here:
http://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=7&pro...

muso wrote on Jul 16^th, 2010 at 8:48am:



Makes sense if you want to prove a particular thing. A load of crap if you are open-minded.


Love this bit: "... he finds that it works for a certain amount of time, but the proxy breaks down as you get into the past 50 years or so.  Why? Well obviously the assumptions don't hold for some reason ..."  And then construct inferences and speculations that will not interfere with the original assumtion that he set out to prove but rather will support and reinforce it. If I was in agit-prop, that's how I would do it, too.

muso wrote on Jul 16^th, 2010 at 11:30am:


That might work as an excuse if Mann et al did not rely on Briffa et al to provide the hockey stick that the IPCC relied upon so much to scare the bejuses out of everyone, but he did and they did and so here we are, if you discount the work of Mann et al and associated papers what are you left with? taking into account that Mann et al rely on Briffa for the original hockey stick and that very recent papers show it (Mann et al ) for what it is WRONG.

Paella wrote on Apr 8^th, 2010 at 9:57pm:


And just to point out about sloppy reporting....
The Tobacco Industry data was 100% correct....There is NO proof that smoking causes lung cancer....

There IS proof, however, that smoking contributes to an increased RISK of lung cancer.....which is an entirely different thing....

And it's much the same with this idea:
"That questionable methods have been used to collect data in support of a particular conclusion, says nothing as to the validity of the conclusion."

The questionable methods DO in fact affect the conclusion when the questionable data is used to support the conclusion that there is unprecedented warming and that it's solely human caused