Now you see why I have such a lack of respect for denialists.
Soren quotes the, "hide the decline" remark, as if he has no knowledge of what that remark pertained to, as if that comment was in fact the modus operandii of the world's climate scientists.
Now as discussed in the technology thread, denialist wrap themselves so tightly in their beliefs that nothing can set them free, not even the truth, and for Soren, and other denialists, it is their absolute belief that the world's climate scientists are fraudulently, and deliberately attempting to hide the decline, as they call it, by falsifying data, and providing untrue findings.
This is their BELIEF, it is not a fact, their is no evidence that scientists are doing this at all, but that matters not to them, for they Believe, 'despite' the absence of facts to support that belief.
So for people not familiar what the "hide the decline" comment meant, here is a good explanation from the Real Climate site.
Quote:. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
Soren already knew this, it has been explained numerous times before when this particular line is used to try and deceive people.
Now we must consider whether he refuses to deal in any facts that do not suit his beliefs, or whether he does not care if he uses deceitful reasons to support his belief.
The statistical probability that muso posted is profoundly significant, but once more we have a denialist claiming that all the scientific data on temperatures is fraudulently compiled to deceive us, because that is what he believes, not what anybody knows.
Why does nobody know that?
Because there is no evidence that would give them sufficient reason to accept that as true.
See the common thread in Denialism is Belief, without facts, which is something we are familiar with, and the types of claims that people working from that position come up with.
I simply say that the issue of AGW is far too important to be allowed to be derailed by Belief based propaganda campaigns, we have so much better information than that we can use.
Forum
Pages: 1 
