• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Documenting the Global Medieval Warm Period[W:196]

Jack Hays said:
Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

Happy Sunday. The solo exhibition of Mrs. Hays's paintings opens today.
Click to expand...

:applaud: How pleased your family must be to see her artistic talent recognized in such an impressive way! :thumbs:
 
Deuce said:
Well, when you have something specific I'll have a response.
Click to expand...

[h=3]Hide the Decline II[/h]Apr 20, 2010 – 6:35 PM
On March 8, Michael Mann’s lawyers, Cozen O’Connor, sent a legal letter to Minnesotans for Global Warming (of the famous Hide the Decline video) threatening them, ironically, with misappropriating Mann’s likeness and, almost as an afterthought, defaming him “by leaving viewers with the incorrect impression that he falsified data to generate desired results in connection […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in climategate | Tagged hide the decline | Comments (79)

[h=3]Inventory of Hide-the-Decline[/h]Sep 10, 2014 – 4:12 PM
In a recent post, I reported on the diagram in Jones 1998 (Science), which pushed hide-the-decline a year earlier than my previous inventory. (The Briffa bodge, an earlier technique, dates back to 1992 and Jones 1998 is a sort-of transition from the Briffa bodge to truncation as hide-the-decline technology.) I’ve had a few requests for […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged decline, divergence | Comments (92)

 
Deuce said:
Well, when you have something specific I'll have a response.
Click to expand...

[h=3]New Light on “Hide the Decline”[/h]Mar 15, 2011 – 11:16 AM
In today’s post, I’m going to discuss a previously undiscussed example of “Hide the Decline”, one that precedes Briffa and Osborn (Science 1999), the earliest example discussed so far. CRU did not report it in their submission to Muir Russell. Jones et al 1999 (Rev Geophys) was published in May 1999, the same month as […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged decline, hide the decline, jones 1999, muir russell | Comments (70)

[h=3]Judy Curry on Hide the Decline[/h]Feb 23, 2011 – 4:34 PM
Huge comment traffic at Judy Curry’s discussion of Hide the Decline here and here

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (28)
 
Deuce said:
Well, when you have something specific I'll have a response.
Click to expand...

[h=3]Still Hiding the Decline[/h]Nov 29, 2009 – 1:08 PM
Even in their Nov 24, 2009 statement, the University of East Anglia failed to come clean about the amount of decline that was hidden. The graphic in their statement continued to “hide the decline” in the Briffa reconstruction by deleting adverse results in the last part of the 20th century. This is what Gavin Schmidt […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in climategate | Tagged decline, splice, trick, wmo 1999 | Comments (94)

[h=3]IPCC: “Inappropriate” to show the decline[/h]Nov 26, 2009 – 7:45 PM
One reviewer of the IPCC 2007 Assessment Report specifically asked IPCC not to hide the decline. The reviewer stated very clearly: Show the Briffa et al reconstruction through to its end; don’t stop in 1960. Then comment and deal with the “divergence problem” if you need to. Don’t cover up the divergence by truncating this […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in climategate, IPCC, Uncategorized | Tagged decline, hide the decline, trick | Comments (25)

[h=3]New!! Data from the Decline[/h]Nov 26, 2009 – 5:12 PM
For the very first time, the Climategate Letters “archived” the deleted portion of the Briffa MXD reconstruction of “Hide the Decline” fame – see here. Gavin Schmidt claimed that the decline had been “hidden in plain sight” (see here. ). This isn’t true. The post-1960 data was deleted from the archived version of this reconstruction […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in Briffa, climategate, Uncategorized | Tagged decline, hide the decline, trick | Comments (106)
 
Jack Hays said:
Mrs. Hays sold five paintings today.

:rock:2dancing:
Click to expand...

:thumbs: :thumbs: !!!!!

Is there a favorite theme or subject in her paintings; ie, landscapes, animals, portraits, flowers, children, etc?
 
polgara said:
:thumbs: :thumbs:

Is there a favorite theme or subject in her paintings; ie, landscapes, animals, portraits, flowers, children, etc?
Click to expand...

The exhibit is entitled "Random Acts of Art." This reflects the fact that she is eclectic as to media (oil, acrylic and water colors) and style (abstract and representational). Her work that appeals most to me recalls Edward Hopper.
 
Jack, "the decline" referenced an apparent decrease in global temperature when using a subset of tree ring data from high northern latitudes. It's not hidden, it's published. It's commonly called "the divergence problem."

They weren't "adverse results." It was bad data. We know that because the global temperatures didn't decrease in that time period.
 
Deuce said:
Jack, "the decline" referenced an apparent decrease in global temperature when using a subset of tree ring data from high northern latitudes. It's not hidden, it's published. It's commonly called "the divergence problem."

They weren't "adverse results." It was bad data. We know that because the global temperatures didn't decrease in that time period.
Click to expand...

You asked. I answered. The hockey stick crowd lied to hide.
 
Jack Hays said:
You asked. I answered. The hockey stick crowd lied to hide.
Click to expand...

No, they didn't. Because nothing was hidden. There are published research papers specifically looking into this issue. How can you sit there and claim published research is hidden?
 
Deuce said:
No, they didn't. Because nothing was hidden. There are published research papers specifically looking into this issue. How can you sit there and claim published research is hidden?
Click to expand...

Hidden nonetheless.


Inventory of Hide-the-Decline

Sep 10, 2014 – 4:12 PM
In a recent post, I reported on the diagram in Jones 1998 (Science), which pushed hide-the-decline a year earlier than my previous inventory. (The Briffa bodge, an earlier technique, dates back to 1992 and Jones 1998 is a sort-of transition from the Briffa bodge to truncation as hide-the-decline technology.) I’ve had a few requests for […]

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged decline, divergence | Comments (92)
 
Ok. Magic. They magically hid something in a journal literally anyone can access. Got it.

Oh, it wasn't in a pretty picture, that means its hidden? It's bad data. They're not going to include it with the good data.
 
Jack Hays said:
The exhibit is entitled "Random Acts of Art." This reflects the fact that she is eclectic as to media (oil, acrylic and water colors) and style (abstract and representational). Her work that appeals most to me recalls Edward Hopper.
Click to expand...

She sounds very accomplished! :thumbs: I always enjoyed Norman Rockwell's style too, especially his "Triple Self Portrait" which shows him painting... himself! :mrgreen: I guess my favorite painter, though, is Van Gogh, simply because he painted Irises, which I received as a gift years ago, since it is my favorite flower....
 
Deuce said:
No, they didn't. Because nothing was hidden. There are published research papers specifically looking into this issue. How can you sit there and claim published research is hidden?
Click to expand...

It's a technique called 'Black Knighting'.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Deuce said:
Ok. Magic. They magically hid something in a journal literally anyone can access. Got it.

Oh, it wasn't in a pretty picture, that means its hidden? It's bad data. They're not going to include it with the good data.
Click to expand...

Of for Pete's sake. This zombie myth has been debunked a gazillion times but it still keeps get raised from the dead by science deniers who have nothing but conspiracies.
 
Deuce said:
Ok. Magic. They magically hid something in a journal literally anyone can access. Got it.

Oh, it wasn't in a pretty picture, that means its hidden? It's bad data. They're not going to include it with the good data.
Click to expand...

Quaestio said:
Of for Pete's sake. This zombie myth has been debunked a gazillion times but it still keeps get raised from the dead by science deniers who have nothing but conspiracies.
Click to expand...

I suggest you both review the link in #61.
 
Deuce said:
I did. They claim the data is hidden, and yet I'm aware of it. How?
Click to expand...

I think that's well explained.

I’ve done a quick inventory below (and other examples will come to mind) and re-examined the handling of the Briffa reconstruction in the spaghetti graph in each article. In 22 of the 28 diagrams listed below, the Briffa reconstruction has been truncated to hide-the-decline (following the practice of IPCC AR3 where Mann had been Lead Author.) As an alternative to showing the decline, Mann, in 1999, proposed that IPCC simply not show the Briffa reconstruction. This practice has been followed in 6 of the 28 listed below, including the influential 2006 NAS report and 2009 EPA Endangerment Finding (which used the diagram from the NAS report.) But remarkably, not a single one contains a graphic comparing the actual Briffa reconstruction to other reconstructions. . . .

Within the literature, there are several articles disclosing the decline, notably by Briffa himself e.g. Briffa et al 1998 (Nature 291), Briffa et al 1998 (Nature 393), Briffa 2000 (QSR) – indeed, this was how I originally noticed that the decline had been hidden in the IPCC AR3 diagram in 2005 long before Climategate – but none of these articles shows a comparison of the Briffa reconstruction to the other (Mann, Jones) reconstructions. The spaghetti graphcs of Briffa et al 2001 and Briffa et al 2004 (Glob Plan Chg) both hide-the-decline, but there are other figures that show the decline (but these other figures do not compare to other reconstructions.) Mann et al 2008 took matters to a different plane entirely: in addition to hide-the-decline in its spaghetti graph, Mann et al 2008 replaced the modern portion of Briffa MXD data with “infilled data”.
Even technical articles on the “divergence” problem do not contain diagrams showing the Briffa et a 2001 reconstruction including decline as against other reconstructions (e.g. D’Arrigo et al 2007 (Glob Plan Chg)).
In summary, far from hide-the-decline being the “single lapse of judgement” claimed by Emanuel and the Oxburgh panel, the opposite is the case: nowhere in peer reviewed academic literature can one find a diagram showing the decline in the Briffa MXD reconstruction compared to other reconstructions.
​
​
​

 
Jack Hays said:
I think that's well explained.

I’ve done a quick inventory below (and other examples will come to mind) and re-examined the handling of the Briffa reconstruction in the spaghetti graph in each article. In 22 of the 28 diagrams listed below, the Briffa reconstruction has been truncated to hide-the-decline (following the practice of IPCC AR3 where Mann had been Lead Author.) As an alternative to showing the decline, Mann, in 1999, proposed that IPCC simply not show the Briffa reconstruction. This practice has been followed in 6 of the 28 listed below, including the influential 2006 NAS report and 2009 EPA Endangerment Finding (which used the diagram from the NAS report.) But remarkably, not a single one contains a graphic comparing the actual Briffa reconstruction to other reconstructions. . . .

Within the literature, there are several articles disclosing the decline, notably by Briffa himself e.g. Briffa et al 1998 (Nature 291), Briffa et al 1998 (Nature 393), Briffa 2000 (QSR) – indeed, this was how I originally noticed that the decline had been hidden in the IPCC AR3 diagram in 2005 long before Climategate – but none of these articles shows a comparison of the Briffa reconstruction to the other (Mann, Jones) reconstructions. The spaghetti graphcs of Briffa et al 2001 and Briffa et al 2004 (Glob Plan Chg) both hide-the-decline, but there are other figures that show the decline (but these other figures do not compare to other reconstructions.) Mann et al 2008 took matters to a different plane entirely: in addition to hide-the-decline in its spaghetti graph, Mann et al 2008 replaced the modern portion of Briffa MXD data with “infilled data”.
Even technical articles on the “divergence” problem do not contain diagrams showing the Briffa et a 2001 reconstruction including decline as against other reconstructions (e.g. D’Arrigo et al 2007 (Glob Plan Chg)).
In summary, far from hide-the-decline being the “single lapse of judgement” claimed by Emanuel and the Oxburgh panel, the opposite is the case: nowhere in peer reviewed academic literature can one find a diagram showing the decline in the Briffa MXD reconstruction compared to other reconstructions.
​
​
​
Click to expand...

Correction: in that specific list the diagram of the bad data is not found.

There's no reason to include data known to be bad in later research papers that don't use it. Your favored sources are cherry picking this list for a reason.

Your fiendishly-hidden data can be found here
http://www.wright.edu/~guy.vandegrift/climateblog/s08/Briffa_et_al.pdf
 
Deuce said:
Correction: in that specific list the diagram of the bad data is not found.

There's no reason to include data known to be bad in later research papers that don't use it. Your favored sources are cherry picking this list for a reason.

Your fiendishly-hidden data can be found here
http://www.wright.edu/~guy.vandegrift/climateblog/s08/Briffa_et_al.pdf
Click to expand...

You're not reading very carefully.

Within the literature, there are several articles disclosing the decline, notably by Briffa himself e.g. Briffa et al 1998 (Nature 291), Briffa et al 1998 (Nature 393), Briffa 2000 (QSR) – indeed, this was how I originally noticed that the decline had been hidden in the IPCC AR3 diagram in 2005 long before Climategate – but none of these articles shows a comparison of the Briffa reconstruction to the other (Mann, Jones) reconstructions.
 
Jack Hays said:
You're not reading very carefully.

Within the literature, there are several articles disclosing the decline, notably by Briffa himself e.g. Briffa et al 1998 (Nature 291), Briffa et al 1998 (Nature 393), Briffa 2000 (QSR) – indeed, this was how I originally noticed that the decline had been hidden in the IPCC AR3 diagram in 2005 long before Climategate – but none of these articles shows a comparison of the Briffa reconstruction to the other (Mann, Jones) reconstructions.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are using oddly-specific and irrelevant criteria in order to exclude all the actual discussion of the issue. They want a specific graph in a specific format to be found in specific papers with no justification for it.

There's no reason for this series of bad data to be compared to someone else's reconstruction.
 
Deuce said:
Yes, they are using oddly-specific and irrelevant criteria in order to exclude all the actual discussion of the issue. They want a specific graph in a specific format to be found in specific papers with no justification for it.

There's no reason for this series of bad data to be compared to someone else's reconstruction.
Click to expand...

It's a demonstration of the dishonesty of the Climategate defense.

". . . I’ve had a few requests for a fresh inventory of hide-the-decline incidents, updating the discussion of Oxburgh panelist Kerry Emanuel’s false claim to the US Congress that hide-the-decline had been limited to a “single lapse of judgement” in a “non peer-reviewed publication” (the WMO diagram).
However, rather than this being a “single lapse of judgement”, to my knowledge, there is NOT A SINGLE graphic in “peer reviewed literature” that shows the Briffa decline in a spaghetti graph comparison of temperature reconstructions. . . ."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom