In his written and oral evidence at today’s hearing before the House Science Committee, Kerry Emanuel made untrue statements about deletion of data to hide the decline. From Emanuel’s written evidence (oral was similar): Consider as an example the issues surrounding the email messages stolen from some climate scientists. I know something about this as […]
See here http://science.house.gov/hearing/full-committee-hearing-climate-change Webcast Witnesses Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, Professor, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania Dr. Richard Muller, Professor, University of California, Berkley and Faculty Senior Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Dr. John Christy, Director, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville Mr. Peter Glaser, Partner, Troutman Sanders, LLP. Dr. David Montgomery, Economist […]
There has been some recent discussion of the Briffa bodge – an early technique to hide the decline. I had drafted a post on the topic and its handling by the Muir Russell “inquiry” in early July 2010, but did not publish the post at the time. In today’s post, I’ve slightly updated my July […]
Recently I noticed that there was an (otherwise digitally unavailable) version of the Briffa reconstruction in a second (undocumented) sheet attached (the worksheet tab denoted “Science3”) to the Jones et al 1998 archive at NCDC (see here). Using this version, I was able to replicate graphics that had hitherto been impenetrable. Although the spreadsheet itself […]
In a recent post commenting on Rich Muller’s lecture of March 19, 2011 (here) – of which the Climategate portion is more or less the same as his Oct 14, 2010 lecture (online here), John Cook observes: It’s clear that “Mike’s Nature trick” is quite separate to Keith Briffa’s “hide the decline”. Muller has taken […]
The day before yesterday, I reported that Briffa and Osborn (Science 1999) had not just deleted the post=1960 decline (see also CA here), but had deleted the pre-1550 portion as well – the deletions contributing to an unwarranted rhetorical impression of consistency between the reconstructions, an impression that was capitalized upon in the commentary in […]
I recently re-visited an article in Science (Briffa and Osborn 1999), that, together with Jones et al 1999 (Rev Geophys), were the first bites of the poison apple of hide-the-decline. I observed that key conclusions in Briffa and Osborn 1999 depended on the rhetorical effect of deleting the decline from their spaghetti graph.
Science published one of the first spaghetti graphs (in Briffa and Osborn 1999 here) as part of an invited comment on the Mann et al 1000-year reconstruction, then hot off the press with its supposed proof that 1998 was the “warmest year” of the millennium. Jones et al 1999, discussed recently here, contained a different […]
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 […]
UK MP Graham Stringer has a strongly worded Op Ed here archive (h/t Bishop Hill) Stringer, who is on the UK Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee, described the Oxburgh “inquiry” as follows: The Vice Chancellor of the University of East Anglia seemed to share Deer’s desire to get at the truth when he announced an independent […]
Climate Audit 