Kate Sheppard of Mother Jones on Climategate here.
The article discusses me and the climate blogs in relatively measured terms. However, the headline is another unscientific fantasy from the climate community (quoting Michael Mann):
How climate science became the target of “the best-funded, best-organized smear campaign by the wealthiest industry that the Earth has ever known.”
As readers know, this characterization of Climate Audit and other critical climate blogs (WUWT, Jeff Id, Lucia, Bishop Hill) is total fantasy on the part of the climate science community. It seems to me that the fantasy is an ideological construct that they use to avoid looking into the mirror.
Obviously one expects Mother Jones to give the climate community an easy ride and they’ve done so. Unfortunately, I don’t have time right now for a full comment.
8 pm: Jaeah Lee, a nice fact-checker from Mother Jones, has a genial online video in which she tries (unsuccessfully) to figure out the trick to hide the decline, eventually being tricked by Briffa.
Jon Stewart saw through the trick, acidly satirizing the disinformation originally put out by Gavin Schmidt and subsequently adopted by the credulous climate science community:
It means nothing…He’s just using a trick to… hide the decline. It’s just scientist-speak for using a standard statistical technique for calibrating data in order to …. trick you…into not knowing about ….the decline.
Both Kate Sheppard (in the article) and Jaeah Lee (in the video) uncritically accept Team bafflegab that the deletion of adverse data is acceptable scientific practice.
The “trick”—substituting recorded temperature data when proxy data become unreliable—isn’t intended to deceive; it’s an acceptable practice in paleoclimatology, since most proxy data sets end around the 1980s, and recorded temperatures are more reliable, anyway.
Deletion of adverse data is not acceptable scientific practice – a point eloquently endorsed by Richard Muller – even if it is an “acceptable practice” in Team paleoclimatology. That the Team see nothing wrong with the practice is the problem. And it’s hardly just Mann. Esper notoriously stated:
this does not mean that one could not improve a chronology by reducing the number of series used if the purpose of removing samples is to enhance a desired signal. The ability to pick and choose which samples to use is an advantage unique to dendroclimatology.