Climate scientists like preaching to the choir, but right now, perhaps they should consider the possibility that a little outreach would be in order. In normal times, Climate Audit has a large audience; right now, its audience is far larger than normal and includes journalists as well as the public. Given recent events, I made […]
For the benefit of new readers, we discussed some aspects of the “trick” at Climate Audit in the past. Obviously, the Climategate Letters clarify many things that were murky in the past. On the left is a blowup of IPCC 2001 Fig 2.21 showing where the Briffa reconstruction (green) ends. More on this below.
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 […]
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 […]
“Hide the decline” refers to the decline in the Briffa MXD temperature reconstruction in the last half of the 20th century, a decline that called into question the validity of the tree ring reconstructions. (I’m going to analyze the letters on another occasion.) In the IPCC Third and Fourth Assessment Reports, IPCC “hid the decline” […]
Willis Eschenbach’s account of his FOI request has been published on other blogs (e.g. here ) but I’m re-publishing it because Willis actually sent it to me first and the events all played out and were documented in real time at Climate Audit (see here for posts on FOI). After pursuing matters until April 2007, […]
Phil Jones, Dec 3, 2008: About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all. Phil Jones, Nov 24, 2009 Guardian We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU.
Commenters on the earlier thread have presented another explanation of the “RC Hack”. The same idea occurred to several people and has been presented at several blogs (tAV for example). I’ll cite Steve Mosher’s below both because he knows computers and is very familiar with the facts: If you look at all the emails you […]
Gavin Schmidt states categorically that the FOIA.zip was uploaded to RC around 6.20 am Eastern [Update – Aug 23, 2011: noticed that this was changed to 7:20 am] and that 4 downloads took place prior to RC regaining control of their blog. He also observes that there is a previously unnoticed reference to the file […]
Tough article by WSJ here. They conclude: However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a […]
Climate Audit 