Search Results for: mann hide decline

Mann Misrepresents the UK Commons Committee

Mann’s inclusion of the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (“Commons Committee”) among the investigations that supposedly “investigated” and “exonerated” Mann personally is as invalid as his similar claims regarding the Oxburgh and Muir Russell inquiries or his claim to have won a Nobel prize. The Commons Committee (see report here) did not […]

Mann and the Oxburgh Panel

The Mann libel case has been attracting increasing commentary, including from people outside the climate community. Integral to Mann’s litigation are representations that he was “investigated” by 6-9 investigations, all of which supposedly gave him “exonerations” on wide-ranging counts, including “scientific misconduct”, “fraud”, “academic fraud”, “data falsification”, “statistical manipulation”, “manipulation of data” and even supposed […]

Briffa Condemns Mann Reconstructions

Not in so many words, of course. However, Briffa et al 2013 took a position on the use of radially deformed tree ring cores that would prohibit the use of strip bark bristlecones in temperature reconstructions, thereby emasculating Mann’s reconstructions. And not just the Mann reconstructions, but the majority of the IPCC reconstructions used by […]

Lewandowsky and “Hide the Decline”

Ethics bait-and-switcher Stephan Lewandowsky and his sidekick, Klaus Oberauer, have added hide the decline to their repertoire at the University of Western Australia blog. As CA readers are well aware, the Briffa et al 2001 reconstruction, based on 387 tree ring density chronologies, goes down in the latter part of the 20th century – clearly […]

Myles Allen and a New Trick to Hide-the-Decline

Myles Allen has written here blaming Bishop Hill for “keeping the public focussed on irrelevancies” like the Hockey Stick: My fear is that by keeping the public focussed on irrelevancies, you are excluding them from the discussion of what we should do about climate change But it’s not Bishop Hill that Myles Allen should be […]

Peer Review of Enhanced Hide-the-Decline

During the counter-attack on Soon et al 2003, Climategate participants made serious allegations about the integrity of its peer review and the editor (Chris de Freitas) who had supervised its publication. (These allegations were investigated by the publisher of Climate Research, Otto Kinne, who cleared de Freitas in unequivocal terms – a finding that did […]

Hide-the-Decline Plus

A few days ago, we discussed the unresponsive answers provided to climate scientist Jeff Severinghaus in February 2003 when he inquired about the validity of tree ring widths as proxies due to the inconsistency (divergence) between temperature and ring widths, answers characterized by Severinghaus here as not being a “straight answer”. In first quarter 2003 […]

Severinghaus and “Hide the Decline”

One of the very first contributions to realclimate was an FAQ from Jeff Severighaus on Dec 3, 2004. A year earlier, Severinghaus attempted (unsuccessfully) to get an explanation of the “divergence” problem from Mann and the rest of the Team. Severinghaus had become interested in the question following a presentation by Tom Karl of NOAA […]

Yamal and Hide-the-Decline

In The Climate Files, Fred Pearce wrote: When I phoned Jones on the day the emails were published online and asked him what he thought was behind it, he said” It’s about Yamal, I think”. Pearce continued (p 53): The word turns up in 100 separate emails, more than ‘hockey stick’ or any other totem […]

Hide the Decline – the Other Deletion

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.