Science, Innovation, Politics
Thank your Roger for posting this valuable explanation.
Thanks, Roger.It's remarkable to me that scientists who wish to be taken seriously would defend this sort of thing.Best, Pete TillmanConsulting Geologist, Arizona and New Mexico (USA)
They deceived no one! Why do you continue to perpetuate this garbage!?!
A new sighting of hide the decline in a recent book by the former UK chief scientist, Sir David King. It also includes an interesting data splice.Link
-3-Tenney NaumerNo need to shout. If you think that Muller has made factual errors in his presentation, then just explain what you think they are. Thanks!
I thought the whole talk (40-some minutes) was excellent.
This is the best summation I have seen of the problem. It explains exactly what they did and why it is so offensive to the scientific approach. I despair when people (see above) proudly proclaim that they don't see a problem.
Imagine if Mann, Jones, Briffa et al were researching cancer fighting drugs and committed such a deception?They would be drummed out of their institutions so fast they wouldn't have time to train for a new career "would you like fries with that order?" before being perp marched out of their labs into a Federal Pen.
Bravo!Imagine if Mann, Jones, Briffa et al were researching cancer fighting drugs and committed such a deception?Unfortunately, less might happen to them than you think.
Tenney are you serious? I mean sure there is a more complete explanation in the text but "They deceived no one!"? It is really interesting that the practice is defended.
If he's not going to read papers by these people then he surely cannot believe in the IPCC chapters they authored.Another skepticism proven correct. They sure mount up don't they? Meanwhile on the convinced side, not a single prediction correctly made yet.
Ummmmm. Gosh, Tenney, he says HE was deceived by the graph. He says his fellow scientists at Berkeley were deceived. You need to straighten him out right away. By the way, how do you think he could have been fooled into thinking he was fooled? I blame the oil companies.
Perhaps Tenney had tongue in cheek?I think the most telling thing about AGW belief is that its faith has no need for AGW predictions to be actually correct or reliable.
Climate Audit has a post on how a similar trick was used in Jones et al 1999 Review of Geophysics paper.The diverging data deleted without comment. In addition, there were several substantive statements about the reliability of proxy temperatures in the paper that would have been clearly and obviously false if the more recent proxy data had been plotted.See: http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/15/new-light-on-hide-the-decline/The Jones paper is "SURFACE AIR TEMPERATURE AND ITS CHANGES OVER THE PAST 150 YEARS, by P. D. Jones ,M. New,D. E. Parker,S. Martin, and I. G. Rigor. Reviews of Geophysics 3,7 / May 1999; pages 173-199Paper number 1999RG900002The figure under discussion is Figure 6.
The entire Muller presentation is, IMHO, well worth watching. His handling of the questions was also very good.Based on his overall position on the role of scientists and the need for complete and transparent data sets, I am optimistic that his temperature record will be of higher quality than NOAA/NASA/HADCrut - though he is signing up for a very big task.