Global Politics, International High Finance, Propaganda

Thursday, 10 March 2011

Hide The Decline

HIDE THE DECLINE - THERE WAS A DECLINE AND IT WAS HIDDEN


The following article is an attempt to explain the picture shown above and its implications.
The picture - which in most browsers is an animation - combines two graphs to make them easier to compare. (If it isn't an animation, then go and see "Picture A" and then "Picture B" below- all will be revealed below!)
* One graph is what the IPCC should have shown - the decline that was hidden
* The other  is what the IPCC actually published - the graph that "hides the decline."



Below is a very good video that covers this in detail.




Climategate 'hide the decline' explained by Berkeley professor of Physics Richard A. Muller





HIDE THE DECLINE

The phrase "hide the decline" (a famous part of "Climategate") comes from the following remark in an email from Phil Jones to Mann, Bradley and Hughes in November 1999 :-
 
"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.  "

Phil Jones is referring to a graph for the 1999 World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report which is the one depicted above - although the more important "Hidings of the Decline" were in the IPCC Third and Fourth Assessment reports.

The ‘trick’ in question was:-
* deleting the post-1960 values of the Briffa reconstruction,
* replacing them with the temperature values measured by thermometers,
* smoothing the splicing together of the series to disguise the join, and
* ending up with a reconstruction that looked like an accurate reconstruction of late 20th-century temperatures as measured by thermometers

Which - put in much simpler language is -
Proper thermometers didn't exist a thousand years ago and so it is not possible to use them to measure the temperature back then. So some scientists decided to infer the temperature from the size of tree rings - creating what could be called a "tree-mometer." These treemometers were used as a "proxy" form of thermometer - a way of measuring the temperatures before thermometers had been invented.


However, the treemometers didn't show the same temperatures as the thermometers. Beginning in about 1960 the tree-mometers showed temperatures to be cooling whereas therm-ometers showed temperatures to be rising. The treemometers showed temperatures that were declining.


(Picture A:- Graph of treemometer temperatures showing a decline of temperatures)

The scientists didn't want the treemometers to show a decline. So they altered the graph of the temperatures shown by the treemometers so as to
* hide the decline showed by the treemometers and
* falsely pretend that the treemometers showed the same temperatures that the thermometers showed - the same increase in temperature - the same warming.


(Picture B:- Graph of treemometer temperatures falsely showing an increase of temperatures)

They did this so that they could pretend that the tree-mometers showed temperatures that were exactly the same as the thermometers. This trickery was necessary so that they could pretend that the treemometers were just as accurate and reliable as the thermometers.



Picture C above shows first one then the other so as to make the comparison easier - it shows the decline that was hidden and then hides it.



THIS DISHONESTY WAS REPEATED AND SYSTEMATIC

Keith's "Science Trick " (ie the omission of part of the data) was systemic in the peer reviewed literature
as well as the IPCC TAR and IPCC AR4.
Examples include:
* the spaghetti graphs in Briffa and Osborn (Science 1999),
* Jones et al (Rev Geophys 1999),
* Briffa et al (JGR 2001) Plate 3,
* Jones et al 2001 Plate 2A,
* Briffa et al 2004 Figure 8,
* Hegerl 2007 et al Figure 5b.

(CRU conceded most of this in their March 1, 2010 submission to Muir Russell, see page 38).

My point here is that this was not a "single lapse of judgement". It was something that went on for over a decade.

1999 Jones prepared cover of WMO report deleting post-1960 portion of Keith Briffa's data to hide the decline, and replacing the data with temperature records, then smoothing over the splice so it is concealed. ( as depicted here above )

1999 IPCC authors are bothered that Briffa's graph after 1960 diverges from apparent temperature record, and if they include it in the TAR it will detract from the message. So they include it but they delete the post-1960 portion

2001 IPCC TAR published with Keith's post-1960 data deleted, no notice to reader

2006 NAS Report offers no explanation for the divergence problem

2006 IPCC draft for AR4 includes cluster of reconstructions, including Briffa's, with post-1960 portion deleted. Reviewer Steve McIntyre demands they show all the data

2007 published IPCC report omits post-1960 data; mentions data deletion in chapter text but does not establish rationale

There is a fantastic analysis of this and "Climategate" in http://www.davidpratt.info/climategate.htm
And another analysis with more than 1000 comments at :- http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/

Explaining the pictures in this article

The animated pictures above were extracted from a video presentation given by Professor Richard A Muller at Berkeley in 2011. Prof Muller is a physicist, director of the Berkeley Earth Project, and has a pro-climate alarmist bias, so - if the pictures are biased at all - then that bias should be in favour of Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming. (Video of the presentation from which these pictures are extracted)

Picture A above shows what the IPCC graph should have shown -  the decline that was hidden

Picture B above shows the graph that the IPCC actually published - the graph that "hides the decline."

Picture C shows the two combined for comparison purposes

More Politics of Catastrophic Man-made Global warming.

There have been eight committees that have investigated the allegations about Climategate and its hiding of the decline.  All have published reports which claimed to find no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct
  • House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK)
  • Independent Climate Change Email Review (UK)
  • International Science Assessment Panel (UK)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US) (twice)
  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (US)
  • Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce
  • National Science Foundation

Not even one of these investigations found anything wrong with the "hiding of the decline" shown above.

These eight whitewashes - these eight examples of political dishonesty - provide yet more evidence that there is some very powerful politics in action here. More evidence that the Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming hoax has immense political backing.

 Conclusion

The best summary of the situation is given, as usual, by James Corbett.







There is a detailed transcript of the documentary above here at:- http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20091125_enviro_message.htm




[Back to Main Index]

No comments:

Post a Comment