Comments on: “The Trick”

By: Gerry Swindale

Gerry Swindale — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:28:26 +0000

Australian Government has STOLEN 100% of all the claims it makes under KYOTO !
Peter Spencer (farmer) currently on day 23 of hunger strike in protest that after 200 Court appearances he is still PREVENTED from presenting his evidence requiring COMPENSATION to the farmers whose land and rights have been taken without any COMPENSATION !
This story must be told now !
Massive embarrassment should be achieved in Copenhagen because of this !
It is a National; Disgrace !
Please HELP ! ! !

By: Steven Douglas

Steven Douglas — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:19:29 +0000

Yes, the published graph all looks graphically manipulated to produce an illusion that screams out, “All these divergent roads ultimately converge, and lead us all to…HERE.”

I’ve had it up to here with liars and “value-adders” to data, I really have.

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:11:49 +0000

Thank you, very informative post.

You might look at the “(a) instrumental temperatures” figure atop the HTR one at AR4 – fig 6.10, page 467. More scary than the recons is the real “records” of four (4!) European stations. I suppose this is meant to make the proxologists seem conservative!

I point this out because I would like to see someone like you (or any other stats-smart persons) take it on. The signif. rise occurs at 1970. Grafting? Excuse, stations moved? Tweaked with “the mean of adjacent existing values”? Plus it is only four stations, might be easy to analyze…if the data still exists!
Table 6.1 says it comes from Jones, et al 2003, “Average of central England, De Bilt, Berlin and Uppsala”. Period “1721-2004″

Communication from Jones:

“”"They relatemostly to issues with Ch 6. Maybe you can add a couple of them.They relate to the issues of:
- making full use of the instrumental records to compare with proxy records
- changes in seasonality
- was the few hundred years before 1850 always colder than the post 1920 period.

The first 2 are the longest European records. The period I’m interested in is the rise up from the late 17th century to the 1730s and then the year 1740. No volcanoes for 20-30 year period may be a factor, solar also, but nothing explains 1740. It is not just in CET. 1730s at CET and De Bilt is the warmest decade until the 1990s. Producing these sorts of things in proxy data is a key.”"”

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=517&filename=1115294935.txt

1730′s warmest decade? See any of that here?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig610.html

Hm. Maybe Berlin and Uppsala had the coldest decade then, to balance it out.

Good luck. If not worthy of study, maybe a blog post about the 1730′s?

By: Metro Gnome

Metro Gnome — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:13:35 +0000

C’mon Ben, they’re *climate scientists*!!

Since we’re talking about climate here, your logic is only valid if YOU are a *climate scientist*.

Get with the program. Jeez.

By: Ben Gardiner

Ben Gardiner — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:47:07 +0000

I have a simple take on the trick to hide the decline, which I arrived at by graphing the data in email 0939154709, which showed me exactly how much the proxy data diverged from temperatures post 1960:

* We are told that the tree ring data is a good proxy for temperature
* But the proxy data post 1960 has a trend opposite to temperature records, so much so that the “climate scientists” discard them.
* By doing so they have just falsified their own claim that tree ring data = good proxy for temperature.
* Consequently, all pre-1960 proxy data can be discounted.