Russian IEA Claims CRU (Thus NOAA/NASA) Probably Tampered With Their Data

Shawn Clark, you sure sound like an angry person. I noticed you didn't actually bring up any points relating to the debate though.

Are you claiming that the "hide the decline" scandal is not proof that Mann and friends purposefully misrepresented tree ring proxy data? I want to make sure of what you are saying.

 

This is precisely correct. In my studies, I have found that humans have likely contributed somewhat to the warming we experienced from 1980-1998/2001. But I do not believe that anthropogenic production of GHGs was the driving force for warming in that time period. I think we are not leading a sustainable lifestyle and that we should curb our emissions slowly over time. But am I not a hand-waver that runs around screaming about global warming, melting ice, and save the polar bears. I like to actually read and figure this stuff out.

We experienced similar warming trends since 1850, and those are attributed to natural causes. I find it hard to believe that we have to attribute our most recent warming (again, 1980 - 1998/2001) to anthropogenic causes when science is fine attributing the rest of the warming since 1850 to natural causes.

When you look at the whole picture, we had warming starting in 1850, which coincides with the end of a Little Ice Age, but there was almost no GHGs being produced at that time. So we say natural warming. Then we have a period of cooling, despite rising CO2. Then we have another period of warming from around 1910 to about 1940, still with reasonably low levels of CO2, still attributed by science to natural warming, and then a huge period of cooling (about 1940-1980), despite rising CO2. Then we have more warming from 1980 to 1998-2001, and this time we have "high" levels of CO2 (but nothing compared to the amount of CO2 we've had in Earth's history), and then we experience cooling from 2001ish till now, despite rising CO2 levels.

Below I have plotted these warming periods. Disclaimer: this is nothing scientific. It is merely setting start and stop points for generally agreed upon periods of warming and cooling, and showing the slope of warming during that time (the slope corresponds with the rate of warming). You can reproduce this graph yourself, and feel free to play around with the stop time (1998, 2000, 2010, etc) for our most recent warming.

 

I sound that way to folks that behave like fools and are disingenous because I have little tolerance for it. I am blunt, sometimes too blunt, but generally accurate. Your initial posts here shot your credibility all to shreds. And yet you try to accuse others of hypocrisy and misinformation, particularly the best informed posters here? Hah!

Others have already addressed the other aspects well enough. You pretty much dismiss all of it using your own belief system. Not much to say to that. Unlike Alric I won't spend much time arguing with a troll. I'm not the type that will jump through hoops for clowns in the circus.

There is no scandal, just a bunch of hot air from political trolls like you trying to manufacture one. The scandal is you and your ilk intentionally misrepresenting this. There is no misrepresentation of the tree ring proxy from what I can tell, despite your vehement efforts to portray it as so.

When the climate summit ends I expect most of you will go back to living under bridges.

As it is, I've seen enough, time for you join the other trolls on the ignore list. <click>

 

Shawn Clark, I will overlook your immaturity and respond to your post.

You are completely wrong. In fact, to prove you wrong, I merely have to paste a post that I just wrote to Alric:

Again the link: IPCC and the “Trick” Climate Audit

Follow Briffa's proxy reconstruction:









And not even to mention the other "trick":

http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/20/mike’s-nature-trick/

No matter how you look at it, it is deceitful, and this proof was uncovered in the CRU emails.

These evidences directly disprove your statement that "There is no misrepresentation of the tree ring proxy from what I can tell".

He exactly said that he truncated part of Keith Briffa's reconstruction and added the temperature data on, in order to hide the decline.

Wow.

You are 100% wrong.

Very appropriate. You challenge me to something, and then when you know I am going to conclusively prove you wrong you pull the old ignore "trick." Sadly putting your fingers in your ears does not make you correct.

Any person can read the above and do the research themselves to see that you are conclusively wrong. You are 100% guilty of spreading misinformation, and for that you are doing worse for the public than the people you so quickly refer to as "trolls."

That's gotta hurt

 

Even if one were to accept that the e-mails in question doctored the science (and I am not prepared to admit that) how can you therefore conclude that all climate science is,, by extension flawed?

If this had been the standard for the Bush administration, what would that have meant?

 

The emails and the graphs speak for themselves. They are clearly doctored and are clearly misleading and are clearly spreading misinformation.

I never said I conclude that all climate science is flawed. But, there is a huge problem. Many, many, many climate science papers use the same sets of data for their calculations that allow them to draw conclusions. The problem is that the data a lot of these papers use is from Mann and his friends.

So now we see that data sets have been manipulated, and we see that there is misleading data there, and now we have to look back at all the papers that are based on this possibly incorrect data and question their outcomes.

For instance, let us assume that a computer model is going to look back in time and try to figure things out to make predictions for today. If you put in manipulated data it will give you output based on that manipulated data (assuming that a computer model could ever give you accurate output.) Basically, if you put garbage into the computer model, you get garbage out of it.

This is why we need an open and complete audit of climate science. We have undeniable proof that the data and publications from HadCRU are not in the best interest of science, they are in the best interest of AGWers. We need to carefully comb through all of the data.

Also, this is not an attack on you, but when you talk about 97% of climatologists all agreeing on something, you have to consider these ClimateGate emails, in which they attempt to keep dissenting scientists from publishing their papers:

Climategatekeeping Climate Audit
Climategatekeeping #2 Climate Audit

And for good measure:

How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus - WSJ.com

Edit: Shawn Clark, I know you are pretending to have me on ignore. I hope that you have read my post a few posts back and see that you were completely wrong. You can't solve problems or involve yourself in a debate if all you do is call people trolls because they have opinions, nay, facts, that differ from your agenda.