I am concerned that it may be seized on by some as evidence that he did worse things than are actually in evidence, but it will help I think and I would hope that the investigation is thorough and open.

Remains to be seen, and probably won’t matter.

If he is cleared of anything the denialsphere has claimed they will shout “cover-up”.

I personally don’t expect him to return soon as he is really NOT the right person for that job. Just come back long enough to decide to resign without the stigma… perhaps.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I see Phil Jones has stood down as director of the CRU pending an investigation into allegations against him.

A responsible and sensible thing to do in the circumstances.

Just a pity the cranks can’t be as responsible and sensible, but most of them have nothing to stand down from because they are not scientists. Of the few who are, Chris de Freitas, get the hint?

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

It behooves us to not take sides and to mosey out of the line of fire… whistling casually and looking in no direction in particular.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 1  1 (0)

But Steve Tyler, somehow, is still alive!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 2  0 (+2)

That stuff has gone round the world, pushed by your little denial propaganda team. And you have the effrontery to call me uncivilised.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Like or Dislike: 3  1 (+2)

Like or Dislike: 3  0 (+3)

Like or Dislike: 0  3 (-3)

Like or Dislike: 0  6 (-6)

Look who’s talking!!
Pot meet kettle.

Like or Dislike: 1  3 (-2)

Like or Dislike: 1  1 (0)

Do you stand by the NZ CSC’s release of a fatally flawed document?

Do you stand by the use of that to smear respected scientists?

My rudeness and offensive behaviour? In holding you to account for a “report” that came from your group and has been defended in a press release by Terry Dunleavy? What’s offensive is that you seem to think you and your fellow travellers can lie and smear respected scientists with no comeback.

You are, sir, a hypocrite and charlatan, and your views therefore unworthy of respect.

Like or Dislike: 1  2 (-1)

“Hokitika weather station adjustments cast doubt on NIWA methods
Following the dramatic release of a revealing comparison between two
sets of NIWA temperature records in a research project by members of the
Climate Conversation Group and the New Zealand Climate Science
Coalition, the researchers now show their methods.
Spokesman for the group, Richard Treadgold, said that this first
“Supplementary Information” paper shows how an examination of the
Hokitika station casts strong doubt on NIWA’s description last week of
adjustments they made to the Wellington record.
“In the case of Wellington, NIWA decided that the 0.8ºC drop between
Thorndon and Kelburn was justified because of the height difference and
the relationship, based purely on similar height, between Thorndon and
Wellington Airport.
“However, as many people have pointed out, you can’t make that
assumption. Here we have a station almost at sea level (Hokitika South)
reading (during the overlap period in the 1960s) on average 0.3ºC colder
than the other one that’s 120 feet (39 metres) higher up (Hokitika
Aero). So the altitude reasoning doesn’t always work.
Until NIWA release their actual adjustments, we’re speculating, since
there could be valid reasons for all this. But it does look very strange
at the moment,” said Mr Treadgold.
The full story is posted at the Climate Conversation Group web site, at
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2009/11/30/supplementar y-information-hokitika/

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0.html

They didn’t hide the divergence Wat. They ADVERTISED it.

Moreover, a caution appears in the original paper by Briffa. I daresay that the man is telling you not to use the data past 1960.

Why do you insist on doing what you’ve been told NOT to do. Because McIntyre thinks it is a good idea? McIntyre isn’t interested in the temperature at all, he’s interested in scoring points.

Do you also want to see every rejected piece of science and busted data collection as well as the ones that actually have papers published about them?

Science is about finding the truth, it has nothing to do with publishing stuff that doesn’t work for the morbidly curious. The peer review process exists to improve the signal to noise ratio. It works pretty well. People have to publish papers which have meaningful results and they have to be honest about the results they get. Briffa did exactly that with respect to the divergence.

So when making use of the temperature data, the choice of 1960 wasn’t “arbitrary” it was determined by the science telling you not to use anything after that.

Science is also about finding answers to questions that come up in the process, and that is exactly what Briffa et.al. are about doing by publishing about the divergence itself.

Hiding NOTHING with respect to that dataset.

However, since they are simply reporting temperature in this case, for the WMO, not trying to extend their series beyond its known limits, there is no reason not to provide the temperature data they know is correct and there is no reason to provide information they know is NOT correct.

This wasn’t about Briffa’s data. It was about the temperature.

Period.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

There is no scientific basis whatsoever for the abrupt switch from charting proxy data to charting instrumental data right at that time. It was done specifically and solely to “hide the decline” and, by censoring contradictory data, enable them to fabricate a hockeystick.

1) Had they shown the continued proxy data we would all have seen the significant decline in recent temperatures, which contradicts their theory.

2) Had they included the intrument data when it became available, in addition to the continued proxy data, we would have seen how the supposed temperature proxy totally fails to match the actual climate record (which invalidates the entire case they are presenting), in addition to seeing that decline in the proxy trend.

But they did neither of these things.

They used supposed proxy data up until the point where it began contradicting their position, then censored the rest and switched to instrumental data. Result: hockeystick.

They were told at the time to acknowledge this divergence between the intrumental and proxy climate records, because it is obviously a major issue. Yet they ignored it because they were producing propaganda, not science.

Like or Dislike: 0  2 (-2)

However, what was done was to create a CORRECT (within the bounds of error) temperature record.

Now you can argue until you turn blue, but there is no way to construe that as a lie without seriously twisting what is true.

If it were intended to represent that the proxies involved were correct through the period of the divergence, THEN it would be false, a lie, all of the above.

That is not what was done.

The purpose of the graph was to present paleo temperatures for the background information for the WMO. The only requirement of the graph was that it be correct… and preferably not confusing. Not peer reviewed science, just a minor product.

All that was claimed in respect to it was that it represented the temperature for the past however long it was. Which it does.

I see no valid reason to regard this as fraud.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Perhaps you should re-read and try to understand what was done. I think everyone else grasps it.

Mann himself wrote at realcensorship: “No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.”

Of course, that’s precisely what was done in order to “hide the decline.”

In any other profession or business they would have been prosecuted for fraud.

These guys make Enron look like sticklers for truth and accuracy.

Like or Dislike: 0  1 (-1)

For showing the temperature correctly?

That’s a really difficult case to make.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

- “It seems to me that noticing a problem, documenting it and investigating it, using proxies that are working properly in their range, and USING THE ACTUAL TEMPERATURES TO TELL YOU WHAT THE TEMPERATURE IS when you have them, makes a lot of sense.”

But they did nothing of the sort.

They didn’t “USE THE ACTUAL TEMPERATURES” as they became available. They continued with the proxy data right up to the 1960s and only then switched to actual instrument readings for the simple reason that after that point the proxy data showed a sharp decline that they wanted to conceal: hence “hide the decline.”

McIntyre, a reviewer, told them that they shouldn’t do this because the divergence is obviously a very serious issue. He told them not to truncate the inconvenient data. But they ignored it and still got to call their work “peer reviewed.”

By all means they could have overlayed all the instrumental data onto the chart as well as showing the entire proxy record. If the proxies were valid we would have seen how their data closely matched the actual intrumental data. But it doesn’t, so we would instead have seen the enormous divergence and pointed out that it completely invalidates their contention that they are using valid temperature proxies for their hockeysticks. Obviously such a chart would have been devastating to the alarmists.
So instead, they cynically switched from one to the other so that the sharp decline was cut from the chart. Instead of an honest and complete chart which called into question the entire basis of their alarmist claims, we were left with another hockeystick.

- “What it doesn’t mean is that AGW is broken. ”

What it means is that the people who concocted that chart are forgers and crooks.

Like or Dislike: 0  2 (-2)