On 05/12/2011 08:58, Terry Fields wrote:
snip
You have yet to show they have fudged anything.
Lets see..
This data doesn't fit in with what we want and we don't know why, we'll
throw it away.
This data fits what we want but we don't know why, we'll keep it.
It shows one thing for sure, if you select your data you can prove what
you want.
You have the deniers' modus modus operand down to a T but real science
doesn't work that way. Awkward data is flagged up and investigated, not
hidden away.
That's exactly what I have been telling you, in a number of postings
that you chose to counter.
No you haven't. What you have consistently been saying is that the
apparent decline in temperature shown by recent tree ring data is a real
decline in temperature which is manifestly not true.
More from the previously cited Wikipedia page:
"The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in
this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a
neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to
bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate
fashion.[35][36] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the
research community was fully aware of these issues and was not hiding or
concealing them.[37]"
I was under the impression that the 'trick' was to stop one graph
short, because to continue it would have shown the decline. However,
you may know more than me about combining different kinds of data sets
in a legitimate fashion, and so I'm hoping you can explain what these
methods are, how they were applied, and what made the legitimate.
I doubt if I know any more about the subject than you. It is just that I
see the rationale for not including in a publication intended general
consumption data that is actually false. That approach was vindicated by
the actions of the deniers when they they became aware of it and used it
to 'prove' that far from continuing to warm the Earth was actually cooling.
This from a parliamentary discussion, where the author is discussing
the tree-ring data:
It is not clear who you mean by the author and much of what you quote
seems to relate to CRU's attempt to stop the spoilers getting hold of
their data and using it out of context. I am not going to answer it in
detail but one other thing does stand out - that:
"****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE********".
Just who is doing the shouting and why does he include 'very'? Very
artificial can mean no more than artificial so the 'very' adds no
meaning other than an indication of bias on behalf of the user.
"Figure 1. Tornetrask from Briffa (1992). Left - MXD chronology.
Middle - "Briffa bodge" ; right - Briffa 1992 "adjusted".
8. Although there was no scientific basis for such an arbitrary
adjustment, peer reviewers of Briffa et al (1992) did not object.
"Bodging" then seems to entered into the CRU toolkit to get
reconstructions to "look" right, as evidenced by the Climategate
documents containing annotations that the method contains "fudge
factors" or "very artificial corrections for decline" (e.g.
http://di2.nu/foia/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro)
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor"
And further down that code is the comment
"; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION"
Further down that report it quotes the following:
"Jones: We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make
the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something
wrong with it.[3]
Osborn to Science: I don't have any core measurement data and
therefore have none to give out! [4] [Climategate Letters and
documents show that CRU had the requested measurement data[5]]
Mann to Osborn: I'm providing these [MBH residuals] for your own
personal use, since you're a trusted colleague. So please don't pass
this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of
"dirty laundry" one doesn't want to fall into the hands of those who
might potentially try to distort things.[6]"
And...
"If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is
also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a
lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won't be easy to dismiss out of
hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically[7]"
Over to you.
I am content to leave the answer to the experts.
"The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in
this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a
neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to
bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate
fashion.[35][36] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the
research community was fully aware of these issues and was not hiding or
concealing them.[37]"
--
Roger Chapman