On 05/12/2011 11:13, 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.

Wrong again.

What I am saying is that the models are used to predict the future,
and at the moment they can't even predict the past (a fairly standard
test) at least as tree-ring data is concerned.

They are not there to predict (or to be more correct match) the past
behaviour of tree rings but of climate and in particular of temperature
changes.

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]"

"20. Climate scientists have argued that the term "trick" can denote a
clever way "to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together
in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a
broad array of peers in the field." (Penn State Inquiry). This is
incorrect as applied to representations of the Briffa MXD
reconstruction. " (Author Stephen McIntyre)

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.

The tree ring data is not 'false'. it is data, and data that Jones et
al wanted to incorporate into their work, until they had to fiddle it
so far from reality it was easier to deny it.

It is certainly false in that the temperatures that come out of the
study are incorrect.

This from a parliamentary discussion, where the author is discussing
the tree-ring data:

It is not clear who you mean by the author

It's a common enough word.

And that was the problem. Was it the Stephen McIntyre you quote in
another post or some other person?

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.

The 'shouting' is a 'comment' placed in the computer code by the
programmer. I doubt he made up the false data or the fudge factor
himself.

It still shows bias and you should be careful what you call false as the
mechanism used was an attempt to correct false data, not introduce it.

snip bias.

I am content to leave the answer to the experts.

But which experts? You appear to pick and choose almost at random and
are unable to say why you chose certain quotes other than they appear
to support your view.. The logic you apply to your statements seems as
random as a butterfly's path through the air.

Wikipedia tends to get quoted more often than not because it is so often
the source of relatively non contentious views and very hard to avoid.

"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]"

You seem to have the same view as Mann:

"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]"

So, they have 'dirty laundry'. Well, well.

This is fairly damning.

If it is why have the various reports contained nothing more than fairly
minor criticisms?

The author is Stephen McInty

Says it all really.

"15. Replacement of the Yamal chronology with the Polar Urals
chronology alters the ranking of the medieval and modern periods in,
for example, the Briffa (2000) composite reconstruction, impacting
IPCC assertions in respect to the confidence of their belief in
unprecedented modern warmth. As an IPCC reviewer, I requested that
this be disclosed. In his capacity as IPCC Lead Author, Briffa
refused. In the absence of any explanation of the substitution, there
is reason to be concerned about the reasons for using one series
rather than the other.

16. The Yamal chronology was very much in the news just before
Climategate broke, with questions being asked at Climate Audit about
replication and homogeneity, neither of which had been previously
addressed in peer reviewed literature.

17. The Climategate Letters (e.g. 878654527.txt) also show evidence
that Briffa's concern over non-linear recent growth - a concern that
was not disclosed in Briffa (2000).

18. A similar cherry-picking issue arises with the preferential use in
multiproxy studies of the Briffa (2000) Tornetrask version in
preference to the Grudd (2006) version, which has a medieval period
that is relatively "warmer" than the modern period. "

'Cherry picking', 'hiding the decline', 'the Nature trick', the
'arbitrary data', 'fudge factors', the concern over 'dirty laundry',
does not lead to confidence in the result that the models are right.
Far better to turn to showmanship, when the science is against you.

And all to do with tree ring data in an era where the there is a robust
temperature record. As I said somewhere near the start of this part of
the discussion the current problems cast some doubt on the historic tree
ring data where there are no primary temperature records to compare to
(or words to that affect).


--
Roger Chapman