"Hide the Decline:" Email References to "Hiding" the Decline in Temperatures Might Have Been "Taken Out of Context," But How Do You Explain This?

In t the computer code for these models, the comments to the code acknowledge that changes have been made... in order to hide the decline.

; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions ; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually ; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to ; the real temperatures. ;

And:

; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series, ; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series. ; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N ; ; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid ; the decline ;

As George Takei says: "Oh my."

Soooo... we have emails stating that CRU "scientists" are using a "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. The "decline" here refers to a drop in temperates at the end of their simulations, which they don't want in on their hockey-stick graphs, because they always want them to end with the temperature curve pointing upwards -- asymptotically is best.

They have learned the "trick" (which I don't get myself) of adding in a specific series of data -- the real temperature record, but only through 1960 -- to a model based entirely on proxy temperature readings (tree rings and ice cores and so on) and adjusted real-world temperature readings. This data shouldn't be added in -- they've already got their adjusted (i.e., also kinda faked) temperature readings in there. They are adding this one piece of data again, this time in raw form, because it changes how the graph looks at the end, and gives them that sharply-rising flare at the chart's end.

Why not use all real temperature data, through the present day?

Because that doesn't result in the shape of the graph they want.

Why add real temperature data through 1960 in when you've already included "adjusted" versions of that data?

Because if you don't, you don't get the shape of the graph you want.

Why do they want a particular shape of graph? Because these charts aren't being used for science; they're being used for political propaganda. People understand what a sharply-rising line means.

Why are scientists choosing which data to add and not add according to what gives them the results they want?

Because they're not scientists. They are political advocates with some math and science degrees.

This data wasn't put in there because they decided for some odd reason that the real, raw temperature readings (but only through 1960!) should be re-added to the data set. It was put in there because someone did it one time and saw that it would give him the shape of the graph he wanted. And now they're all doing it, though no one is quite able to explain why the hell they are.

Because the real reason is "It gives us the prop we want." There is no other reason.

Aren't scientists supposed to build from observation to conclusion, rather than conclusion to observations? They are cherry-picking which data are supposed significant according to which sets result in the conclusions they've already decided.

Thanks to JackStraw.

posted by Ace at 04:54 PM

| Access Comments