Facts just don't seem to faze this lot. I guess I'll have to rely on the Duper's own words. Please tell me you feel the fool after reading these or I'll have to give up hope.
. https://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/climategate-2 Or this: 3373.txt: Ray Bradley: " Furthermore, the model output is very much determined by the time series of forcing that is selected, and the model sensitivity which essentially scales the range. Mike only likes these because they seem to match his idea of what went on in the last millennium, whereas he would savage them if they did not. Also--& I'm sure you agree--the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don't want to be associated with that 2000 year "reconstruction". " This refers to a 2003 paper "Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia" by Mann and Jones, that shows 'hockey stick' temperature graphs and was used by the IPCC in its 2007 report 4758.txt: Tim Osborn: " Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we're throwing out all post-1960 data 'cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data 'cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it! " 2346.txt: Osborn: " Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures - another way of "correcting" for the decline, though may be not defensible! " 0497.txt: Jones to Mann in 1999: " Keith didn't mention in his Science piece but both of us think that you're on very dodgy ground with this long-term decline in temperatures on the 1000 year timescale. What the real world has done over the last 6000 years and what it ought to have done given our understandding of Milankovic forcing are two very different things. " 4382.txt: Tom Wigley to Mann: " I would be careful about using other, independent paleo reconstruction work as supporting the MBH reconstructions. I am attaching my version of a comparison of the bulk of these other reconstructions. Although these all show the hockey stick shape, the differences between them prior to 1850 make me very nervous. If I were on the greenhouse deniers' side, I would be inclined to focus on the wide range of paleo results and the differences between them as an argument for dismissing them all. " 1055.txt: Richard Alley, referring to the 2006 NRC report on the hockey stick: " I fear that the tree-ring reconstructions really are in bad shape, and that the IPCC and chapter 6 have a big problem coming up " 3234.txt: Richard Alley: " Unless the "divergence problem" can be confidently ascribed to some cause that was not active a millennium ago, then the comparison between tree rings from a millennium ago and instrumental records from the last decades does not seem to be justified, and the confidence level in the anomalous nature of the recent warmth is lowered. " 4005.txt: Osborn: " Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were " 4133.txt: David Rind (NASA GISS): " what Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is that there is practically no reliable tropical data for most of the time period, and without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm) the globe actually got. " 1667.txt: David Ritson (Stanford) raises a list of criticisms of MBH to Osborn and Briffa and adds " My context is a belief that the climate field is losing and has lost a great deal of credibility over the years as to whether it is serious science. ... In the MBH instance virtually all the simple internal consistency checks one should expect to find, are missing. " The following sequence of emails relate to a paper 'The Team' are preparing to respond to a paper by Soon & Baliunas (2003). They know that much of the material in their own paper is wrong. See here for more detail. 0682.txt: " By chance SB03 may have got some of these precip things right, but we don't want to give them any way to claim credit. " " There is much other evidence that it is precip that is the driver ". 0285.txt: " We also don't show it after 1940. I agree this has to be made very clear in the caption ". This data deletion never was made clear in the caption, leading to a repetition of the notorious "hide the decline" trick. 4207.txt: " You commented that the Chinese series of Yang et al (GRL 2002) looked weird. Well, that's because it's crap--no further comment on what stuff gets into GRL! You appear to have used their so-called "complete" China record. You really should consider what went into this --2 ice core delta 18O records of dubious relationship to temperature ... You just shouldn't grab anything that's in print and just use it 'cos it's there---that just perpetuates rubbish. This series needs to be removed from Figure 2 in the EOS forum piece " (the suspect paper was not removed). 5027.txt: " I find it somewhat ironic that it should be replaced with the latest (Mann and Jones) series that contains the same three series plus a mixture of other far more dubious (not to say bad ) series " 2023.txt: " I also believe some of the series that make up the Chinese record are dubious or obscure , but the same is true of other records Mann and Jones have used ... There are problems (and limitations ) with ALL series used. " 4712.txt: " I suggest adding the following to the end of the Figure 2 caption: "..... Note that individual series are weighted according to their quality in forming a composite hemispheric-scale time series." The word 'quality' here has been chosen carefully -- as something that is deliberately a bit ambiguous. " (this was not done). 0539.txt: " IT IS A DIFFICULT CALL -- WHETHER TO DUMP SERIES THAT HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT LINK TO TEMPERATURE AND WHICH ARE, AS WELL, DUBIOUS ON A PRIORI GROUNDS " 0890.txt: Chris Landsea complains about exaggerated claims about hurricanes to Trenberth, shortly before his resignation from the IPCC: " My concerns are: Where is the science, the refereed publications, that substantiate these pronouncements? What studies are being alluded to that have shown a connection between observed warming trends on the earth and long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity? As far as I know there are none.... he and his fellow panel members decided to forego the peer review scientific process and abuse science in pursuit of a political agenda. " 4443.txt: Phil Jones: " Basic problem is that all models are wrong - not got enough middle and low level clouds. Problem will be with us for years, according to Richard Jones. " Much more if you follow the link . . . . On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Eric Roberts <ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > Imagine that...and industry research group.... > > About NCASI: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:345748 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
