Jones and the CRU exonerated again

[little grey rabbit]

In your words, tell us what "hide the decline" meant in the context it was delievered.

Its not relevant to whether the data was presented transparently or not.

The issue is not whether the decision was correct or not, it is whether it was transparent or not.

 

[Wowbagger]

My goodness! Some of you people act like you've never seen e-mail exchanges before!

I'd like you to name one company, organization or industry that wouldn't look embarrassing, if someone leaked a carefully chosen subset of their informal e-mails. Sheeeeesh!!!

 

[uke2se]

Its not relevant to whether the data was presented transparently or not.

The issue is not whether the decision was correct or not, it is whether it was transparent or not.

This was an email from one researcher to another. Transparency doesn't factor in.

Again, explain in your words what "hide the decline" meant in the context it was delivered, and also explain what you find "less than honest" about it.

I'll hold the correct answer until after you've replied.

 

[little grey rabbit]

This was an email from one researcher to another. Transparency doesn't factor in.

Again, explain in your words what "hide the decline" meant in the context it was delivered, and also explain what you find "less than honest" about it.

I'll hold the correct answer until after you've replied.

I wasnt referring to the email I was referring to how the data was presented in publications

"The well known tree ring divergence problem" is, of course, easily explained by the heat island effect.

 

[uke2se]

I wasnt referring to the email I was referring to how the data was presented in publications

Please explain what was "less than honest" about how the data was presented in publications.

 

[Megalodon]

A group I knew had a theory the sugar chains were important for the formation of a particular protein complex, so they removed the sugars and looked at the affinity curve of binding and showed decreased binding and published this result. What actually had happened was when the sugars were removed the protein stuck to everything, including the walls of the eppendorf and their non-specific binding went up to 90% and so their affinity curve was based entirely on the area between 90 and 100 per cent. If you looked at the raw data you would hesitate to conclude anything at all. So what they did was graphed the data AFTER subtracting the non-specific bindings with a very impressive saturation curve taking up the full area of the graph and duly noted that Nonspecific bindings had been subtracted in the figure legend in fine print.

Your little anecdote is very nice, but a) it's an anecdote; and b) given your continuous misrepresentation of reality here, it might not really be accurate. Because I have to admit, I haven't seen too much "fine print" in the articles from my area.

No scientific fraud was conducted but the data was being presented in a less than transparent way.

It depends of the text in the article. It can be that it was misleading for wannabes that look at the pretty pictures without reading all that boring text, but perfectly clear to professionals who actually read the paper... Like, you know, the tree rings divergence.

Thats what I feel about "hide the decline". Sure if you read the fine print, you might pick up what had happened, but ideally science shouldnt be presented this way and when it is, it should be frowned upon.

If by "fine print" you mean, the text of the article

 

[macdoc]

from he who admits to knowing nothing of climate science
LGR

"The well known tree ring divergence problem" is, of course, easily explained by the heat island effect.

source and support for your claim??.....

 

[little grey rabbit]

from he who admits to knowing nothing of climate science
LGR

source and support for your claim??.....

My apologies macdoc, I had no idea you didn't know what the heat island effect was. This should give you a heads up
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_island_effect

I am not really interested in Climate Change as a science, I really just interested as the debate as field of study in itself. If you like an anthropological investigation of the climate change tribe.

Incidentally, I think the tree ring divergence problem would be better termed the "thermometer divergence problem" - as that is the measure which is giving the false impression.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Your little anecdote is very nice, but a) it's an anecdote; and b) given your continuous misrepresentation of reality here, it might not really be accurate. Because I have to admit, I haven't seen too much "fine print" in the articles from my area.

As to a) I don't really care whether you believe me or not
As to b) that is probably because you are not very skilled in critical thinking

 

[Pixel42]

My apologies macdoc, I had no idea you didn't know what the heat island effect was.

Don't be ridiculous, of course macdoc knows what the heat island effect is. So does every other regular reader of/contributor to these threads. What we have never seen before is a claim that the divergence problem is due to it, or any evidence to support such a claim. If you have some, please provide it.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Don't be ridiculous, of course macdoc knows what the heat island effect is. So does every other regular reader of/contributor to these threads. What we have never seen before is a claim that the divergence problem is due to it, or any evidence to support such a claim. If you have some, please provide it.

How am I supposed to know what macdoc knows or not? Like most posters here all he seems good at is posting emoticons.

I just said it is easily explained by the heat island effect and so it is. Whether that explanation is the sole cause is another matter.

But if heat islands exist and they do, logically we must grapple with the "well known thermometer divergence problem".

Not knowing the literature could you tell me if there are any papers that deal with this?

 

[Megalodon]

I just said it is easily explained by the heat island effect and so it is.

Not knowing the literature could you tell me if there are any papers that deal with this?

So you admit you don't know the field, and you admit you don't know the literature, but somehow you just know that the tree ring divergence is "easily explained" by UHIs.

And you have the arrogance of commenting on the critical thinking of others?

 

[Pixel42]

I just said it is easily explained by the heat island effect and so it is.

How?

But if heat islands exist and they do, logically we must grapple with the "well known thermometer divergence problem".

We must grapple with the divergence problem because the divergence problem exists. I can see no way in which the heat island effect could possibly account for it, but I'm willing to consider such an explanation if one is offered.

Not knowing the literature could you tell me if there are any papers that deal with this?

There are papers that describe the divergence problem and offer some suggestions for an explanation. Here's one: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~liepert/pdf/DArrigo_etal.pdf

 

[Megalodon]

As to a) I don't really care whether you believe me or not

You shouldn't...

As to b) that is probably because you are not very skilled in critical thinking

Well, that would be a very interesting diagnostic, but since you didn't show a thread of evidence for any "fine print" in the papers from your field, and you definitely don't know mine to comment upon, it seems you are making things up.

 

[Pixel42]

So you admit you don't know the field, and you admit you don't know the literature, but somehow you just know that the tree ring divergence is "easily explained" by UHIs.

I suspect lgr has swallowed whole the denier lie that the world isn't really warming, it's just the UHI effect that's making it look like it's warming because all the thermometers are in or near urban areas. So it's the instrumental temperature record that's wrong, and the tree rings are proving it. Of course that fails to take into account that

1. The UHI effect is well known and well understood and accounted for when producing the instrumental temperature record

2. The places where the tree ring divergence problem is showing up - places like Alaska - are a long way from any urban heat islands, so the locally measured temperature won't be affected by them anyway

3. Other proxies, including other tree ring proxies, continue to agree with the instrumental temperature record.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I am not really interested in Climate Change as a science, I really just interested as the debate as field of study in itself. If you like an anthropological investigation of the climate change tribe.

So you're just playing politics? Thanks for admitting that you aren't the least bit interested in any actual climate science.

Wrong subforum, btw. Politics is thataway ---->

 

[lomiller]

Sure if you read the fine print, you might pick up what had happened, but ideally science shouldnt be presented this way and when it is, it should be frowned upon.

No need to read any fine print here. They plotted the actual measured temperatures alongside the proxy data. That’s it, that’s the whole “trick”.

The reason they did this was because the proxy they were working with was already known to decline in accuracy after 1960. The particular issue is well documented in the literature and anyone even semi-competent in the field would have been familiar with it.

 

[lomiller]

"The well known tree ring divergence problem" is, of course, easily explained by the heat island effect.

Not even remotely. please try to stick to real science not the stuff you invent on your own.

 

[Furcifer]

Obviously not extensive enough to encompass the words "I was wrong" or "it seems there was no evidence of wrongdoing" - despite the results of two of these major investigations.

Keep on moving those goalposts!

What? I was wrong about what exactly? Please use the quote function.

The parlimentary report refers to an "Independent" review, this paper is from and "International" review. I would agree it's probably the one they were refering to, I'm looking for clarification.

 

[uke2se]

Please explain what was "less than honest" about how the data was presented in publications.

Since you apparently "missed" this post, Rabbit, I'll just quote it for you.