The “hide the decline” in Phil Jones’ Nov. 16, 1999, e-mail referred to Mann’s 1998 temperature chart that hid the declining reliability of tree-rings after 1960. Mann’s chart apparently shows temperatures from 1900 to 1960, as reflected in tree ring studies, and then tacks on actual thermometer readings for the years 1961 to 1998. Both Mann and McIntyre said this yesterday. According to skeptic McIntyre, the “hiding” was not exactly an exercise in deception, but McIntyre also said Mann has not yet fully explained why tree rings were a good measure until 1960, but a bad measure after 1960.

Meanwhile back at the White House we find out that

Barack Obama’s radical socialist climate czar Carol Browner on Wednesday rejected claims that e-mails stolen from a British university show climate scientists trumped up global warming numbers, saying she considers the science settled.

.. but in one of those “shades of Haliburton” moments, we find out that she …

was a board member of one of the leading carbon offset trading companies, APX.

Gore received a chilly reception Nov. 25th in Chicago.  Appearing at a bookstore in the downtown Loop, Gore was confronted by a team of demonstrators from a grass roots group called "We Are Change," as he was signing his latest fascist ….

Holdren connected to ClimateGate….

Most critics of AGW advocacy have never considered it science in the first place. This just shows that we were right; it’s a religious belief, and its high priests apparently have few scruples about rigging the models and the data to show what they want, rather than pursue science and the scientific method.

Color elgeneralisimo as one of those not so surprised by this latest revelation…

The problem with all of the “Death by Global Warming/CO2? models thus far is that the underlying assumptions tend to vary from a bit sketchy to downright dodgy. Invariably, the math used in the models is to the laws of thermodynamics as Enron’s bookkeeping was to standard accounting practices…

elgeneralisimo on March 22, 2007 at 1:10 AM

elgeneralisimo’s AGW explained for the masses…

You = everyone living on the planet
Cop = IPCC, Al Gore, et alia
Posted speed limit = known laws of the universe

You are driving down a road in your car.
The posted speed limit is 40 mph.
You are traveling at 40 mph.
Cop pulls you over.

You: Is there a problem ?

Cop: You were going 40 in a 35.

You: But the sign says 40.

Cop: Theoretically it could say 35.

You: Uhm… I suppose it could, but in reality the sign says 40 and I was traveling at 40.

Cop: Step out of the vehicle.

You: Why ?

Cop: You are under arrest for denying a theoretic reality.

You: What ?

Cop: Due to your unwarranted skepticism, I will be be required to use force.

You: WTF ???

Cop: Remember, you brought this upon yourself.

You: What are you tal…

You are interrupted mid sentence by 75,000 volts…

New Zealand climate agency accused of data manipulation

I want clever T-shirt sayings!!

“So if you believe in AGW if have some greenhouse gas for you”

barnone on November 24, 2009 at 4:03 PM

AGW. Who’s the bitter clingers, now, Sport

*Precious Pup laugh* hee, hee, hee, hee, hee…

This needs to stay on the front burner turned up very hot.

Amen, Stepan.

And by MM, I know you don’t mean MainstreamMedia!!

We’ve gotta reiterate this story after the holiday, in a big way.

BHO is even traveling to Copenhagen to lend his diminished credibility to the cause–Devine Leftist that he is.

This needs to stay on the front burner turned up very hot.

I know we can count on MM to do so!

And the UK government needs to drop a very big hammer on them.

It’s not too difficult to understand, even for someone with scant computer experience like me… It’s a poor gov’t programmer saying, ‘What the f*** do I do with all these bogus datasets?? There’s no way to match them up! We’ll have to ignore the entire period before year 1400, and stop plotting at 1960 to hide the decline…’

It’s one thing to read the CBS story, but a whole other thing to read the words of the programmer actually charged with the task of cooking the data.

Of course anyone with even a slight understanding of statistics could ever be brought into the evolutionist faith.

Jerricho68 on November 24, 2009 at 6:02 PM

Evolution = change in gene frequencies.
And that happens all the time.

“For fun, imagine if these leaked e-mails weren’t about global warming, but Gitmo or Dick Cheney or Sarah Palin’s private life. How fast would Time, Newsweek and an intensely sweaty Andrew Sullivan be all over them; calling these e-mails corruption of the highest order?

But they can’t do this here, because the lie is the lie that the media believed in. It’s their Watergate, so it’s no wonder there’s no Woodward and Bernstein to bring it down.”

There’s a great deal of truth in that, but I’d also add that statisticians – professional statisticians – by and large do not lie with statistics. Certainly in my education we’re instructed and evaluated on our proper use of data and the fairness of our analysis. On the other hand, I found that statistical software being so easily obtained, results in many investigators routinely doing analysis that would have garnered me a ‘F in any of my statistics courses.

I had an investigator who had this complicated study and decided to use SAS to generate about 150 statistical tests and then sort through it, finding the signficant p-values. I told him that if he was using a 5% signficance level that he would generate 7 or 8 “significant” results purely by chance alone.

He published the results eventually (showing only the “significant results”) – and I asked that my name NOT appear as a co-author.

PackerBronco on November 24, 2009 at 4:05 PM

That’s what I’ve been telling my family and friends about statistics in general and Global Warming in particular for years now. I may not know enough statistics (undergraduate degree) to feel comfortable constructing a complex statistical model myself, but I know where all the weak points are and can tell when I’m being fed some bullsh–.