Oh dear. I get the feeling Mark Steyn may be requesting more disclosure than Michael Mann wants to disclose
The latter part of Briffa’s trees was deleted, because it didn’t match GISS temperatures.
The Deleted Portion of the Briffa Reconstruction « Climate Audit
As ugly as this was, it is worse than it seems. Briffa’s trees did match Hansen, 1981. The next graph overlays Briffa on Hansen, 1981 northern latitude temperatures. The match was almost perfect.
In order to create the hockey stick cheat, they had to do the GISS data tampering cheat first. The entire basis of the hockey stick is junk science.
The destruction of this data was done in a calculated fashion, by the world’s top climate scientists.
They did exactly what Wigley was suggesting, removing more than 0.15 C from 1940’s global temperatures. This tampering is what made the hockey stick possible. Graph below is normalized to 1978.
Another way of looking at this data is to normalize it to 1940. In this view…
View original post 28 more words
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Mark has linked to the Real Science page…
http://www.steynonline.com/6080/if-a-tree-ring-temperature-falls-in-the-forest
Steven Goddard is one of the best programmers, analyst and cynical bloggers anywhere on the web. He is bloody brilliant.
Surely, this is an old chestnut TB. Briffa data included Bristle-cone Pine, which is notorious. The Yamal site should have been shunned for another local source (an alternative site was available), and the ‘whole Yamal record’ should come with a ‘WARNING’ declaration. 😉
Does this really need to be ‘dredged up’ again?
Best regards, Ray.
suricat, And the match with old Hansen claims?
I don’t recall seeing that before.
tchannon says: February 8, 2014 at 10:13 am
I’m fairly confident it can be found in Steve’s archives Tim.
http://climateaudit.org/tag/yamal/
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says:
February 8, 2014 at 2:30 am
“Does this really need to be ‘dredged up’ again?”
Of course. All these people have still not been fired, tarred, feathered and run out of town.
If they had been dealt with justly, James Annan might have thought twice.
DirkH says: February 8, 2014 at 11:18 pm
“Of course. All these people have still not been fired, tarred, feathered and run out of town.”
Nor will they, I doubt! I’m not one that postulates conspiracy theories Dirk, but this is the UN, IPPC, National Governing Bodies and Institutions we’re talking about here. They all seen to have an interest in maintaining CO2 as the main causal factor for AGW.
Steve McIntyre placed a ‘lot of effort’ and invested a ‘lot of time’ to get to the facts behind the oddities of temp. proxies and some unusual graphical representations that they generated. All to no avail. The ‘Writing is on the Wall’, but nothing seems to have happened and the CO2 myth continues.
I see that the UK bad weather is now being reported as the result of ‘climate change’ (whilst the memory of CO2 as an active proponent ‘causing’ climate change is still fresh enough in the mind of the public). Not so, unless one can consider the normal oscillations of our local Pulsar, ‘Sol’, to be a causal proponent for climate change.
It’s due to a ‘persistent’ La Nina state whilst the oceans cool to a balanced parity with atmosphere and land temps.. A temp. ‘lead : lag’ exists between ‘land and atmosphere : ocean’ (respectively) as Sol’s UVa spectra brightens with increased Sunspot propensity/activity, and it’s the ‘opposite’ scenario for a ‘decreasing brightness’ (LA Nina).
Thus, during ‘La Nina conditions’ (a reducing UVa output), the ocean is evaporating more water than the atmosphere can ‘cope with/sustain’. IOW, the hydrological cycle is accelerated by the shorter life time of water vapour in the atmosphere during a La Nina episode.
Will you hear this elsewhere? I doubt it.
Best regards, Ray.
tallbloke says: February 8, 2014 at 11:45 pm
I concur TB, but who’ll ‘deal the justice’? It’s like a gigantic machine where any attempt for change is like ‘peeing into the wind’, and I don’t write papers, but have a similar problem with patents. 😉
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says:
February 9, 2014 at 1:24 am
“Nor will they, I doubt! I’m not one that postulates conspiracy theories Dirk, but this is the UN, IPPC, National Governing Bodies and Institutions we’re talking about here. They all seen to have an interest in maintaining CO2 as the main causal factor for AGW.”
It is documented fact that Maurice Strong paid for all the Green NGO shocktroops to travel to Stockholm and raise a stink at the 1971 conference on the environment.
UN history from its start, in all its ugliness:
suricat,
Add a compliant media- your frustration is understandable. But I would suggest the tide is turning, at least as viewed from here in the US. CAGW or CC do not even appear on the top 17 concerns for Americans (<.5%). Contrast that with about 1 in 5 that list Obama/Fed overreach issues:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/163298/americans-say-economy-top-worry-nation-future.aspx
And despite absolute media cover-up of anything but "consensus" crap, the confluence of 17+ years of flat temps and 5 years of plummeting disposable income has left Americans with little tolerance for "necessarily skyrocketing" energy costs from "bankrupting" low-cost sources.
We saw it in Spain, and most recently Australia, where Carbon Tax repeal starts shortly:
http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/cleaner-environment/clean-air/repealing-carbon-tax
And I believe you will see it in the midterms here in a few months.
In my mind, by declaring a respiratory gas a pollutant, EPA has formulated the framework for federal control over every aspect of our lives- including family size. This can not stand!
Thanks to Mark Steyn for precipitating the process that will shed light on the nasty underbelly of the "cause" and their creations used as justification for this federal overreach.
Silence is surrender against the lot you listed- now is the time to grind- and the truth is a powerful pestle!
Your seeing it with folks like Spencer, Lindzen, Curry, M & M, AW and thousands more… Game on…