Free Markets, Free People

Climate scientist concludes “hide the decline” done to dishonestly hide data that didn’t support AGW conclusion

You may not know who Judith Curry is, but in my estimation she’s someone to be listened too in the world of climate change.   She’s a professor and the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech.

She’s written a piece that’s been posted on the Climate Depot entitled “Hiding the Decline” which is a must read for anyone who has been following “Climate-gate” and especially for those ready to brush off the criticism that has been leveled at the warmists who were, in fact, engaged in hiding some data.

The question I am asking myself is what is my role as a scientist in challenging misuses of science (as per Beddington’s challenge)?  Why or why not should I personally get involved in this?   Is hiding the decline dishonest and/or bad science?

She concludes, after working through her questions, that it is both dishonest and bad science.

It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document.  Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest (I agree with Muller on this one).  The authors defend themselves by stating that there has been no attempt to hide the divergence problem in the literature, and that the relevant paper was referenced.  I infer then that there is something in the IPCC process or the authors’ interpretation of the IPCC process  (i.e. don’t dilute the message) that corrupted the scientists into deleting the adverse data in these diagrams.

[Steve] McIntyre’s analysis is sufficiently well documented that it is difficult to imagine that his analysis is incorrect in any significant way.  If his analysis is incorrect, it should be refuted.  I would like to know what the heck Mann, Briffa, Jones et al. were thinking when they did this and why they did this, and how they can defend this, although the emails provide pretty strong clues.  Does the IPCC regard this as acceptable?  I sure don’t.

Can anyone defend “hide the decline”?  I would much prefer to be wrong in my interpretation, but I fear that I am not.

That’s a pretty definitive conclusion.  Take the time to read the whole thing … her reasoning and logic are solid and they support her conclusions.   They also point out what many of us concluded some time ago – at least that group of “climate scientists” appear to have fudged data, hidden data or simply left it out to better use what was left to support their preconceived conclusions.  In anyone’s book that should be a scandal.

Curry invites comment and rebuttal and while there’s plenty of commentary there’s very little in the way of reasonable or scientifically based rebuttal in the portion of the commentary I scanned.  

Her piece, at least for me, puts the final nail in the “hide the decline” bunch’s coffin.  The case she makes points to an obvious attempt to deceive.   And that is not what science is or should be about.  Make sure you read the whole thing.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

6 Responses to Climate scientist concludes “hide the decline” done to dishonestly hide data that didn’t support AGW conclusion

  • “Our best scientists in this country have reached a consensus and it is unequivocal that the science is clear that man-made emissions or air pollution and global warming gases,” she [Federal EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson] said.
    [Congressman] McKinley interrupted saying, “Isn’t global warming an issue that the scientists are still debating and you know it! I know it!”
    Jackson vehemently disagreed. “No I do not agree with that! I absolutely do not agree with that!”

    Here a federal official, sworn to uphold the laws of this great nation, denies that there is anything that scientists are arguing about in this field of “climate science.” I mean, who am I to believe, a professor and the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech or a hack political operative breaking her sworn oath to uphold the law ?  I’m really torn here.

    • There’s the magic word….full of chewy Erbesque goodness “Consensus”….mmm (munch munch) ‘con sen sus’ – say it with me Neo, ‘con sen sus’.   Consider the rich goodness, the texture, the piquant composition of the word.  Like a really really really good cookie, let it roll around your tongue for a moment and say it again ‘con sen sus’.   It’s magic best beloved!
      The kind of word you can gather around a campfire and chant to the star filled sky “con sen sus’ – starting low, nearly inaudible, as the witch doctor EPA Administrator, clutching the cat skull feather adorned totem stick holding the Government Climate Warming Report begins a slow seductive hip swaying dance step widdershins round the fire to read from the report, invoking the latent power of the names of the self anointed gods of climate warming citing the experts “Mann”, “Brifa”, “Jones” and the ever present, always powerful Et Cetera .
      The drum throbs, the volume of the chant increases, with wild abandon the EPA Administrator twirls and gyrates, calling to the night “CON SEN SUS!” “CON SEN SUS!”. Soon the tempo has increased four fold, and over the sound of the drums the words blur until one hears the true meaning of Anthropogenic Global Warming “CON US!” “CON US!” “CON US!”
      Ahhhhhhh….AHHHHHH   I BELIEVE!!!! I BELIEVE!!!!!!!
      oh, wait, I probably should have redacted those whole last two sections….heh heh..just forget it, it never happened that way.

  • For those interested in both sides of the climate change debate, Dr. Curry’s blog Climate Etc. is a must-read. It is the origin of the article that appears in Climate Depot.

    Dr. Curry is persuaded by the general outline of climate change theory, but considers the IPCC and some climate scientists to have overstated the certainties and engaged in shoddy practices. She also believes in promoting dialog between climate science and its skeptics. IMO she has integrity and courage, and deserves support.

    • Looking at the skeptics, I don’t see many seriously engaged who claim to have, in any way, disproven GW. What they have been poking is the “certainties and shoddy practicies” as you indicate. Yet they are attacked as “deniers”.

      • True. Most of the skeptics on CE are more upset about the way climate scientists are doing science and using science for advocacy. Yes, “denier” frosts my a**.

        Curry’s post did smoke out Gavin Schmidt of NASA, a member of the Climategate gang, to post on her blog. It’s an epic blog showdown. Scroll past everyone else. Just attend to the Gavin and Curry posts:

  • Pingback: Eco-Fail