Obama Will Attend Climate Talks In Copenhagen

Of course he is.

Just one question for oppressives. What do you folks plan on eating when this bust out is complete?

How perfect. The president is attending Climate Talks based on fraudulent data and picking up the now meaningless Nobel Peace prize. All the while spewing the dreaded carbon through his airplane travel.

The scientists at CRU apparently don't know that the scientific method ENDS with a conclusion derived from observation and data. It does not START with a conclusion (man-made global warming) and then make the observations and data fit the conclusion.

1. Given that the Senate hasn't passed anything yet, is Obama going to Copenhagen only to weaken the future treaty and protect corporate interests? After all, that is what he did at the G20 when he nixed the real regulatory reforms suggested by Angela Merkel, to protect Wall Street.

2. I don't know why global warming science drives right-wingers into such a frenzy, as illustrated above. Do they think that if they repeat "data" and "proof" enough times in their posts, it will make them look smarter, or at least not complete flat-Earthers? Sorry science doesn't work like that, get a PhD and publish articles in top publications if you want to influence the scientific debate.

hmmmm....

"In two other programs, briffa_Sep98_d.pro and briffa_Sep98_e.pro, the "correction" is bolder by far. The programmer (Keith Briffa?) entitled the "adjustment" routine “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” And he or she wasn't kidding. Now IDL is not a native language of mine, but its syntax is similar enough to others I'm familiar with, so please bear with me while I get a tad techie on you.

Here's the "fudge factor" (notice the brash SOB actually called it that in his REM statement):

yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

These two lines of code establish a twenty-element array (yrloc) comprising the year 1400 (base year, but not sure why needed here) and nineteen years between 1904 and 1994 in half-decade increments. Then the corresponding "fudge factor" (from the valadj matrix) is applied to each interval. As you can see, not only are temperatures biased to the upside later in the century (though certainly prior to 1960), but a few mid-century intervals are being biased slightly lower. That, coupled with the post-1930 restatement we encountered earlier, would imply that in addition to an embarrassing false decline experienced with their MXD after 1960 (or earlier), CRU's "divergence problem" also includes a minor false incline after 1930.

And the former apparently wasn't a particularly well-guarded secret, although the actual adjustment period remained buried beneath the surface.

Plotting programs such as data4alps.pro print this reminder to the user prior to rendering the chart:

IMPORTANT NOTE: The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring density variations, but have been modified to look more like the observed temperatures.

Others, such as mxdgrid2ascii.pro, issue this warning:

NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values will be much closer to observed temperatures then (sic) they should be which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).

Care to offer another explanation, Dr. Jones?

Gotcha

Clamoring alarmists can and will spin this until they're dizzy. The ever-clueless mainstream media can and will ignore this until it's forced upon them as front-page news, and then most will join the alarmists on the denial merry-go-round.

But here's what’s undeniable: If a divergence exists between measured temperatures and those derived from dendrochronological data after (circa) 1960, then discarding only the post-1960 figures is disingenuous, to say the least. The very existence of a divergence betrays a potential serious flaw in the process by which temperatures are reconstructed from tree-ring density. If it's bogus beyond a set threshold, then any honest man of science would instinctively question its integrity prior to that boundary. And only the lowliest would apply a hack in order to produce a desired result.

And to do so without declaring as such in a footnote on every chart in every report in every study in every book in every classroom on every website that such a corrupt process is relied upon is not just a crime against science, it’s a crime against mankind."

"Bottom line: CRU's evidence is now irrevocably tainted. As such, all assumptions based on that evidence must now be reevaluated and re-adjudicated. And all policy based on those counterfeit assumptions must also be reexamined."

I guess the BIG question is... how much policy or planning is based on CRU's findings?