Over at Climate etc., Judith Curry has
gone off the deep end decided to boost her hit count smear climate science chum like crazy address “hide the decline”. In doing so, she smears climate scientists involved in producing the IPCC AR4 and the WMO 1999 report.
Bad science and/or dishonesty?
There is no question that the diagrams and accompanying text in the IPCC TAR, AR4 and WMO 1999 are misleading. I was misled. Upon considering the material presented in these reports, it did not occur to me that recent paleo data was not consistent with the historical record. The one statement in AR4 (put in after McIntyre’s insistence as a reviewer) that mentions the divergence problem is weak tea.
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. [my emphasis in the body of the text]
Gavin Schmidt shows up to try to counter this blatant smear with logic:
One can have a difference of opinion in how to present a graph, and that depends entirely on what point you want to make. If you want to make a point about multi-decadal temperature changes in the past, it makes sense to include estimates of those temperatures and the uncertainties. It doesn’t make much sense to include annual estimates, or seasonal estimates, or parts of the curve that the originators think doesn’t reflect actual temperatures (for whatever reason). The only issue is to ensure that the graph is sufficiently documented so that these choices are clear (which in the WMO report they were not sufficiently so, but were fine in the IPCC graphs).
But to ascribe a difference of opinion to dishonesty is to remove yourself from any sensible discussion on the topic.
Gavin, the field does not need any more summary graphs of this nature. They have done an enormous disservice to climate science and its credibility. Continuing to defend these kinds of graphs is beyond anything I can understand. Leaving out that data and putting a “likely” confidence level on conclusions from that data is bad science, anyway you slice it. If you don’t like dishonest, try misguided and pseudoscience. There is no way this is defensible scientific practice. I really hope we don’t see any more of these kinds of graphs, in the AR5 or elsewhere. I’ve tiptoed around this one long enough, I’m calling it like I see it.
In recognition of her bravery for calling out the corrupted climate scientists in their misleading and dishonest behavior, the Curryites have proclaimed Judith Curry the “Jeanne d’Arc” of science for her brave willingness to take on the climate science establishment.
Here’s the comment that plucked my giggle string:
Reading this thread one cannot deny that Dr.Schmidt personally hit the final nail in the AGW coffin, firmly assisted by the usual answer bots. I agree with Tomas Milanovic (always enjoying your comments btw) that this thread is a true pedagogic experience showing the continuous demasquee of the AGW incrowd.
Dr.Curry, much respect for your courage facing the AGW bloodhounds like a true Joan of Arc as you have a lot to lose.
misuse sciencespoil the sacraments of the Church, you gave an enormous black eye for the credibility of the IPCC and climate sciencetear up the articles of the Faith, you have done an enormous disservice to climate science and its credibilitydestroy the churches, you produce bad science, anyway you slice itbreak and burn the statues which were set up as memorials, you don’t like dishonest, try misguided and pseudosciencemassacre Christians because they preserve the true Faith. [my liberties]
“…my bridge building was not particularly focused on connecting the consensus scientists and the skeptics. My main motive is protecting the integrity of the science. I am personally reaching out to a broad range of people and trying to get things back on a sensible track for climate science, and by now i know that this return to sensibility will not come from within the climate establishment.” [my emphasis]
Now if that isn’t chum for the denialist crowd, I don’t know what is.
Here’s her chorus:
I think you are showing remarkable courage to stray from the herd! The reaction from them shows what this is really all about… and it ain’t science. That said, with luck and time, real science will prevail. So onward Climate Soldier!
Thank goodness we still have people with your fine character. I assure you there are many not commenting here that thank you as I do. And, I appreciate you providing that link to Dr. Matthews. Made some missing pieces very clear. Just had to say.
“Can anyone defend “hide the decline”? I would much prefer to be wrong in my interpretation, but I fear that I am not.”
Thank you for the bravery of the post, considering your pseudo-’peers’ have no stomach for truth in this instance.
You are a brave woman Judith, keep up the good work its the science that matters and the methods you described by Mann & co are not science, I say that as someone who believes that man has been warming the planet up a tad, how much who knows
Well, there’s much more of that for those who can stomach it. I tried to stand it as long as possible but the stupid hurt my brain so I finally gave up. But it is very enlightening.
As an antidote to the stupid, I propose laughter and so, in the same vein as Eli Rabett, I post for your comedy delectation, a video that is apropos Curry the Champion of Science:
“All right, I am the Messiah!”
“He is! He is the Messiah!”
Off the deep end, as far as I can tell.