Do you think the best way to hide something is to publish it in a prominent worldwide journal?

Question

Our resident self-proclaimed geologist denier claims that Jones and his devious climate science buddies were "trying to hide...several proxies that began to level out or indicate cooling in the 1980s".

Perhaps our resident geologist is unaware that the 'divergence problem' has been discussed extensively in the peer-reviewed literature, including by Phil Jones. Here is one example of a paper published in Nature in 1997 co-authored by Briffa and Jones.

"During the second half of the twentieth century, the decadal-scale trends in wood density and summer temperatures have increasingly diverged as wood density has progressively fallen. The cause of this increasing insensitivity of wood density to temperature changes is not known, but if it is not taken into account in dendroclimatic reconstructions, past temperatures could be overestimated."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0.html

So if they're trying to "hide the decline" in the tree ring data, they're hiding it by discussing it in one of the most prominent and widely-read scientific publications in the world. Do you think the best way to hide something is to publish it in a prominent worldwide journal? Or is it perhaps deniers who "are quick to throw out accusations of lying while enabling actual lies and distortions....because of...political bias"?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100420084634AA20fO1

Also, what "several proxies" is he referring to? The divergence problem as far as I know is limited to tree rings in northern latitudes.

Answer 1

The whole climate change debate seems to me as having the whole scientific community trying to dissuade parts of the population from believing in witches... Regardless of how much denialists are reasoned with or referred to scientifically reliable sources, they keep on going to fringe websites that provide them with endless "proofs" that witches exists and they continuously regurgitate the same dispelled lies over and over.

Answer 2

they try, yet they “artwork” is so non-medical (for the easy reason they have no medical evidence) and their conventional scholarship is so unfavorable that they fail to fulfill even the main undemanding expert standards. and you're astonishing: if any graduate student got here upon evidence that contradicted the belief of evolution, they might force over their own mothers to get the recommendations printed and to the conventional public. all people with such evidence might pass at once to the front of the Nobel line and can be the main famous scientist interior the worldwide—and their discovery would desire to arguably be seen to be the perfect and maximum important interior the full history of technological awareness. And, i understand what I’m talking approximately. I certainly have printed on my own analyze in, between others: The worldwide magazine of Climatology; worldwide exchange Biology; climate Dynamics, and The magazine of Climatic exchange.

Answer 3

Obviously they (climate scientists) must believe in the old 'hide in plain site', knowing that deniers will never read the literature, and then will make the excuse that the literature is flawed, distorted, manipulated, bought, sold, raped, sodomized, and other forms of degradation. You know, rather than actually review it and submit any 'flaws' that they 'find', they will blog about it or if they really lack ambition, comment on blogs about it.



_

Answer 4

there is no rational link between the pastiche the denialists made out of the stolen emails, and what they actually said.



So, dana, as repeated investigations have found, there IS no case to answer; and you'll never answer the non-existent case to Jim z's satisfaction anyway.

Answer 5

I think it's best just to let Steve McIntyre explain it: http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/



I'm sure realclimate.org has a response to that. So I don't know why minions like us with 1/1000 the knowledge of those guys even need to try to replicate their arguments.

Answer 6

I guess when climate science can predict the weather past 48 HOURS with more than 50% accuracy i might start to believe what they tell me about the next few YEARS.

Answer 7

They didn't publish the lie. They published the distored manufactured hockey stick graph. This graph was made with tricks to hide the declines in their cherry picked proxies. These declines (one leveled off) were made to dissappear with Mann's trick of pasting on more convenient temperature graphs precisely where their proxies diverge from reality. You really have to be joking about the peer reviewed literature. Didn't you get the email that they were controlling that as well. Get with program.