CRU: Hiding the Decline

The CRU “trick” to “hide the decline” is explained now by Marc Sheppard at American Thinker.com. As might be suspected, the "decline" in question does turn out to be the proxy decline during the late 1990’s and 2000’s, but possibly not in fashion one might suspect.

What happened is that the proxy temperatures did not match the measured temperatures for the last few decades. The proxy record is used as a substitute for actual measurements, which did not exist prior to approximately 1800. So tree rings and other records occurring naturally were “calibrated” for use as substitutes for making historical records further back than 1800. These are called proxies, and they are absolutely necessary for proving that warming is man-made.

The problem that arose was this: the proxies did not work on the up side of 1980; they failed to match the temperature records made with recording devices after 1980. Now one might think that this would invalidate the proxies as being predictive, when they don’t even match modern records – and one would be right. Unless one works at the CRU.

Jones et. al. at the CRU used a “trick” to avoid acknowledging the severe discrepancy between data types, proxy vs. modern measurement. It worked like this: at some point on the curve, the later data from proxies ceases to exist on the graph. It is gone, purged. This leaves the measured data as the sole indicator to the eye of the observer.

The other problem that the CRU protagonists had is that the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age data from the proxies rendered the modern temperature rise less than marginally interesting. So the CRU crew attacked both the MWP and the LIA, ultimately removing them altogether from their data.

This makes two manipulations that were made precisely to force the false appearance of an extra high temperature for the last century. It was totally fabricated.

Sheppard provides a graph from a previously released data set at NOAA, by Anders Mosberg of Stockholm University. Mosberg took proxy data from tree rings, lake and ocean sediments, which is claimed to agree well with borehole measurements, and which shows that the MWP and LIA definitely exist. A graph is here:



So we have three things going on in the CRU story. First the millennial history is distorted by eliminating the highs and lows. Second, the modern history is distorted due to sloppy science techniques with regard to measured data gathering and management. Third, the actual modern temperature trend as indicated by the proxy has been deliberately purged, even though it matches the trends we all see today: no warming increase.

And imagine that the last several decades actually decline, according to the proxies! The devastation to the AGW cash cow is obvious.

Here is the hocky stick curve. Notice that the proxies end in 1980. Notice that the MWP and TIA are missing altogether. Notice that the measured temperatures rise drastically.



This adds up to motive, opportunity, and hard evidence. Ignorance won't suffice as an excuse (after all they are the experts we are supposed to trust). We have been aware of heat dome and calibration faults in land based stations for years. The AGW and LIA are confirmed by proxy data. The hockey stick curve is a blatant manipulation in order to preserve an opinion; it is false, fraudulent, and it is not science.

The real question now is whether the science community will rally around the grail of objective science, or whether it will commit slow suicide by protecting falseness and its perpetrators. Apparently Scientific American has already chosen the latter route.