Tuesday, December 06, 2011

In case you missed it, damning ClimateGate emails from Tim Osborne: They didn't commit fraud, they just "applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data"

Tim Barnett on the hockey stick- “statistics were suspect”–the rest of the team knew of problems with Mann’s reconstruction | Watts Up With That?
#4758 Tim Osborne – Criticizing other people for doing the same thing
Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data ‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it! If we write the Holocene forum article then we’ll have to be critical or our paper as well as Crowley’s!
Tiim Osborne [#4005--corrected from 4007 thanks to a commenter]
Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were
Tim Osborne #2347
Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures – another way of “correcting” for the decline, though may be not defensible!


Jeff Alberts said...

Undefensible, yet they keep trying to defend it.

Anonymous said...

The completely artificial adjustment comment is actually in 4005.txt, not 4007.txt.