Mikey chopped down Briffa’s trees to make his hockey stick, and his justification was that it didn’t match (tampered) GISS data. All of the red section of the line is deleted data.
The Deleted Portion of the Briffa Reconstruction « Climate Audit
If we compare Briffa’s reconstruction against a legitimate data set, like the 1975 National Academy of Sciences graph – we see a different story.
The next graph overlays Briffa’s reconstruction on the NAS graph, and you can see that the deleted portion was actually correct.
What this means is that Hansen’s data tampering had to be done first, in order to clear the way for Mikey to make the fake hockey stick.
Mosher says that GISS data is first rate science.
Play it again, Sam…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dul_hYde0nk
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2119.txt
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
The same peak around 1940 and cooling down to approx 1965 turns up on one of Briffa’s newer temperature reconstruction efforts:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/
Mosher is a &*@^ing tool.
Amen !
Seconded.
“I’ve just completed Mike’s [Mann] Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s [Briffa] to hide the decline.” — Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Nov. 16, 1999
“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…” — Dr. Tim Osborn, Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Dec. 20, 2006
“Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.” — Dr. Tom Wigley, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, on adjusting global temperature data, disclosed Climategate e-mail to Phil Jones, Sep. 28, 2008
“Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have. The data are attached to this e-mail. They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use.” — Dr. Tom Wigley, Oct. 5, 1999 to Michael Mann
You can’t make a hockey stick without cutting some trees. Nice post, and goes in the ‘data fraud’ file.
Mann’s work is as dodgy as Mosher’s shift key apparently is.