like this, in your latest series of posts within this thread, you've quite liberally applied the use of the labels/accusations, "fraud", "dishonesty", "deceptive"...
although we've danced this dance before, be precise, be very, very precise: identify your basis for such applied labels/accusations.This issue is not about the peer reviewed literature where the data was shown. It is about graphs prepared for policy makers which failed to show the data. This was a deliberate attempt to deceive policy makers.
The entire issue shows how climate scientists manipulate data in order to promote the conclusions they want to promote and why group think is a serious problem even though you deny it
as I said, be precise... be very precise: What graphs? What data manipulation by climate scientists?
IPCC TAR WG1 SPM (Summary for PolicyMakers): Page 3 - graphic b as titled, "Variations of the Earth's surface temperature for: the past 1000 years":
Additionally, the year by year (blue curve) and 50 year average (black curve) variations of the average surface temperature of the Northern Hemisphere for the past 1000 years have been reconstructed from “proxy” data calibrated against thermometer data (see list of the main proxy data in the diagram). The 95% confidence range in the annual data is represented by the grey region. These uncertainties increase in more distant times and are always much larger than in the instrumental record due to the use of relatively sparse proxy data. Nevertheless the rate and duration of warming of the 20th century has been much greater than in any of the previous nine centuries. Similarly, it is likely7 that the 1990s have been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium. [Based upon Chapter 2, Figure 2.7c and Chapter 2, Figure 2.20]
per a previous MLW post, IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 6 – Palaeoclimate - 6.6.1 Northern Hemisphere Temperature Variability
If you don't think the graph is deceptive......then there's nothing that can be done for you. Your efforts to pull in all sorts of counter arguments to excuse the deception are valiant but the fact is - the graph is deceptive....period. It tries to deceive....period. Science should be better. a footnote? Oh… you want an explanatory footnote! Well skippy, there was much more than your called for “footnote”. The actual IPCC report graphic itself presents 12 reconstructions and the available instrumental temperature record, all colour-code labelled and all superimposed overtop of each other – the Briffa2001 reconstruction being one of the 12. The graphic, Figure 6.10 as referenced in the following quote, clearly shows the post-1960 period point where the Briffa reconstruction ended… while also showing all 11 of the other various scientist’s reconstructions continuing uninterrupted – continuing to show increased warming. The actual accompanying IPCC AR4 report text itself reads: Several analyses of ring width and ring density chronologies, with otherwise well-established sensitivity to temperature, have shown that they do not emulate the general warming trend evident in instrumental temperature records over recent decades, although they do track the warming that occurred during the early part of the 20th century and they continue to maintain a good correlation with observed temperatures over the full instrumental period at the interannual time scale (Briffa et al., 2004; D’Arrigo, 2006). This ‘divergence’ is apparently restricted to some northern, high-latitude regions, but it is certainly not ubiquitous even there. In their large-scale reconstructions based on tree ring density data, Briffa et al. (2001) specifically excluded the post-1960 data in their calibration against instrumental records, to avoid biasing the estimation of the earlier reconstructions (hence they are not shown in Figure 6.10), implicitly assuming that the ‘divergence’ was a uniquely recent phenomenon, as has also been argued by Cook et al. (2004a). Others, however, argue for a breakdown in the assumed linear tree growth response to continued warming, invoking a possible threshold exceedance beyond which moisture stress now limits further growth (D’Arrigo et al., 2004). If true, this would imply a similar limit on the potential to reconstruct possible warm periods in earlier times at such sites. At this time there is no consensus on these issues (for further references see NRC, 2006) and the possibility of investigating them further is restricted by the lack of recent tree ring data at most of the sites from which tree ring data discussed in this chapter were acquired.
oh ya - so deceptive - to morons who wish to purposely push doubt and uncertainty. You just won't read the exact printed report words - will you?
so… again… most emphatically, “hiding in plain sight”. I trust this will (finally) end another one of the baseless Riverwind parroted Hackergate denier talking points.
