A Truly Sisyphean Task in the Climate Change AreaWhen the cards are really stacked against you, it is easy to see how someone might give up. But Ross McKitrick will not quit, as Andrew Montford points out here.
The dishonesty of the warmists is on display in a major way; Montford's reading suggestions are worthy. (A sensible shortcut would be to simply read the two McKitrick docs.)
As part of what you will read are the questions that astonish me about the 'hide the decline' 'trick', which has been characterized by some as an innocent bit of wit. Instead it seems to me an utter violation of the whole point of science, and Ross summarizes it really well:
Jones felt it was necessary to hide the decline in tree ring records. He may very well have felt that way, but the point is he did not tell the reader what he was doing. Had he done so, the reader might well have asked why the tree ring data should be considered an accurate record of temperatures in previous centuries if it doesn’t appear to be one in this century; and why we should assume the tree ring records would have tracked medieval warmth if they are obviously not tracking modern warmth. The decision to hide the decline prevented the reader from seeing the uncertainties and weaknesses in the model.Amen! The promulgators of these godawful IPCC graphs deserve utterly zero respect in their claims to be scientists.