Unwinding "Hide the Decline"

What network of thermometers were used to construct an instrumental global temperature average in 1730?

Anyway, this video is really weak.

I love this line about the trick to hide the decline.

"It wasn't all that tricky, nothing was hidden, and there was no decline."

Oh, ok then.

>this video is really weak.

And yet you haven't managed to refute a single one of the points that it made. That suggests you're even stupider than the usual pathetic standard of denialist trolls.

The inanity of the first two comments here doesn't augur well for the quality of this thread.

The case for a single comment thread to which all ignorant, lazy, time-wasting trolls can be permanently confined gets stronger by the day.

Of course there's always a risk that so much wilful idiocy in one place will reach critical mass and cause some sort of chain reaction of stupidity that brings the entire internet down.

But I think it's a risk worth taking.

I can't watch this until I get home, but I've seen, I think, all of his earlier videos and I've found them all to be very impressive.

Ta for the tip off on his latest.

Juice. Noun. A person who despite a profound lack of intelligence and inability to actually understand simple high school level scientific concepts and logic, can still access the internet.

Meanwhile [our ABC courtesy of IPA](http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/387130.html) maintains the rage against AGW.

Might be worthwhile checking out who's funding IPA on this.

I was not going to watch this because I have heard enough about the "hide the decline" farce, but I am glad I did because of the second part about the Muller's case. I haven't followed that one closely, so it was very 'entertaining'.

Apparently the wet troll watched almost 18 minutes of careful documentation of the denialist lies about the stolen CRU emails, and still managed to fall into exactly the same inanely stupid misunderstanding that was the very subject of Sinclair's piece.

The only reasons that a 'debate' about the anthropogenic cause of current global warming still exists are:

1. the mainstream media want to fuel controversy simply to make for themselves additional revenue
2. the internet allows fools and liars to pretend that they know better than the world's climatologists, physicists, chemists, ecologists, statisticians, and other appropriately qualified scientific professionals
3. too many of the Western lay public are too entrenched in their comfortable ways of life to want to hear the bottom line
4. except for a few indepents and Greens, Western politicians are a gormless bunch of ethical cowards who care more for their careers and personal benefits, for their mates' vested interests, and/or for their ideological/superstitious beliefs, than for the future of the planet, its ecology, and the generations of humans who have no say in how we are currently trashing it for them.

Peter Sinclair can be justly proud of his personal efforts to make a difference for the planet.

The pity is that there are just too many others who are nothing but piling trash, getting in the way of any progress toward a society that might actually be able to manage a sustainable future.

The die has already been cast, and the outcome will be bleak, and all we can do now as a species is to decide if the future is only going to be extremely bleak, or if it will be impossibly bleak.

And if the heavy presence and influence in our societies of the likes of "juice" and his cronies are any indication, we won't even manage that decision until it's too late.

What Gaz said. It's time for Deltoid to have its own version of The Bore Hole

How about giving the wankers their own playpen and calling it Doltoid?

I think that the video would be made stronger if it zoomed in more on the nature of "the divergence" of the tree proxy temperatures from local thermometric data; perhaps also showing how other proxy data matches since 1961, for that local data. Otherwise, it sounds too hand-wavy, and that will make the more paranoid viewer think something sneaky is going on (in Peter's video). As it stands, even though I get it, I don't feel persuaded by this video on this particular point. Generally I enjoy Peter Sinclair's offerings, but this one lacks the oomph of some of the earlier ones.

Still good though; hope there are more to come.

> How about giving the wankers their own playpen and calling it Doltoid?

I think it's kind of interesting for each to have their own thread - it gives each some kind of individual feedback on their particular schtick, even if it's only complete lack of interest from anyone with a clue...

On the other hand, how could anyone pass up a name as good as Doltoid?! ;-)

"On the other hand, how could anyone pass up a name as good as Doltoid?!"

As much as I hate to say it, I think Spangled Drongo (#24) has the IP on that one.

foram @13: But surely, to claim intellectual property rights Spangled Drongo would need to demonstrate an intellect?

Now speaking of Anthony Watts, has anyone heard of how he is faring with his sombre pledge to "accept whatever result they produce", now that the Berkeley project has upheld the work of NOAA, NASA etc on global warming since 1900, and found that urban heat island effect doesn't actually bias the results (as has been already published in numerous papers over the years)?

Just interested, ya know, 'cos it wouldn't be like Anthony to furiously backpeddle on something if it didn't turn out to meet his preconceived ideas.........

Excellent work!

There's a [thread](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/04/everything_you_need_to_know_…) on this video at Pharyngula.

> ...'cos it wouldn't be like Anthony to furiously backpeddle on something if it didn't turn out to meet his preconceived ideas.

[Hmmmm, Watts on BEST](http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/29/wattsupwiththat-attack-fabricatio…). Is it denial, backpedalling, goalpost shifting, full frontal (erroneous) attack, "look over there" distractions, ... or most of the above? I haven't been following what's happened since that post on March 29, so there's probably more.

I very much doubt he's shut down his denialist business though.

1. the mainstream media want to fuel controversy simply to make for themselves additional revenue

Not in the UK. You'd be hard pressed to find a single report by the BBC critical of AGW in any way whatsoever.

2. the internet allows fools and liars to pretend that they know better than the world's climatologists, physicists, chemists, ecologists, statisticians, and other appropriately qualified scientific professionals

Yes, terrible thing, freedom of speech.

3. too many of the Western lay public are too entrenched in their comfortable ways of life to want to hear the bottom line

Like most of the people reading this - or have you all ditched your cars, computers and heating.

4. except for a few indepents and Greens, Western politicians are a gormless bunch of ethical cowards who care more for their careers and personal benefits, for their mates' vested interests, and/or for their ideological/superstitious beliefs, than for the future of the planet, its ecology, and the generations of humans who have no say in how we are currently trashing it for them.

By "trashing", I think you mean civilization.

Regarding the video, exactly what was the explanation for the divergence of tree ring data? None? Oh well, probably not important.

Malcolm Hex:

the mainstream media want to fuel controversy simply to make for themselves additional revenue

Not in the UK. You'd be hard pressed to find a single report by the BBC critical of AGW in any way whatsoever.

Congratulations. You have now realized that the prime purpose of the BBC is not to make additional revenue.

Regarding the video, exactly what was the explanation for the divergence of tree ring data? None? Oh well, probably not important.

No, not when that data is not used.

Malcolm Hex.

You are another [example human-induced climate change Denial Silence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/03/shorter_clive_james.php#comment…).

Not in the UK. You'd be hard pressed to find a single report by the BBC critical of AGW in any way whatsoever.

So the BBC is the premier resource for deniers of anthropogenic global warming?

Your claim is a strawman.

Yes, terrible thing, freedom of speech.

Did I decry freedom of speech?

No, I simply pointed out that the internet removes adequate scrutiny of the veracity of what deniers say, when they are exercising their freedom of speech.

Your statement is a strawman.

Like most of the people reading this - or have you all ditched your cars, computers and heating.

I've reduced to almost a third of the Australian average, my annual carbon emissions. If you were a regular reader of Deltoid you'd know that I've spoken on a number of occasions of my efforts to reduce my environmental footprint.

Your speculation is wrong, and it is a strawman.

By "trashing", I think you mean civilization.

No, I mean "...the planet, its ecology, and the generations of humans..." as they will all exist in the future.

"Civilisation" is just a small part of that picture.

Your interpretation is wrong, and it is a strawman.

Regarding the video, exactly what was the explanation for the divergence of tree ring data? None? Oh well, probably not important.

"None" is the wrong answer, and "probably not important" is just as incorrect.

It's telling that you are unable to comprehend either.

Your conclusion is in error, and it is a strawman.

As I said, Denial Silence...

Meanwhile [our ABC courtesy of IPA](http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/387130.html) maintains the rage against AGW.

Might be worthwhile checking out who's funding IPA on this.

I thought it was all so old that I can't understand how all the videos talking about the "scandal" and making jokes over the scientific conspiracy and all that are still online. It's like a parallel reality. It's almost scary, that' real denial, but in the other hand I think it makes easy to make fun at them. I'm just not sure if that's really a good strategy to try to bring people back to reality.

> You'd be hard pressed to find a single report by the BBC critical of AGW in any way whatsoever.

You'd be hard pressed to find them reporting how the earth is, in fact, flat.

Why is it that deniers cannot get the idea that maybe THEIR hypothesis is wrong? They're awful hot on the idea that if a theory fails a test against data that it should be dropped, as long as they insist it's AGW that must be dropped.

Meanwhile [our ABC courtesy of IPA](http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/387130.html) maintains the rage against AGW.

Might be worthwhile checking out who's funding IPA on this.

Meanwhile [our ABC courtesy of IPA](http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/387130.html) maintains the rage against AGW.

Might be worthwhile checking out who's funding IPA on this.

Meanwhile [our ABC courtesy of IPA](http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/387130.html) maintains the rage against AGW.

Might be worthwhile checking out who's funding IPA on this.

Meanwhile [our ABC courtesy of IPA](http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/387130.html) maintains the rage against AGW.

Might be worthwhile checking out who's funding IPA on this.

Meanwhile [our ABC courtesy of IPA](http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/387130.html) maintains the rage against AGW.

Might be worthwhile checking out who's funding IPA on this.