2011-03-30 08:44:51Steve McIntyre critiques Muller Misinformation #1
John Cook



In essence, he affirms Muller's error so suits me :-)

2011-03-30 08:52:16weak
Dana Nuccitelli

Yeah I read that this morning.  Seemed like a pretty flaccid critique.  For one thing he claimed

"The splicing of instrumental values before smoothing is proven beyond any doubt."

I'm not sure McIntyre knows what 'splicing' is.  To me it means cutting and joining two ends together.  All Mann did was plot instrumental temperatures on the same axes, but he showed the whole record.  I don't really care if he smoothed them at the same time.

"I disagree with Cook’s assertion that the decline was properly disclosed in spaghetti graphs in either IPCC or academic literature."

He doesn't explain why he disagrees or defend his position in any way on this.  Considering that we've documented the IPCC 'hide the decline' discussion, McIntyre loses that point.  And it's certainly been discussed in academic literature.  In fact in the next sentence, he says

"The decline itself was indeed reported in early Briffa articles"

In academic articles perhaps, Steve?  Nice contradiction.

2011-03-30 19:01:10Info about McIntyre's post
John Cook


An email from Arthur Smith:

I thoroughly investigated one of the claims of instrumental smoothing ("Mike's trick") made by Steven Mosher here:


and found it utterly false. The only possible remaining case that "UC" had was one where the "instrumental" smoothing was actually a smooth by extrapolating the record with zero's (the instrumental average for climatology) which is an extreme stretching of the claim. McIntyre wrote a whole post attacking me because, he claimed, he never actually said what Mosher did. Mosher apologized, he got it wrong. They have nothing there.

And more...

this piece by DeepClimate dispels this McIntyre lie: