Thread by @ClimateAudit

bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00…
BBC propaganda on Climategate airing at 8:30PM BDT. Jones to be portrayed as a hero, instead of vain temperature accountant who said "Why should I make data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it? climateaudit.org/2005/10/15/we-…

while Climategate hack clearly originated from Jones' refusal of temperature data, nearly all of the emails were about controversies on proxy reconstructions (Hockey Stick) and had nothing to do with CRU temperature data. This was not understood by left, right or academics

3/ also, I told readers at the time that there was no reason to expect anything untoward in the station data that Phil Jones was wrongfully concealing. More likely that Jones was 1) just being a prick; 2) concealing triviality of his temperature accountancy.

4/ Michael Mann, on the other hand, really didn't want his "dirty laundry" to fall into the hands of skeptics. The shenanigans around the Hockey Stick, rather than Jones' temperature data, were the main theme of the Climategate emails.
climateaudit.org/2009/12/01/dir…

5/ one of the most important pieces of "dirty laundry" of the Climategate emails was a concerted effort by Mann and Jones to make proxy reconstructions look better than they were, most notably by "hiding the decline" in a reconstruction (Briffa) which went the "wrong" way - down.

6/ in a very important diagram in IPCC 2001 under Mann's supervision, declining late 20th century values of Briffa reconstruction were deleted. I noticed this in 2005 long before Climategate: climateaudit.org/2005/05/01/a-s…

7/ it was inconceivable to me that, for example, a fund mutual fund manager, purporting to show his portfolio, would simply chop off the portion of the price history where the stock collapsed at the end. Or that an equivalent practice would be condoned in climate industry.

8/ yet this was what had been done in IPCC 2001 in the chapter authored by Mann, to which Jones and Briffa contributed. But this was all known long before Climategate.

9/ what was new in Climategate was a disturbing series of behind-the-scenes emails which showed exactly how this pernicious sausage was made: Mann and coauthors were told by senior IPCC officials that their proxy reconstruction was a candidate
climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipc…

10/ for a very prominent role in IPCC Summary for Policy-makers (as it eventually was), but that senior officials were concerned that the Briffa reconstruction (with its decline) "diluted the message". Mann, then a junior post-doc, given IPCC responsibility far above his station,

11/ assured the officials that he was the last person in the world who wanted to "give fodder to skeptics". So in the next version of the IPCC graphic, the "decline" had been disappeared. Despite claims by Mann, Schmidt and others that the disappearance of the decline was a

12/ was a sophisticated mathematical "trick", it was nothing of the sort: it was the lowest sort of data concealment. Intended, as comedian Jon Stewart later observed, into "tricking you... into not knowing... about the decline".

13/ and yet, for years, academic climate scientists have pretended that this was just fine.