Unwinding “Hide the Decline”

April 28, 2011

After more than 6 weeks of research and mucking through skull-exploding, mind numbing distortions, contortions, and misrepresentations of this story, I’ve finally finished my video on that most toxic meme  that came out of the enormous nothing-burger called  “climate-gate”  — the phrase “hide the decline”.

Like Obama’s birth certificate, the truth will never make a dent on the committed crazies of climate denial, but I think this is worth watching for citizens, bloggers, or researchers who are trying to get their arms around the story, and appreciate how much the media helped, or hurt, understanding of the issue.

Working on this, plus keeping up with the Fukushima story, has been a huge time sink, but I hope now to get back to more regular video releases.

34 Responses to “Unwinding “Hide the Decline””

  1. otter17 Says:

    Haha, I didn’t know that Anthony Watts never received a college diploma, or at least he has refused to give credentials when asked or post them on his blog’s “about” page.

    This is all that is mentioned on WUWT.
    “While I’m not a degreed climate scientist, I’ll point out that neither is Al Gore, and his specialty is presentation also.”

    That is just too funny.

    Absolutely awesome video. Lays it out there clearly. I wish I made the time to see it sooner.


  2. […] who thinks that Richard Muller has any credibility at all should see this recent video report by Peter Sinclair, which shows him clearly lying about the science and the scientists. There is no […]


  3. […] And read more about it from the creator, Peter Sinclair. […]


  4. […] by darth omar They had no concerns? I though that was the whole point of 'hiding the decline'? Unwinding “Hide the Decline” Climate Denial Crock of the Week The clip above should answer any questions about "hiding the decline"…. In short all […]


  5. […] WMC that this changes basically nothing about my opinion of Muller himself. The charges that Muller grossly distorted the truth about the so-called “hockey stick” controversy, he doesn’t appear to really even understand basic aspects of climate science, etc. stand. My […]

  6. Orson Olson Says:

    I found this video to be rather detailed and interesting. However, since Muller cited a warming of 1.2C since 1900 in his congressional testimony, and since the satellite microwave data have settled on a linear trend of 1.4C per century (using about 33 years of data), then where is the evidence of anomalous, alarming heat?

    And isn’t this difference of 0.2C within the error range cited for the ground temperature data sets?

    • greenman3610 Says:

      not sure what you are asking. the rate of change over the last century is anomalous in the record over
      at least the last 2000 years, and is much more rapid than during the changes from glacial to interglacial
      in the ice core record. The various records have slight differences – and it should be noted that
      Muller’s study is land based temps, if I understand correctly, and the satellite, CRU, and GISS
      temps are land/ocean.

  7. Orson Olson Says:

    Nevertheless, admitting that the “divergence problem” remains a problem does weaken the claim that tree ring proxies is a reliable method for reconstructing temperature values. And so long as this problem remains unresolved, caution in its use and full-disclosure of its neglect is scientifically warranted.

    This was not done, as Muller notes. Furthermore, in Muller’s original video (neglected in the above), he goes on to adamantly state “this is not Berkeley science.” By contrast, Penn State’s Richard Alley in ETOM accepts your argument.

    Clearly, reasonable scientists have dared to disagree about disclosure here. Why is that?

    Isn’t “Mike’s Nature Trick” by itself an admission of a failure to exercise full disclosure because to do so would weaken the advocates stance? Isn’t this an unethical nondisclosure? A ‘finger on the scales’ because the audience (presumably) can’t handle seemingly adverse data?

    It is to me.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      you didn’t watch the video closely. All adjustments were fully disclosed in the peer reviewed literature. Tricks not so tricky. Nothing hidden. No decline.


  8. […] in case you didn’t get enough of this in Episode 19, here is Peter Sinclair’s excellent take on Muller’s hide the decline […]

  9. bobklahn Says:

    Now all you need is James Earl Jones to do a remake of the audio commentary.

    Nice analysis, and the video quality even plays well full screen.

    Thanks for the download link, I have saved this.


  10. […] These awards are won by popular vote, rather than merit. Those that rouse or manufacture enough support, can engineer a win in the submitted category – in this case resulting in “science” awards for a blog that routinely misinforms on scientific subjects and even slanders scientists. […]


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: