“Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil”

What they are doing is selecting the data from the tree rings that supports their contention, from the earlier years, and appending to that the temperature data that is more directly measured for the later years, that supports their contention. It’s a mix-and-match game that they are playing, sort of like cherry-picking the data to show what they want to show. Notice that Phil boasts that with this trick, the estimate for 1999 for the Northern Hemisphere is +.44 degrees C with respect to 1961 to 1990. Wouldn’t it have been more honest to show either all tree-ring data, or all direct temperature data, instead of the mixing of data?