Global Warming: Bogus Al Gore Science Being Debunked
This article comes from Green Watch America, and be sure to add : newsletter @greenwatchamerica. net to your daily email to keep up to date on the Truths About Our Global Climate.
Legislation about to appear in Washington as a result of the bogus reports , described below, will be VERY EXPENSIVE for all of us. – Heilung
“It could be that the 2016 Games are the last Olympics in the history of mankind." - Governor Shintaro Ishihara of Tokyo (See end comment)
The truth is finally coming forth, about the bogus “Hockey Stick” - shaped temperature graph as used by Al Gore to promote his self-serving CO2 Cap and Trade agenda. The graph rises abruptly (forming the “handle”) around 1900 when industrialization allegedly increased atmospheric CO2 and thusly world temperatures. This trend was interpreted from some tree rings as described below. The Global Warming Myth is based largely on that presentation. It now seems that the scientific work was seriously corrupted. Maybe Al Gore should return his Nobel Prize. -Heilung
FROM: GREEN WATCH AMERICA
MONDAY OCTOBER 5TH, 2009MONDAY OCTOBER 5TH, 2009
By Patrick Gallagher, Editor Green Watch America
HEAR THAT SOUND? THAT DISTINCTIVE CRACK? IT'S THE SOUND OF A HOCKEY STICK SNAPPING IN HALF.
One of the most influential pieces of data supporting the Radical Global Warming Agenda is the infamous "hockey stick" graph. Developed by climatologist Michael Mann, the graph uses "bristlecone" [tree] data to show that the earth's temperatures have increased dramatically over the last century. The U.N. Intergovermental Panel on Climate relied on it heavily when it made its case for Anthropogenic [human-caused] global warming in 2001.
A scientist we've frequently reference and linked to in this space, Steve McIntyre, along with Ross McKitrick, a professor of environmental economics at the University of Guelph, has mathematically discredited the graph, arguing the bristlecone data was flawed. Expert panels agreed, and the Mann graph, or at least the science behind it, has been discredited. However it doesn't end there.
One panel examining the flawed Mann data conceded the errors but argued that other studies have found similar trends, so the premise couldn't be dismissed. Many of the studies were based on the same faulty data as the Mann graph, but some were based on alternative tree-ring data, compiled by a British scientist working in Siberia. His data also showed a relatively consistent global temperature for 900 years, culminating in a dramatic spike in the 20th century a la the hockey graph.
However, there were some shady aspects to this data. The primary one was the scientist's refusal to release his original data. Eventually he published a study in a magazine that required him to release that tree-ring data; the last data supporting the premise that the 20th centure was a period of dramatic and unprecedented warming. I'll let Ross McKitrick, writing in the National Post, take it from here:
"It turns out that many of the samples were taken from dead (partially fossilized) trees and they have no particular trend. The sharp uptrend in the late 20th century came from cores of 10 living trees alive as of 1990, and five living trees alive as of 1995. Based on scientific standards, this is too small a sample on which to produce a publication-grade proxy composite. The 18th and 19th century portion of the sample, for instance, contains at least 30 trees per year. But that portion doesn’t show a warming spike. The only segment that does is the late 20th century, where the sample size collapses. Once again a dramatic hockey stick shape turns out to depend on the least reliable portion of a dataset.
"But an even more disquieting discovery soon came to light. Steve searched a paleoclimate data archive to see if there were other tree ring cores from at or near the Yamal [Siberia] site that could have been used to increase the sample size. He quickly found a large set of 34 up-to-date core samples, taken from living trees in Yamal by none other than Schweingruber himself! Had these been added to Briffa’s small group the 20th century would simply be flat [temperatures]. It would appear completely unexceptional compared to the rest of the millennium.
"Combining data from different samples would not have been an unusual step. Briffa added data from another Schweingruber site to a different composite, from the Taimyr Peninsula. The additional data were gathered more than 400 km away from the primary site. And in that case the primary site had three or four times as many cores to begin with as the Yamal site. Why did he not fill out the Yamal data with the readily-available data from his own coauthor? Why did Briffa seek out additional data for the already well-represented Taimyr site and not for the inadequate Yamal site?
"Thus the key ingredient in most of the studies that have been invoked to support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series [data collection], depends on the influence of a woefully thin subsample of trees and the exclusion of readily-available data for the same area. Whatever is going on here, it is not science."
Here is a link (be forewarned: lots of science talk) to the data discrepancy. Mr. McIntyre's quote sums it up quite nicely: "I hardly know where to begin in terms of commentary on this difference."
More here from Anthony Watts.
Ross McKintrick writing in the National Post, ends his column with a first hand account and analyis of the troubles of global warming data that EVERYONE should read. It speaks for itself:
"I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. The surface temperature data is a contaminated mess with a significant warm bias, and as I have detailed elsewhere the IPCC fabricated evidence in its 2007 report to cover up the problem. Climate models are in gross disagreement with observations, and the discrepancy is growing with each passing year. The often-hyped claim that the modern climate has departed from natural variability depended on flawed statistical methods and low-quality data. The IPCC review process, of which I was a member last time, is nothing at all like what the public has been told: Conflicts of interest are endemic, critical evidence is systematically ignored and there are no effective checks and balances against bias or distortion...
"...Over the coming few years, as the costs of global warming policies mount and the evidence of a crisis continues to collapse, perhaps it will become socially permissible for people to start thinking for themselves again."
-Patrick Gallagher, Editor Green Watch America
--Copied by Heilung 10/5/09
Legislation about to appear in Washington as a result of the bogus reports , described below, will be VERY EXPENSIVE for all of us. – Heilung
“It could be that the 2016 Games are the last Olympics in the history of mankind." - Governor Shintaro Ishihara of Tokyo (See end comment)
The truth is finally coming forth, about the bogus “Hockey Stick” - shaped temperature graph as used by Al Gore to promote his self-serving CO2 Cap and Trade agenda. The graph rises abruptly (forming the “handle”) around 1900 when industrialization allegedly increased atmospheric CO2 and thusly world temperatures. This trend was interpreted from some tree rings as described below. The Global Warming Myth is based largely on that presentation. It now seems that the scientific work was seriously corrupted. Maybe Al Gore should return his Nobel Prize. -Heilung
FROM: GREEN WATCH AMERICA
MONDAY OCTOBER 5TH, 2009MONDAY OCTOBER 5TH, 2009
By Patrick Gallagher, Editor Green Watch America
HEAR THAT SOUND? THAT DISTINCTIVE CRACK? IT'S THE SOUND OF A HOCKEY STICK SNAPPING IN HALF.
One of the most influential pieces of data supporting the Radical Global Warming Agenda is the infamous "hockey stick" graph. Developed by climatologist Michael Mann, the graph uses "bristlecone" [tree] data to show that the earth's temperatures have increased dramatically over the last century. The U.N. Intergovermental Panel on Climate relied on it heavily when it made its case for Anthropogenic [human-caused] global warming in 2001.
A scientist we've frequently reference and linked to in this space, Steve McIntyre, along with Ross McKitrick, a professor of environmental economics at the University of Guelph, has mathematically discredited the graph, arguing the bristlecone data was flawed. Expert panels agreed, and the Mann graph, or at least the science behind it, has been discredited. However it doesn't end there.
One panel examining the flawed Mann data conceded the errors but argued that other studies have found similar trends, so the premise couldn't be dismissed. Many of the studies were based on the same faulty data as the Mann graph, but some were based on alternative tree-ring data, compiled by a British scientist working in Siberia. His data also showed a relatively consistent global temperature for 900 years, culminating in a dramatic spike in the 20th century a la the hockey graph.
However, there were some shady aspects to this data. The primary one was the scientist's refusal to release his original data. Eventually he published a study in a magazine that required him to release that tree-ring data; the last data supporting the premise that the 20th centure was a period of dramatic and unprecedented warming. I'll let Ross McKitrick, writing in the National Post, take it from here:
"It turns out that many of the samples were taken from dead (partially fossilized) trees and they have no particular trend. The sharp uptrend in the late 20th century came from cores of 10 living trees alive as of 1990, and five living trees alive as of 1995. Based on scientific standards, this is too small a sample on which to produce a publication-grade proxy composite. The 18th and 19th century portion of the sample, for instance, contains at least 30 trees per year. But that portion doesn’t show a warming spike. The only segment that does is the late 20th century, where the sample size collapses. Once again a dramatic hockey stick shape turns out to depend on the least reliable portion of a dataset.
"But an even more disquieting discovery soon came to light. Steve searched a paleoclimate data archive to see if there were other tree ring cores from at or near the Yamal [Siberia] site that could have been used to increase the sample size. He quickly found a large set of 34 up-to-date core samples, taken from living trees in Yamal by none other than Schweingruber himself! Had these been added to Briffa’s small group the 20th century would simply be flat [temperatures]. It would appear completely unexceptional compared to the rest of the millennium.
"Combining data from different samples would not have been an unusual step. Briffa added data from another Schweingruber site to a different composite, from the Taimyr Peninsula. The additional data were gathered more than 400 km away from the primary site. And in that case the primary site had three or four times as many cores to begin with as the Yamal site. Why did he not fill out the Yamal data with the readily-available data from his own coauthor? Why did Briffa seek out additional data for the already well-represented Taimyr site and not for the inadequate Yamal site?
"Thus the key ingredient in most of the studies that have been invoked to support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series [data collection], depends on the influence of a woefully thin subsample of trees and the exclusion of readily-available data for the same area. Whatever is going on here, it is not science."
Here is a link (be forewarned: lots of science talk) to the data discrepancy. Mr. McIntyre's quote sums it up quite nicely: "I hardly know where to begin in terms of commentary on this difference."
More here from Anthony Watts.
Ross McKintrick writing in the National Post, ends his column with a first hand account and analyis of the troubles of global warming data that EVERYONE should read. It speaks for itself:
"I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. The surface temperature data is a contaminated mess with a significant warm bias, and as I have detailed elsewhere the IPCC fabricated evidence in its 2007 report to cover up the problem. Climate models are in gross disagreement with observations, and the discrepancy is growing with each passing year. The often-hyped claim that the modern climate has departed from natural variability depended on flawed statistical methods and low-quality data. The IPCC review process, of which I was a member last time, is nothing at all like what the public has been told: Conflicts of interest are endemic, critical evidence is systematically ignored and there are no effective checks and balances against bias or distortion...
"...Over the coming few years, as the costs of global warming policies mount and the evidence of a crisis continues to collapse, perhaps it will become socially permissible for people to start thinking for themselves again."
MOST EGREGIOUS CLAIM OF THE WEEK
Last week, Governor Shintaro Ishihara of Tokyo advocated unsuccessfully on behalf of his city's bid to host the Olympics in 2016. Tokyo has strongly emphasized making the Olympics "green" in their bid, and Governor Ishihara tells us why:"It could be that the 2016 Games are the last Olympics in the history of mankind."
The IOC, who selected Rio de Janeiro as the host of the games, seems less concerned with that possibility.-Patrick Gallagher, Editor Green Watch America
--Copied by Heilung 10/5/09
Total Comments 0
