Hide the Decline

Speaks for itself. Read more here.

Statistician Slams 'Hockey Stick' Graph

Speaks for itself...I've written many times about the statistical manipulations used to exaggerate and CREATE warming when there is none. You've all been scammed and fed a lie.

A key piece of evidence in climate change science was slammed as “exaggerated” on Wednesday by the UK’s leading statistician, in a vindication of claims that global warming sceptics have been making for years.

Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, said that a graph shaped like an ice hockey stick that has been used to represent the recent rise in global temperatures had been compiled using “inappropriate” methods.

“It used a particular statistical technique that exaggerated the effect [of recent warming],” he said.

The criticism came as part of a report published on Wednesday that found the scientists behind the “Climategate” e-mail scandal had behaved “honestly and fairly” and showed “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice”.

[From FT.com / Global Economy - Global warming graph attacked by study]

Climategate: CRU's Jones Admits Science NOT SETTLED!

This is GROUNDBREAKING! This SHOULD rock the world of green fanatic alarmist believers and skeptics alike, but the question remains: Will the world media--especially the U.S. media--report on this story and its significance, or will they ignore it like they do with so many other stories that don't fit their agenda?

The humiliated Dr. Phil Jones of East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit (CRU), who is at the center of the Climategate scandal that broke just before Copenhagen's climate conference, has since resigned his position and NOW admits information that NO alarmist scientist will want public, lest we skeptics "seize on" it. LOL! "Skeptics seize on" is the new buzz phrase that all lefty news organizations like to use now in an attempt to sideline us skeptics.

Though his admission that there has been NO SIGNIFICANT WARMING SINCE 1995 is Earth-shattering, the fact that he admits that the Medieval Warm Period was possibly global (and that there were other similar pre-industrial warm periods) is tremendous. It means that one of the alarmist elites has finally said that the SCIENCE MAY NOT BE SETTLED. Did you hear that, Al Gore?!!? One of your own has spoken, after he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

***

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

***

Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.

***

But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’. He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.

He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

[From Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online]

Journal NATURE Calls for Climate Science Reform

Of course, the AP article insists that the first IPCC report is sound, but that's if you believe the data coming out of the CRU at East Anglia, a major contributor to that report. We've seen that the CRU has its own share of problems, such as destroyed data that can NO LONGER be verified or studied by peers and purposefully blocking skeptical climate scientists from prestigious publications. This means that the first report that the AP proclaims as "sound" is likely bullshit too. I know it is, because it's the report with the erroneous "hockey stick" graph that has since been proven wrong because it omits the Medieval Warm Period. Why omit that MWP? Because it doesn't fit the template of a steady-state baseline followed by precipitous warming.

WASHINGTON -- A steady drip of errors in the top report on global warming -- and the erosion they are causing in public confidence of the science behind it -- have some scientists calling for drastic changes in how future United Nations climate reports are done.

A push for reform being published in Thursday's issue of the prestigious scientific journal Nature comes on top of a growing clamor for the resignation of the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The work of the climate change panel, or IPCC, is often portrayed as one massive tome. But it really is four separate reports on different aspects of global warming, written months apart by distinct groups of scientists.

[From FOXNews.com - Top Science Journal Calls for Climate Science Reform]

Climategate Cover-up: PSU Professor Cleared by University Panel

Dr. Michael Mann, the professor responsible for the famous (and erroneous) “hockey stick graph,” has been cleared of wrongdoing by a PSU panel that had been appointed to investigate Professor Mann’s involvement in the Climategate scandal, after his email correspondence was found among the emails from East Anglia’s CRU.

Interesting that Dr. Mann has brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars in climate research grants to Penn State University. Remember. Follow the dollars to find the rat; dollars are usually at the heart of EVERTHING that’s fishy.

But the findings and, more importantly, the focus have set off a wave of criticism accusing the university panel of failing to interview key people, neglecting to conduct more than a cursory review of allegations and structuring the inquiry so that the outcome -- exoneration -- was a foregone conclusion.

On Friday, Rep. Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Investigations Committee, charged that the Penn State's failure to settle all the charges and called into question professor Mann's work. He is demanding that all grants to the noted scientist be frozen.

Mann, according to published reports, has gotten a grant almost $550,000 in stimulus money to study climate change and is part of a nearly $2 million grant to Penn State to study the impact of climate change on various diseases.

[From FOXNews.com - Penn State Probe into Mann's Wrongdoing a 'Total Whitewash']

Smoking Code of Climategate

Have you been suckered by the liberal excuses on Climategate that the 'hacked' emails have been taken out of context? Well, here's a skeptical scientist's breakdown of computer code hacked from the CRU of East Anglia University at the same time that shows how a computer model was manipulated to produce the 'hockey stick' graph showing a large uptick in temperatures. Remember, the supposed hacker didn't just 'steal' emails; they swiped a lot of files, including this script or code file.

If you've had any computer programming courses, this stuff will make more sense to you, and you'll see what the author is talking about.

NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro

1;
2; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3;
4 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75   ; fudge factor
6 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
7
8 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

What does this Mean? A review of the code line-by-line

[From Climategate: The Smoking Code « Watts Up With That?]

NYT admits Medieval Warm Period

Look carefully at the NYT's "unbiased" review of this book. They acknowledge something that warmaholics seldom admit; the Medieval Warm Period (or the "Little Climate Optimum"), which preceded the last "Little Ice Age." The LCO completely destroys the theory of the "hockey stick" graph, originally touted by the IPCC as proof of global warming. This graph has since been thoroughly debunked.

Though the Time's reviewer gives credit where credit is due, they also begin to make some far-reaching claims as to the negatives of so-called climate change in the warming direction. Do we REALLY know that warming killed off the Mayans? I don't think so. The word "appalling" as a debit certainly paints with a broad stroke of impending, manmade disaster.

Here's what's hidden and not admitted: NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE HAPPENS. Get over it people. We aren't causing it with poot gas.

The Great Warming - Brian Fagan - Book Review - New York Times:

If you don’t think climate change produces winners as well as losers, consider this: In the 12th and 13th centuries England exported wine to France. Vineyards also flourished in improbable regions like southern Norway and eastern Prussia. A centuries-long spell of mild, predictable weather blessed Western Europe with abundant crops, healthy populations and budget surpluses sufficient to finance projects like Chartres Cathedral.

This is the credit side of a global balance sheet carefully itemized by Brian Fagan in “The Great Warming,” his fascinating account of shifting climatic conditions and their consequences from about A.D. 800 to 1300, often referred to as the Medieval Warm Period. The debit side is appalling: widespread drought, catastrophic rainfall, toppled dynasties, ruined civilizations. Abandoned Maya temples in the Yucatan and the desolation of Angkor Wat, supreme achievement of the Khmer empire, bear witness to climatic change against which royal power and priestly magic proved impotent.

Scrutiny is happening

Meteorologists still can’t even accurately predict the basic weather five days in advance right now, but yet we’re going to listen to politically-connected “scientists” who predict we’ll be swimming with the fishes in 50 to 100 years because of man’s activities and believe them? Give me A FREAKIN’ BREAK! This doesn’t even pass the moron test; never mind all the problems with the faulty science and math behind this farce that has become AGW.

Climate panel on the hot seat - The Washington Times:

In a 2001 report, the IPCC published an image commonly referred to as the "hockey stick." This graph showed relatively stable temperatures from A.D. 1000 to 1900, with temperatures rising steeply from 1900 to 2000. The IPCC and public figures, such as former Vice President Al Gore, have used the hockey stick to support the conclusion that human energy use over the last 100 years has caused unprecedented rise global warming.

However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process. For example, the researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and dramatic. This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were never consulted.

And more media scrutiny from the great Steven Milloy at junkscience.com.

FOXNews.com - Junk Science: The Washington Post-er Child for Climate Bias - Opinion:

Eilperin’s March 10 article (WaPo) entitled "Carbon Output Must Near Zero to Avert Danger, New Studies Say" has the same sort of journalistic objectivity one might expect from totalitarian state-controlled media.

With nary a critical word about the computer models used to project increases in global temperature, Eilperin touted two new model-dependent studies that "suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide."

So why would any rational person assume that they can be used to predict future climate or serve as a basis for developing national energy policy? As reported in this column last December, global climate models uniformly predict significantly warmer atmospheric temperatures than have actually occurred.