The great global warming scam (ctd)
tunderbar
The great global warming scam (ctd)
Friday, 2nd October 2009
Yet another scientific scandal has come to light which knocks another
whopping crater in the already shattered theory of anthropogenic
global warming. Eight peer-reviewed studies, which for years have
played a significant supporting role behind the IPPC’s claims of AGW,
have been shown to be fraudulent.
As Andrew Orlowski reports in The Register, the issue is the use of
tree rings as a temperature proxy in order to ‘reconstruct’ past
temperatures. The papers in question incorporated data from trees at
the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia:
This dataset gained favour, curiously superseding a newer and
larger data set from nearby. The older Yamal trees indicated
pronounced and dramatic uptick in temperatures.
How could this be? Scientists have ensured much of the measurement
data used in the reconstructions remains a secret -- failing to
fulfill procedures to archive the raw data. Without the raw data,
other scientists could not reproduce the results. The most prestigious
peer reviewed journals, including Nature and Science, were reluctant
to demand the data from contributors. Until now, that is.
At the insistence of editors of the Royal Society's Philosophical
Transactions B the data has leaked into the open -- and Yamal's
mystery is no more. From this we know that the Yamal data set uses
just 12 trees from a larger set to produce its dramatic recent trend.
Yet many more were cored, and a larger data set (of 34) from the
vicinity shows no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in
the middle ages.
In all there are 252 cores in the CRU Yamal data set, of which ten
were alive 1990. All 12 cores selected show strong growth since the
mid-19th century. The implication is clear: the dozen were cherry-
picked.
A small ‘but closely knit’ number of scientists all used the
misleading Yamal data to claim that today’s temperatures were
unprecedentedly hot. Orlowski notes:
Controversy has been raging since 1995, when an explosive paper by
Keith Briffa at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East
Anglia asserted that that the medieval warm period was actually really
cold, and recent warming is unusually warm. Both archaeology and the
historical accounts, Briffa was declaring, were bunk. Briffa relied on
just three cores from Siberia to demonstrate this.
Three years later Nature published a paper by Mann, Bradley and
Hughes based on temperature reconstructions which showed something
similar: warmer now, cooler then. With Briffa and Mann as chapter
editors of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
this distinctive pattern became emblematic - the ‘Logo of Global
Warming’.
But as the heroic mathematician Steve McIntyre – who helped
demonstrate the fraudulence of the even more seminal AGW claim of the
‘hockey-stick curve’ of historic global temperatures – has finally
managed to winkle out, their premise was false and their claim was
untrue.
Ross McKitrick, who worked with McIntyre in exposing the ‘hockey-
stick’ fraud, here emphasises the way in which the AGW industry
concealed the truth about the tree-ring data:
Over the next nine years, at least one paper per year appeared in
prominent journals using Briffa's Yamal composite to support a hockey
stick-like result. The IPCC relied on these studies to defend the
Hockey Stick view, and since it had appointed Briffa himself to be the
IPCC Lead Author for this topic, there was no chance it would question
the Yamal data.
Despite the fact that these papers appeared in top journals like
Nature and Science, none of the journal reviewers or editors ever
required Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre's repeated
requests for them to uphold their own data disclosure rules were
ignored...Whatever is going on here, it is not science.
And yet:
When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that refuted
the idea, it declined to include it. This leads to the more general,
and more serious issue: what happens when peer-review fails -- as it
did here?
Indeed. What price any ‘scientific’ assertions, such as anthropogenic
global warming, when the system of peer-review on which it rests its
authority is as bent as a corkscrew? The scandal not only shows once
again that AGW is a fraud but shoots to pieces the integrity of
scientific peer-review. In other words, a huge story. So huge that, as
far as I can see, not one mainstream UK media outlet has touched it –
and according to blogger Bishop Hill:
The reaction of the Guardian - to delete any mention of the affair
from their comment threads - has been extraordinary.
It’s no use. The seas are rising over their heads.
Ouroboros Rex
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5389461/the-great-global-warming-scam-ctd.thtml
>
>
> The great global warming scam (ctd)
> Friday, 2nd October 2009
>
>
> Yet another scientific scandal has come
..to nothing. lol
"Interesting news this weekend. Apparently everything we�ve done in our
entire careers is a �MASSIVE lie� (sic) because all of radiative physics,
climate history, the instrumental record, modeling and satellite
observations turn out to be based on 12 trees in an obscure part of Siberia.
Who knew?"
Ocean temps:
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/gissocean-thumb.gif
Thermometer measurements:
:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/07/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Arctic ice mass:
http://green-blog.org/media/images/2008/03/arctic-ice-age.gif
Antarctic ice mass:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/antarctic_mass2.gif
Greenland ice mass:
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/images/ocp2007/gallery-large/thumbnails/OCP07-Fig-16.jpg
CO2 in atmosphere:
http://iter.rma.ac.be/en/img/CO2-concenNEW_EN.jpg
..Whatever will they do about all those other "hockey sticks"? lol
matt_sykes
> tunderbar wrote:
> >http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5389461/the-great-global-w...
>
> > The great global warming scam (ctd)
> > Friday, 2nd October 2009
>
> > Yet another scientific scandal has come
>
> ..to nothing. lol
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/
>
> "Interesting news this weekend. Apparently everything we’ve done in our
> entire careers is a “MASSIVE lie” (sic) because all of radiative physics,
> climate history, the instrumental record, modeling and satellite
> observations turn out to be based on 12 trees in an obscure part of Siberia.
> Who knew?"
>
> Ocean temps:
>
> http://global-warming.accuweather.com/gissocean-thumb.gif
>
> Thermometer measurements:
>
> Arctic ice mass:
>
> http://green-blog.org/media/images/2008/03/arctic-ice-age.gif
>
> Antarctic ice mass:
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/antarctic_mass2.gif
>
> Greenland ice mass:
>
>
> CO2 in atmosphere:
>
> http://iter.rma.ac.be/en/img/CO2-concenNEW_EN.jpg
>
> ..Whatever will they do about all those other "hockey sticks"? lol
Whic is all within natural variation.
tunderbar
> tunderbar wrote:
> >http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5389461/the-great-global-w...
>
> > Friday, 2nd October 2009
>
> > Yet another scientific scandal has come
>
> ..to nothing. lol
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/
>
> "Interesting news this weekend. Apparently everything we’ve done in our
> entire careers is a “MASSIVE lie” (sic) because all of radiative physics,
> climate history, the instrumental record, modeling and satellite
> observations turn out to be based on 12 trees in an obscure part of Siberia.
> Who knew?"
>
> Ocean temps:
>
> http://global-warming.accuweather.com/gissocean-thumb.gif
>
> Thermometer measurements:
>
> Arctic ice mass:
>
> http://green-blog.org/media/images/2008/03/arctic-ice-age.gif
>
> Antarctic ice mass:
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/antarctic_mass2.gif
>
> Greenland ice mass:
>
>
> CO2 in atmosphere:
>
> http://iter.rma.ac.be/en/img/CO2-concenNEW_EN.jpg
>
> ..Whatever will they do about all those other "hockey sticks"? lol
"Eight peer-reviewed studies, which for years have played a
significant supporting role behind the IPPC’s claims of AGW, have been
shown to be fraudulent."
Would you like to comment on that issue, which happened to be the
issue in the original post? Or are you just going to link to other
unproven fraudulent agw "science".
Didn't think so.
Ouroboros Rex
Made-up crazyassed crap.
Ouroboros Rex
Sorry, bullshit lie.
erschro...@gmail.com
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5389461/the-great-global-w...
>
> The great global warming scam (ctd)
> Friday, 2nd October 2009
>
> Yet another scientific scandal has come to light which knocks another
> whopping crater in the already shattered theory of anthropogenic
> global warming. Eight peer-reviewed studies, which for years have
> played a significant supporting role behind the IPPC’s claims of AGW,
> have been shown to be fraudulent.
Tundy lies, as usual. He can't help it -- in his reality, apparently
telling the truth has not been invented.
>
> As Andrew Orlowski reports in The Register, the issue is the use of
> tree rings as a temperature proxy in order to ‘reconstruct’ past
> temperatures. The papers in question incorporated data from trees at
> the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia:
The same Register with a story "Swedish Lesbians suck sperm bank dry"
Yeah, great source, Tundy.
Neither of whom are scientists.
>
> Over the next nine years, at least one paper per year appeared in
> prominent journals using Briffa's Yamal composite to support a hockey
> stick-like result. The IPCC relied on these studies to defend the
> Hockey Stick view, and since it had appointed Briffa himself to be the
> IPCC Lead Author for this topic, there was no chance it would question
> the Yamal data.
>
> Despite the fact that these papers appeared in top journals like
> Nature and Science, none of the journal reviewers or editors ever
> required Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre's repeated
> requests for them to uphold their own data disclosure rules were
> ignored...Whatever is going on here, it is not science.
>
> And yet:
>
> When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that refuted
> the idea, it declined to include it. This leads to the more general,
> and more serious issue: what happens when peer-review fails -- as it
> did here?
What happens when denialists lie? Nothing apparently; people like you
swallow it.
erschro...@gmail.com
Yes. It is a liar. You are a liar, a fool, a charlatan.
tunderbar
Again, you fail to provide any argument, facts or useful discussion to
the thread. Just more rambling nonsense. You lose, loser.
Catoni
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The main weapon to use against skeptics...... name calling,
mudslinging..
Typical response of Gorebull Warming Eco-extremists.
You guys should go join your Earth First kook friends and cry and
scream to the trees in your wierd ceremonies.