[Goat Locker Freeper]

Standby for Moonbat hysteria! (And, of course, IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT!)

[feedback doctor]

The global warming theroy is not a result of science, but a result of POLITICAL SCIENCE.

[Arrowhead1952]

Similar thread thread here

[Samwise]

GIGO

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Moonbat Mathematics? They must have been using the

REVOLUTIONARY MOONSTICK SLIDE RULE!

[ConservativeVoice]

bump

[RGSpincich]

First, they plant red legged frogs and whip snakes on land that is scheduled to be developed. Now, they plant "hockey sticks" in statistical probability programs?

Tree huggers are such fun loving pranksters/s

[SuziQ]

I'll have to show this to my mathmatician/statistician husband (Sir SuziQ). He'll get a real charge out of it! He absolutely HATES it when folks fudge numbers to support their own personal agendas!

[E. Pluribus Unum]

CORRECTIONS TO THE MANN et. al. (1998) PROXY DATA BASE AND NORTHERN HEMISPHERIC AVERAGE TEMPERATURE SERIES

The data upon which Kyoto is based (Mann, Bradley, Hughes: Global-Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries, Nature, No. 392, pp. 779-787, 1998) has been documented to be fraudulent by a recent paper published in the British journal "Energy & Environment" and available on the Internet at http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf

In their paper, titled "CORRECTIONS TO THE MANN et. al. (1998) PROXY DATA BASE AND NORTHERN HEMISPHERIC AVERAGE TEMPERATURE SERIES," Canadian researchers Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick examined the data set of proxies of past climate used by Mann, Bradley and Hughes for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980. McIntyre and McKitrick determined that the Mann data "contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects."

Applying the Mann methodology to the corrected data "yielded a Northern Hemisphere temperature index in which the late 20th century is unexceptional compared to the preceding centuries."

The fact that Kyoto is based upon fraudulent data should be troubling to anyone without some hidden agenda.

[mikegi]

I've always thought that the global warming disaster scenarios were the result of computer models going ballistic. I've written many physics simulations and they're only valid for a relatively short amount of time (iterations). Energy conservation has to be strictly enforced or you get runaway, etc.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Doesn't matter.

The hockey stick will still be universally cited as fact 25 years from now.

[FourtySeven]

Bookmark bump.

[jonno]

GW bump

[mpreston]

Another example of the fallacy of Kerry's Global Test. The Global Test approach would have the US sign a treaty based on defective analysis software and group think peer analysis.

But hey, we would all feel better that the world is together.

[Cooltouch]

Doesn't matter. To the left, environmentalism is a religion. They're not gonna reject their religious beliefs because of a few messy facts. Faith, they have. Their cause is so just and so noble, don't you see, that it simply =must= be true.

[Yelling]

Of course they don't bother to mention that McKitrick just published a paper where he mixed up degrees and radians! Lets see him explain that before we worry too much about "math corrections"

However if you read the reviewers comments on McKitrick's site they say things like:

1) At this stage, I think any Correction or Retraction by MBH98 is premature and really not required.

2) The reply by MBH04 on the previous comment by MM04 addresses in my opinion both points raised by MM04 in a convincing way. Although it is for a reviewer impossible to check all the technical details involved in this reply, they arguments used by MBH04 seem plausible, and I would say they are probably correct. This is of course no guarantee that the entirety of MBH98 work and conclusions are free of error.

3) In summary, judging from the present version of the manuscript and the response by MBH04, I now think that basis for MM04 has wavered and that further work , or further convincing evidence, would be needed to present a more solid case.

4) Considering the changes relative to the first version of MM04, it seems to me that the case presented by MM04 has weakened considerably.

5) Unfortunately, I have the impression that preconceived notions affect the potential "audit" by McIntyre and McKitrick. That would, of course, not mean that their assessment is necessarily wrong, but might explain the rather harsh and tricky wording used here and at other places by both parties, and I generally do not believe that this sort of an "audit" and rebuttal will lead to a better understanding of past climate variations.

With the reviewers saying Mann's paper still seems intact is it no wonder that Nature did not publish.

Of course if M&M finish with Mann, they still have Jones, Crawley and the others to deal with who used independently data and produced similar results.

[SunkenCiv]

http://www.jamesphogan.com/heretics/toc.shtml#environment

[SunkenCiv]

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba478/