Death of Global Warming

As I have been saying for a long time, the Global Warming religion was founded on poor data.  Finally, real "peers" got their hands on the underlying data behind the holy hockey stick, or as the article puts is the Hokey Hockey Stick, and we find the poor data and errors were on top of an active fraud.  


This is why the originators of the religion refused to reveal their data, saying it took a long time to gather, so why share it! This is the long-touted peer-reviewed science. 


Below is page one of an article from England's The Register. Just click on the headline, if you really "believe" in the hockey pocus.


Essentially, the underlying data behind the IPCC finding and billions of dollars of centralizing government was based on data from 12 trees, selected to show warming. There were 34 other trees that didn't show warming. In all there were 252 tree samples taken. 


This is criminal fraud. Billions have been spent and are being carved out for this silly notion. Our government is poised to use the fraud. Any politician who moves ahead with more government control based on this myth is either a liar or stupid, a distinction not relevant to fraud.


If you recall, I documented a long time ago the Mann hockey stick was based on mathematical error. Now, we find it is also based on fraudulent data. 


This is you UN and Al Gore at work to pull in billions. This is Obama's cap and trade and control of the auto industry. It is all based on a pretext and only the truly stupid can't see that.  There is no other way to put it; this is no longer a subject of reasonable discourse. 

Treemometers: A new scientific scandal

• Track this topic
• Print story

If a peer review fails in the woods...

By Andrew Orlowski • Get more from this author

Posted in Environment, 29th September 2009 16:03 GMT

Free whitepaper – Migrating to the new Dell Management Console

A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers.
At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC's assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.
At issue is the use of tree rings as a temperature proxy, or dendrochronology. Using statistical techniques, researchers take the ring data to create a "reconstruction" of historical temperature anomalies. But trees are a highly controversial indicator of temperature, since the rings principally record Co2, and also record humidity, rainfall, nutrient intake and other local factors.
Picking a temperature signal out of all this noise is problematic, and a dendrochronology can differ significantly from instrumented data. In dendro jargon, this disparity is called "divergence". The process of creating a raw data set also involves a selective use of samples - a choice open to a scientist's biases.
Yet none of this has stopped paleoclimataologists from making bold claims using tree ring data.
In particular, since 2000, a large number of peer-reviewed climate papers have 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.
(This oversimplifies the story somewhat: for more detail, read this fascinating narrative by blogger BishopHill here.)
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"....