Article: "Global Warming Graph Attacked by Study"

The link: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/162b0c58-47f5-11df-b998-00144feab49a.html

(NOTE: Yes, the 'graph' they're referring to is the now infamous 'hockey stick graph.')

" 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. "

"Exaggerated." Hmm...let's try doing that for a college paper for one of our professors. We'd be in seven types of trouble and likely laughed off campus. I remember just such a paper for my Human Sexuality class. The professor there wanted data ... raw data. Hard, raw data that was cross-referenced, and that data needed its own references. But let's review here: The climate change 'raw data' can no longer be found because it was discarded!! " SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

" It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. " (*)

Oops. I'd call that a 'problem.'

But again; they have an agenda, so what the hell, right?

The Financial Times article goes on to say " The handful of errors found so far, including the exaggerated hockey stick graph and a mistaken claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, were “isolated incidents”, he said. "

But let's also go here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html

where we learn that the 'glacier' claims were based on two sources:

1) Anecdotal reports from mountaineers about the changes they were observing. Two problems with this: These cannot be taken as scientific measurements and therefore are invalid. Each person might see the same event differently and thus use different words to describe it. Again, it is not scientific.

2) The other source was a paper written by a geography student who was studying for the equivalent of a Master's degree.

Neither of these was peer-reviewed. And as already stated, it contained five factual errors in just the first paragraph.

All these problems, including the fact that the bulk of the raw data was thrown away, would lead me to question every single conclusion that has been drawn thus far. Indeed, a great many more scientists are doing just that.

Indeed, the arctic sea ice is due to increase, and hit 'normal' for the first time since 2001. That means it's increasing. (**)

Somebody tell Al Gore. This really is an 'inconvenient truth.'


(*) - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
(**) - http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climate_change_happening_before_your_eyes