"McIntyre's work sparked a U.S. National Academy of Sciences investigation..."
"...presented another data graph with 34 tree samples from a nearby Russian site – and the temperature spike vanished. The latter graph has prompted dispute among researchers as biased math."
Uh huh. Tell us more. Though I'm guessing the "more" she'd like to tell us wouldn't or didn't make it past the fact checkers.
I'm mad. I had caught this too, but didn't get to the post yet. lOL.
his reconstruction of the 'Hockey Stick' showing that it wasn't, was a complete wash as he had omitted considerable amounts of data. Add the data back in, and the plotting returned to normal. The reason for the missing data: "Couldn't find it." Yup. Publicly available on the Internet, but he couldn't find it.
The Yamal site argument is silly. There's a lot more sites. Heck, Briffa did, what, 10,000 trees? Apparently if you can use one site to cancel out just one other site (whether done properly or not) AGW doesn't doesn't exist! LOL.
The 'Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 2,000 Years' looked over the Hockey Stick and passed it. The denialists got the Wegman report together, which was not pee-reviewed, ignored the peer-reviewed takedowns of McIntyre's work, and rubber-stamped it.
And, of course, for some reason AGW is all about the Hockey Stick. It's not. The denialists keep saying so, mind you.
I found a reference on ClimateAudit, McIntyre's site, referencing the "hide the decline" tree ring ring divergence problem bit back in 2005: http://climateaudit.org/2005/05/01/a-strange-truncation-of-the-briffa-mxd-series/
Exxon's front "CO2 Science" discussed it in 2004 (warning: much to debunk on the other side, but shows they knew about the divergence issue nevertheless):
Ridiculous - two scientists/emails and the whole thing corrupt? Oh please, this is just too ridiculous.
Go ahead you deniers - you don't think China knows the artic ice is melting, etc.? You don't think they'll move in and produce technology, etc. before us and make all that money? How stupid can you people get.
"What I find that is far too prevalent among climate scientists is that if they don't persuade somebody of something, they blame the audience, not the presentation," said McIntyre, who said mining investors would walk away if he couldn't recruit them with solid facts."
Is he suggesting that investors are not easily fooled?
"McIntyre's work sparked a U.S. National Academy of Sciences investigation..."
ReplyDelete"...presented another data graph with 34 tree samples from a nearby Russian site – and the temperature spike vanished. The latter graph has prompted dispute among researchers as biased math."
Uh huh. Tell us more. Though I'm guessing the "more" she'd like to tell us wouldn't or didn't make it past the fact checkers.
Deep Climate has caught him red-handed doign some severe quote-mining:
ReplyDeletehttp://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mcintyre-provides-fodder-for-skeptics/
I'm mad. I had caught this too, but didn't get to the post yet. lOL.
his reconstruction of the 'Hockey Stick' showing that it wasn't, was a complete wash as he had omitted considerable amounts of data. Add the data back in, and the plotting returned to normal. The reason for the missing data: "Couldn't find it." Yup. Publicly available on the Internet, but he couldn't find it.
The Yamal site argument is silly. There's a lot more sites. Heck, Briffa did, what, 10,000 trees? Apparently if you can use one site to cancel out just one other site (whether done properly or not) AGW doesn't doesn't exist! LOL.
The 'Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 2,000 Years' looked over the Hockey Stick and passed it. The denialists got the Wegman report together, which was not pee-reviewed, ignored the peer-reviewed takedowns of McIntyre's work, and rubber-stamped it.
And, of course, for some reason AGW is all about the Hockey Stick. It's not. The denialists keep saying so, mind you.
I found a reference on ClimateAudit, McIntyre's site, referencing the "hide the decline" tree ring ring divergence problem bit back in 2005: http://climateaudit.org/2005/05/01/a-strange-truncation-of-the-briffa-mxd-series/
Exxon's front "CO2 Science" discussed it in 2004 (warning: much to debunk on the other side, but shows they knew about the divergence issue nevertheless):
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V7/N41/EDIT.php
Reality hurts, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteCopenhagen gongs on, Steve just keeps showing how corrupt and stupid the whole AGE thingy is . . .
This is so entertaining. I must say, I a quite enjoying the implosion of this entire global ponzi scheme.
Very satisfactory.
Ridiculous - two scientists/emails and the whole thing corrupt? Oh please, this is just too ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteGo ahead you deniers - you don't think China knows the artic ice is melting, etc.? You don't think they'll move in and produce technology, etc. before us and make all that money? How stupid can you people get.
This is my favourite bit from The Star article:
ReplyDelete"What I find that is far too prevalent among climate scientists is that if they don't persuade somebody of something, they blame the audience, not the presentation," said McIntyre, who said mining investors would walk away if he couldn't recruit them with solid facts."
Is he suggesting that investors are not easily fooled?
Haw haw haw!