Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TideGlider who wrote (359799)	4/16/2010 10:12:07 AM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Respond to of 793868

‘Hockey stick’ graph was exaggerated – McIntyre gets props 15 04 2010 From the Telegraph: The ‘hockey stick’ that became emblematic of the threat posed by climate change exaggerated the rise in temperature because it was created using ‘inappropriate’ methods, according to the head of the Royal Statistical Society. By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent Professor David Hand said that the research – led by US scientist Michael Mann – would have shown less dramatic results if more reliable techniques had been used to analyse the data. Prof Hand was among a group of experts charged with investigating the “climategate” email scandal that engulfed the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) last year. Sceptics claimed that the hacked messages showed scientists were manipulating data to support a theory of man-made global warming. However the review, led by Lord Oxburgh into the research carried out by the centre, found no evidence of ”deliberate scientific malpractice”. Bull! Yeah, Jones was desparate to hide his data and methods, even threatening to destroy it, but wasn't doing anything deliberate. Lord Oxburgh said the scientists at the research unit arrived at their conclusions ”honestly and sensibly”. More bull! But the reviewers found that the scientists could have used better statistical methods in analysing some of their data, although it was unlikely to have made much difference to their results. That was not the case with some previous climate change reports, where “inappropriate methods” had exaggerated the global warming phenomenon. Prof Hand singled out a 1998 paper by Prof Mann of Pennsylvania State University, a constant target for climate change sceptics, as an example of this. He said the graph, that showed global temperature records going back 1,000 years, was exaggerated – although any reproduction using improved techniques is likely to also show a sharp rise in global warming. He agreed the graph would be more like a field hockey stick than the ice hockey blade it was originally compared to. “The particular technique they used exaggerated the size of the blade at the end of the hockey stick. Had they used an appropriate technique the size of the blade of the hockey stick would have been smaller,” he said. “The change in temperature is not as great over the 20th century compared to the past as suggested by the Mann paper.” … Prof Hand praised the blogger Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit for uncovering the fact that inappropriate methods were used which could produce misleading results. ====================== wattsupwiththat.com ...... James Sexton (09:40:15) : “Prof Hand praised the blogger Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit for uncovering the fact that inappropriate methods were used which could produce misleading results.”…………I’d be more apt to believe the inappropriate methodology was unintentional if they’d hadn’t been told it was inappropriate YEARS ago. Where’s the corrections? Where’s the update to the studies? They applied “inappropriate” methods to a study. That’s fine, correct the errors when your informed. They didn’t. In fact, continued to tout same methodologies as proof of our impending doom unless we acquiesce our energy consumption choices to an alarmist near you. They can candy coat in whatever manner they wish, the can offer left-handed congrats to Steve all they want, it doesn’t change the time line of when the CRU knew they were in error and their body of work since. Further, I’ve still yet to see a retraction or correction to any of the studies in which they applied the wrong methodologies. The people of the inquiry are distorting as much as the hockey-stick graphs are distorting. ....... kadaka (10:31:07) : Glenn (09:57:27) : “It wasn’t us, it was the Americans”? Bingo. Full-blown CYA mode has been activated. They can’t discredit the science, they have too much riding on promoting CAGW. UEA-CRU is/was very prestigious, the main jewel of the CAGW crown, so they don’t want to disparage them. However there is that pesky media-loving American at that minor university only really known for its “American football” team… There is too much out there now against the over-hyped CAGW alarmism for the main proponents to maintain a unified front. Even the “Impervious IPCC” is crumbling. Fracturing among national lines is to be expected. I am awaiting the future spin where it is declared that Hansen has done terrible things with GISS’ interpretation of the historical temperature record yet the Hadley-CRU version is true and trustworthy. Should be interesting. ..... James Sexton (11:54:23) : lol, kadaka and Glenn nailed it!! At least in Fox’s eyes. foxnews.com That evil American……he took all the hard work those poor CRU people did and totally botched the graph!!!! Did Hand actually read the e-mails that showed collusion and collaboration between both sides of the ocean? Not that I feel sorry for Mann, but wow, with friends like that………. ...... wobble (12:31:39) : Prof Hand singled out a 1998 paper by Prof Mann of Pennsylvania State University, a constant target for climate change sceptics, as an example of this. Penn State has, again, been put on notice. They really are in danger of becoming forever known as The University Which Covered Up junk climate science. Not that there aren't a lot of those universities now. .......