Sep 29 2009
In a previous post I noted the great work Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit was performing in tracking down some of the questionable (i.e., cherry picked) data used by the IPCC and global warming alarmists to create the impression that the Earth has experienced unnatural warming over the last 50-100 years. In my mind this discovery is the nail in the coffin of the global warming mythology, and the credibility of everyone who cried “Fire!” and the end of the Earth.
Steve updated his results by focusing on the last 200 hundred years of the climate record reconstructed (or ‘created from whole clothe’) by the alarmists. This new graph shows that when all the samples from the region are included (especially the still living trees which clearly represent the recent climate record) there is a major discrepancy – i.e., NO GLOBAL WARMING! We pick up the thread from WUWT:
Here is a comparison of the Briffa chronology of the spaghetti graphs (red) versus the â€œSChweingruberâ€ variation i.e. using russ035w instead of 12 recent of 252 CRU cores, leaving 240 unchanged. (The red curve here is the archived CRU chronology, which varies slightly from my emulation of the RCS chronology.)
This is very damning evidence of deception in my view. The red line is what creates the supposed temperature spike is at the core of many of the alarmists’ claims. But when you look at the complete sample of samples (252 vs a select 12) you see a different world. You see a world with no global warming at all. None. There is a 3 2Â° C difference!
What is also important to note (but not obvious to those outside the scientific community) is the black line is generated from the same CRU data set that the 12 samples that make the red line. This data was AVAILABLE and in the hands of the researchers who created the mythological red warming trend. They had to have run the complete data at least once (and many subsets many times) to get the desired result. As Steve mentioned yesterday, even a random sample of 12 out of the 252 available could not produce such a divergence.
It is statistically impossible to randomly pull the right 12 to get the desired result.
If I was in Congress, I would be hauling some people up under oath to discover how these ‘scientists’ were magically able to derive the one combination of 12 samples (out of millions or billions of possible combinations) to produce a result that the complete data set just doesn’t support.
Falsifying data and knowingly producing false results is more than shoddy science. When it comes to trillions of dollars and millions of jobs those kinds of acts fall into the zone of criminal behavior, IMHO.