This is a rebutal to a comment posted on this Blog: https://forums.joeuser.com/370739/page/35/#2506096
I chose to make it an article in itself because of the length. I have linked to the original article and want to thank SivCorp for allowing me to comment on their blog. I beleive the original comment that I am rebutting is an attempt to rebut one of my own articles, but the blogger never posted there. The original article of mine is here: https://forums.joeuser.com/373606
Update: I have been told this was not a response to my previous article. I leave the original statement so others can see my error.
-----------------------------------
Of course what Watts fails to mention that there is about 100 years of correspondence between the tree ring record and the instrumental record before the tree ring record obviously diverges. So what would you have us do, ignore the recent instrumental record and instead use tree rings to deny current temperatures? Doesn't make too much sense.
Ah! But they use 900 years of proxy data! Have they ever explained the discrepancy over the last 50 years (which is still 1/3 of the recorded, not proxy, data)?
In statistical terms, a correlation of 67% is not reliable. That is basic math. In addition, how many organizations give a passing grade to some one who only gets 1 out of 10 right? Only the seminary of AGW.
So if your (or Watts in this case) objection is that recent tree ring data diverges from the nstrumental record and therefore is unreliable then what about all the other hockey sticks from data not dependent on tree rings?
Oh, you mean the ONE? That is based on the ice core samples? (that is all there has been). http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/ And did you notice in that one the MWP and LIA is gone? And did you see the discrepancy of their data there as well? It seems they could not even take the ice cores at face value, but had to "massage" them as well in order to force a hockey stick. Is that the ONE you mean? I think if you had read any of the links, you would not be asking that question since it is answered in those links.
Actually what is most unreliable is getting information from ExxonMobil funded blog sites like Wattsupwiththat and co2science but you knew that already.
From http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/.
Oh, so you use a blog to impugn another blog. Using the blog that has its hands in the $79billion pie, to impugn a blog that has its hands in a $23million pie? http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/
But I guess you only know one source, right? That is all the tainted realclimate blog sites wants to call attention to, not the other dozen that apparently did not get to put hands in the pie (climate Audit, Joanne Nova, TBR, Airvent, The Blackboard, etc.)
Who should we believe? Al Gore with his “facts” and “peer reviewed science” or the practioners of “Blog Science“? Surely, the choice is clear….
Well, that is an oxymoron, al gore and facts in the same sentence. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6815470/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Al-Gore-condemned-over-Arctic-ice-melting-prediction.html
I guess we have only 4 years to go for an ice free artic, right? Or how about those 9 false statements made in the "inconvenient Truth"? http://abcnews.go.com/US/TenWays/story?id=3719791&page=1
Are you defending them? Even Al Gore will not defend them! http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/12/15/gore-refuses-climategate-questions-un-official-disconnects-mic Yes, let's beleive the man who has lied for the last 20 years and guess what? He owns a Carbon Trading Company that is exprected to make BILLIONS if the Cap and Tax is passed! Shazaam! What an authority!
And this blog science you denigrate. I wonder, would this have anything to do with the suppression of dissent by the east anglia crew? you know, how they tried to keep out dissenting views for making it to journals? Are you now calling Phil Jones, Michael Mann, et. al. liars in their emails? http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filename=1089318616.txt
Instead of attacking the source of the information, let's look at the credentials of the bloggers themselves. Or is that taboo too? For that would reveal people with as impressive if not more so than the incestous group of the fraternity of the Hockey stick. Oh my!
So along comes Steve McIntyre, self-styled slayer of hockey sticks, who declares without any evidence whatsoever that Briffa didn’t just reprocess the data from the Russians, but instead supposedly picked through it to give him the signal he wanted. These allegations have been made without any evidence whatsoever.
Now we shoot the messenger again! Well done. Except all McIntyre did was analyze the raw data (he made no
conclusions) from a statistical standpoint (a field he is emminently more qualified in than any of the Hockey stick Fraternity) and found problems, instead of fixing the problems, they shoot the messenger!
And the Yamal trees? Why were only 12 used when so many more were available? That is called cherrypicking, or forcing data to fit the predetermined conclusion. And you call that science?
You want evidence? Start with this one. There are excellent links off the page: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html
The statement from Keith Briffa clearly describes the background to these studies and categorically refutes McIntyre’s accusations.
Honesty! Yes, Briffa refuted it (he did not debunk it), just as known felon refutes the eye witness testimony! Now, can Briffa actually give any refutation other than his staid line of "M&M is wrong!"? So far, he has said a lot and proven nothing.
However, there is clearly a latent and deeply felt wish in some sectors for the whole problem of global warming to be reduced to a statistical quirk or a mistake. This led to some truly death-defying leaping to conclusions when this issue hit the blogosphere.
Plus ça change…
Very true! If the hockey stick was just one leg of a table, it would indeed be much signifying nothing. However when it is the pedestal of the table - from which the entire weight of the rest of the table rests - then it signifies the table does not stand without it! And that is the charge.
An unverified accusation of malfeasance is made based on nothing,
Of course! Shoot the messenger again! Ignore the criticism, and just shoot the messenger! Maybe the "blog-storm" as it is called is because:
1. The fact (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/) that the Hockey Stick Fraternity worked to prevent publication in journals?
2. The Fact (Same again) of the incestous peer review process practiced by the Hockey Stick Fraternity?
Nah! Such a simple explanation could not be possible, right? So shoot the messengers! Irregardless of their credentials!
A RealClimate exclusive investigation follows:
Now that is funny! A site set up for the sole purpose of disseminating propaganda doing an investigation? Hardly! The owner of the site (you know a founding member of the Hockey Stick Fraternity) took NASA time and did it - then added it to real climate! You know the site that does not allow dissenting views on it?
Or moderates them out of existance? - http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/time-line-for-climategate/ And: http://www.politicallyincorrectfacts.com/Global_Warming/Stifling_Decent_Main.htm
Hmmm… neither of the Yamal chronologies anywhere in there. And what about the hockey stick that
Neither is the MWP. It seems that the shaft of the hockey stick has been shortened! Now, instead of including the MWP, it only starts at the LIA! Shazaam! It proves temperatures have gotten warmer since the little ice age! Who would have thunk it!
But perhaps the over usage of Realclimate.org is in itself a problem? When you have only one editor and he makes sure all comments are sychronous, it can inflate ones ego. To the point of attack:
http://www.petergallagher.com.au/index.php/site/article/plimer-review-more-from-g-schmidt/
Hmmm… neither of the Yamal chronologies anywhere in there. And what about the hockey stick that Oerlemans derived from glacier retreat since 1600?
Very Interesting! But why 1600? Again we have been treated to words like "millenium" - which for those not literate in the latin part of english means thousand - year highs! Yet all these new graphs seem to be starting when?
After the MWP and during the LIA! Who would have thought that the earth has warmed since the last ice age? Shazaam again!
What about the the impact on the Kaufman et al 2009 Arctic reconstruction when you take out Yamal?
Still the insistence of the Yamal trees. What about the Polar Ural Trees? Seems to omit mentioning them so that they can pretend they found a fix. But again the problem is those trees were again too small a sample and like the Yamal trees suffered from the same problem - they diverged from reality 50 years ago!
And then, a shocker! A NEW SOURCE! But when you look closely at this new source, you will notice 2 things. First, its reliance on the now tainted CRU data (source of the Hockey Stick) and - wait for it, the missing MWP and LIA!!!!! How can that be? Simple. For while NASA has its own source of temperatures for the last 30 years, they have no independent source for temperatures before that. What does that mean?
It is the same shaft of the now discredited Hockey stick! just gussied up in a new picture! But wait! Do I see a new source for proxy data?
Or there. The hockey stick from borehole temperature reconstructions perhaps?
Boreholes! Now they must be right, right? Of course! Except they could not even use real data without monkeying with it.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/
So again, the MWP disapears for the Hockey Stick Fraternity, as does the LIA. But they existed in the ice core samples. They just can't be used for the hockey stick because then they show the hockey stick to be the fraud it has been proven to be.
The rest of the post is just a snide attempt at obfuscation and mis-direction. I presonally like this one better: http://joannenova.com.au/2009/05/shock-global-temperatures-driven-by-us-postal-charges/
Yep! Did you know that every time the US Postal Service raises rates, AGW is affected! This is even Better than the Pirate correlation (Sorry Joe User)! And as we all know, we are due for another rate hike in May - which I am sure will cause another increase in global warming (all that paste on the stamps I think),
All this goes to show is that bad science does not have to be simple. It can try to obfuscate and mislead you by trying to bamboozle you with so much data you give up and decide to accept it. Fortunately, some people out there take the time to read it, analyze it, and then refute (notice I did not say debunk - that is a religious term) it. And it all has been.
And note that bad science always tries to shoot the messenger, not the message. That is why the original post (of which this is a rebuttal) relied almost exclusively on realclimate.org. A site that is run by Gavin Schmidt, of NASA, while AT NASA (your tax dollars at work Americans), and not sanctioned by any governmental organization. Pretty cool work if you can get it.
But I would urge all to explore further. Check out more sites and yes, check out who is writing the sites. I am not going to take investment advice from the Chairman of GM about GM stock, so one should always see who is writing and what. You have Realclimate.org. Here are a few more sites:
http://climateaudit.org/
http://joannenova.com.au/
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/
http://rankexploits.com/musings/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/
http://www.petergallagher.com.au/
http://www.populartechnology.net/
http://www.climatedepot.com
http://www.informath.org/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
There are many more but this may help to get you started. You will also note on these sites that dissenting opinions are welcome and posted (even with links to Realclimate.org). In this day and age, the suppression of real information is no longer possible (just ask the Chinese and Iranians). But propaganda still is. If not for the whistleblower at East Anglia, we may still be under the influence of the Hockey Stick Propagandists.