for light entertainment/disucssion of the Yamal treering 'story' see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/
simon On Oct 5, 3:29 pm, Veli Albert Kallio <[email protected]> wrote: > There is only November left separating us from Copenhagen. The sudden last > minute surge of errors in climate change studies on the advent of Copenhagen > is almost like opening a Christmas calendar and finding a new present hidden > behind each peel away door of IPCC. > > I could have bet a year ago that Kallio's hockey-stick of climate study > defects were soon to emerge as the climate change sceptics poured over and > over again with their magnification glasses over hundreds of studies and > methods to find defective papers on climate change. And God's mercy, there > they are in the tree rings to refute whole climate. > > Surely, with hundreds and thousands of IPCC papers one could go for something > that isn't as good as the rest of studies where facts may have been > overlooked like my philosophy teacher at the university on the umpteenth year > and on my third degree who fixed a wrong grade. > > Who said IPCC was an infallible entity guaranteeing error-free process as on > its entirety: when the Apollo and Saturn 5 launched to the Moon, it is said > that at any given moment at least 12 parts were found malfunctioning. Was the > mission then a failure? It wasn't. So it be with IPCC/UNEP processes. With > all practical probability, in a worl,d where even peer review or science > itself is not always perfect it is always possible to find a defect or > shortcut that does not meet the standard. Surely, more will be dug up by > Copenhagen. > > Isn't all this just citing those old scare-mongering bollocks who think > climate change is a great big conspiracy and sponge a half dozen largers in a > bar without worrying for the tomorrow: > > A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent > peer-reviewed climate papers. The scandal has serious implications for public > trust in science. ..... This leads to the more general, and more serious > issue: what happens when peer-review fails - as it did here? > > --Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 29 September 2009 > > Over the next nine years, at least one paper per year appeared in prominent > journals using Briffa's Yamal composite to support a hockey stick-like > result. The IPCC relied on these studies to defend the Hockey Stick view, and > since it had appointed Briffa himself to be the IPCC Lead Author for this > topic, there was no chance it would question the Yamal data. Despite the fact > that these papers appeared in top journals like Nature and Science, none of > the journal reviewers or editors ever required Briffa to release his Yamal > data. Steve McIntyre's repeated requests for them to uphold their own data > disclosure rules were ignored. > --Ross McKitrick, Financial Post, 1 October 2009 > > The official United Nation's global warming agency, the Intergovernmental > Panel on Climate Change, is a four-legged stool that is fast losing its legs. > To carry the message of man-made global warming theory to the world, the > IPCC has depended on 1) computer models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range > temperature forecasting and 4) communication. None of these efforts are > sitting on firm ground. > > --Terence Corcoran, National Post, 1 October 2009 > > Media reaction to the Yamal story has been rather limited so far. I'm not > sure whether this is because people are trying to digest what it means or > whether it's "too hot to handle". None of the global warming supporters in > the mainstream media have gone near it. The reaction of the Guardian - to > delete any mention of the affair from their comment threads - has been > extraordinary. > --Bishop Hill, 1 October 2009 > > Britain will have to stop building airports, switch to electric cars and shut > down coal-fired power stations as part of a 'planned recession' to avoid > dangerous climate change. A new report from the Tyndall Centre for Climate > Change Research says the only way to avoid going beyond the dangerous tipping > point is to double the target to 70 per cent by 2020. This would mean > reducing the size of the economy through a "planned > recession". > --Louise Gray, The Daily Telegraph, 30 September 2009 > > Kr, Albert > > _________________________________________________________________ > Save time by using Hotmail to access your other email > accounts.http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/167688463/direct/01/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
