Nexus - 1401 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

statistical model had given the bristlecone- > pine datasets 390 times more prominence > than the other datasets they had used. = To McIntyre et al., it appeared possible & that Mann et al. had given the tainted = bristlecone data series such exceptional i prominence, effectively swamping all tng influence from the other datasets in their ‘a calculations, because the bristlecone-pine 5 M eli eval dataset produced the pronounced 20th- a . century uptick (and a corresponding a Warm Period suppression of evidence for mediaeval high & temperatures), which would apparently = | eradicate the mediaeval warm period. To - test this possibility, McIntyre et al. ran the 1000 A D 1400 AD 1900 A D algorithm of Mann et al. 10,000 times, having replaced all palaeoclimatological Temperature history from the United Nations 1996 report, showing the data with randomly generated, electronic mediaeval warm period. "red noise". They found that—even with this entirely random "The IPCC review process is fatally flawed... The scientific data, altogether unconnected with the temperature record—the basis for the Kyoto Protocol is grossly inadequate." model nearly always constructed a "hockey stick" curve similar to However, the fact that the central graph of the UN's 2001 report that in the UN's 2001 report. was defective has not had anything like as much attention from McIntyre and McKitrick (2003, 2005) also tested the algorithm the media as the stories of impending disaster which politicians— of Mann et al. (1998; UN 2001) without the bristlecone-pine data, and the UN itself—have derived from it. whereupon the mediaeval warm period reappeared. They also The preface to the UN's 2001 report says the intention of its found that Mann et al. had excluded from their calculations a Climate Change Panel is to provide objective information as a single dataset covering the later mediaeval warm period, which basis for decisions by policymakers. The introduction adds: had been stored in a computer file marked "Since the release of the Second Assessment Report, additional "CENSORED_DATA". McKitrick ran the Mann et al. model data from new studies of current and palaeoclimates, improved including the missing dataset, and again found that the mediaeval analysis of data sets, more rigorous evaluation of their quality, warm period reappeared. and comparisons among data from different sources have led to Several eminent scientists have commented on the work of greater understanding of climate change." McIntyre and McKitrick. For instance, Richard Muller (2004), a Despite "rigorous evaluation" by the UN, involving not one but physicist at Berkeley, said of the two Canadian scientists’ work: two rounds of detailed scrutiny by peer review, the errors in the "That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is key temperature reconstruction graph were not detected—or, if having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey they were detected, they were not corrected. stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out This defective graph is the only figure which was featured as to be an artifact of poor mathematics." many as six times in the UN's 2001 report, appearing with great Dr Rob van Dorland (2005), of the Dutch National Meteorological Agency, said: "It is strange that the climate NORTHERN HEMESPHEAE reconstruction of Mann passed both peer review rounds of the IPCC without anyone ever really having checked it." In February 2005, the German television channel Das Erste interviewed Ulrich Cubasch, a climatologist, who said that he had been unable to reproduce the Mann et al. "hockey stick" graph, whereupon he: "...discussed the objections with his colleagues, and sought to work them through... Bit by bit, it became as clear to his colleagues as it had to him: the two Canadians were right. Between 1400 and 1600, the temperature shift was considerably higher than, for example, in the previous century. With that, the core conclusion, and also that of the entire IPCC . Tinta from thermomatces (rad) ared trom tree rings 2001 Report, was completely undermined." corals, Ina coms and historical records (blue) Dr Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research at the Royal Meteorological 1000 1200 1400 1600 180 3000 Institute of The Netherlands, wrote to Dr Melntyre in 2008 to say: Hockey stick" from UN 2001 report. The mediaeval warm period is absent. Medieval Warm Period 1000 AD 1500 AD 1900 AD Little Ice Age Medieval Warm Period Temperature history from the United Nations 1996 report, showing the mediaeval warm period. "The IPCC review process is fatally flawed... The scientific basis for the Kyoto Protocol is grossly inadequate." However, the fact that the central graph of the UN's 2001 report was defective has not had anything like as much attention from the media as the stories of impending disaster which politicians— and the UN itself—have derived from it. The preface to the UN's 2001 report says the intention of its Climate Change Panel is to provide objective information as a basis for decisions by policymakers. The introduction adds: Since the release of the Second Assessment Report, additional data from new studies of current and palaeoclimates, improved analysis of data sets, more rigorous evaluation of their quality, and comparisons among data from different sources have led to greater understanding of climate change." Despite "rigorous evaluation" by the UN, involving not one but two rounds of detailed scrutiny by peer review, the errors in the key temperature reconstruction graph were not detected—or, if they were detected, they were not corrected. This defective graph is the only figure which was featured as many as six times in the UN's 2001 report, appearing with great NEXUS = 45 NORTHERN HEMISPHERE DECEMBER 2006 — JANUARY 2007 www.nexusmagazine.com