Skip to comments.
Global Warming Bombshell
Technology Review ^
| October 15, 2004
| Richard Muller
Posted on 01/31/2006 1:29:52 AM PST by Exton1
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 next last
Or "Junk in, Junk out"
1
posted on
01/31/2006 1:29:54 AM PST
by
Exton1
To: Exton1
Technology Review ^ | October 15, 2004
???????????????
2
posted on
01/31/2006 2:10:46 AM PST
by
angkor
To: Exton1
From the same Article.
Quote:
If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions. Suppose, for example, that future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously--that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small--then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.
A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one--if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.
Quote end.
3
posted on
01/31/2006 2:11:40 AM PST
by
globalheater
(There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare - Sun Tzu)
To: Exton1
Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA... Looks more like he used a method called TBS, or total bull ****.
4
posted on
01/31/2006 2:11:55 AM PST
by
6SJ7
To: Exton1
Hockey Sticks defeat Global Warming
5
posted on
01/31/2006 3:24:52 AM PST
by
shekkian
To: Exton1
Or "Junk in, Junk out" NO! This is not a case of junk in, junk out. The problem is not in the data, but in the deficient understanding of those who wrote the computer program. I saw no indications of errors in the data, just in how that data was processed.
6
posted on
01/31/2006 3:27:54 AM PST
by
wotan
To: Exton1
OK, so the math was wrong. They got the results they wanted, so what's the problem? Maybe Dan Rather knows?
7
posted on
01/31/2006 3:29:50 AM PST
by
Fresh Wind
(Democrats are guilty of whatever they scream the loudest about.)
To: Exton1
This will, of course, get immediate review and acceptance by the UN.
And the democrats.
8
posted on
01/31/2006 3:32:50 AM PST
by
Robert A Cook PE
(I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
To: Exton1
This is old news, and was talked about quite a lot here on FR.
Anyway, it is nice to remind people.
9
posted on
01/31/2006 3:34:04 AM PST
by
AlexW
(Reporting from Bratislava, Slovakia)
To: Fresh Wind; neverdem; Howlin; sionnsar; CholeraJoe; Cyber Liberty
OK, so the math was wrong. They got the results they wanted, so what's the problem?
And THAT is the fundamental flaw in the global-warming-caused-by-United-States-economic-activity argument.
These liberals/socialists/UN "scientists" WANT is one result (US is responsible and must be taxed).
What they NEED (and are getting!) is a messy hodge-podge of contradictory and incomplete results.
But they WANT one result.
As scientists, they MUST look for facts and real theories, NOT THE RESULTS THEY WANT.
10
posted on
01/31/2006 3:39:39 AM PST
by
Robert A Cook PE
(I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
To: Exton1
11
posted on
01/31/2006 3:39:47 AM PST
by
N2Gems
To: N2Gems
12
posted on
01/31/2006 4:22:04 AM PST
by
TYVets
(God so loved the world he didn't send a committee)
To: Exton1
13
posted on
01/31/2006 4:23:55 AM PST
by
thackney
(life is fragile, handle with prayer)
To: Exton1
This article made a splash, but since has not had any noticeable impact on the GW debate. I think that is because most of the strident adherents to the GW cause approach it from an emotional level--almost like a religious conviction. Science has little to do with it now.
To: Exton1
Or "Junk in, Junk out"
I concur with wotan. The data was not junk, the reliance on computer analysis to provide "irrefutable" results is the error. Computer programs are only as good as the people who write them and what this article exposes is the fact that the computer program contained a serious flaw that yielded erroneous results.
It is those flawed results that have fueled the enviro-wackos' arguments for years. Dr. Sallie Baliunas has long complained that the computer models showing deleterious and huge temperature increases due to "greenhouse gases" have been flawed and yielded exaggerated effects not support by real-time data. This article supports her criticism of the computer models in addition to kicking the legs out from under the enviro-wackos arguments.
15
posted on
01/31/2006 4:54:25 AM PST
by
DustyMoment
(FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
To: DaveLoneRanger
To: DustyMoment
17
posted on
01/31/2006 5:00:29 AM PST
by
dirtboy
(My new years resolution is to quit using taglines...)
To: Exton1
I wonder how much money this fraudulent hockey stick was able to sucker out of people?.....
18
posted on
01/31/2006 5:04:42 AM PST
by
mo
To: PretzeLogic
19
posted on
01/31/2006 5:26:39 AM PST
by
hobson
To: Exton1
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson