Skip to comments.Global Warming Bombshell (Moonbat Mathematics Revealed)
Posted on 10/15/2004 2:39:25 AM PDT by Goat Locker Freeper
Progress in science is sometimes made by great discoveries. But science also advances when we learn that something we believed to be true isnt. <>
In the scientific and political debate over global warming, the latest wrong piece may be the hockey stick, .... This plot purports to show that we are now experiencing the warmest climate in a millennium, and that the earth, after remaining cool for centuries during the medieval era, suddenly began to heat up about 100 years ago....
But now a shock: independent Canadian scientists... have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.
But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.
Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!
Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.
(Excerpt) Read more at technologyreview.com ...
As I have been saying for years, there is no such thing as "earth sciences."
Thanks for the article. Here is the critical analysis http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/fallupdate04/update.fall04.html
*cough* ice age *cough*
But apparently thats not enough evidence that the Earth has its own global cycle.
The writer implies that those writing the program didn't know what they were doing, but perhaps they knew EXACTLY what they were doing, i.e., cooking the books in their favor.
But to get the results that fit the observations, there is something introduced called a "finagle factor", that when applied, voila!, the "right answer" magically appears. This is a universal practice that runs throughout ALL scientific endeavor, when there are more unknowns than knowns, the human tendency to build myth as an explanation.
In integral calculus, the process is the reverse of differential calculus, but to cover variations in outcome, there always has to be room for the "jigger factor", expressed as k, from the German word konstant.
Marking for later reading.
Junk science at its best. One of our Objectivist or Sovietologist friends here ought to comment on the parallels with what Soviets did during the last century. Namely, trying to use political ideas to achieve scientific results.
IIRC, it had something to do with communist ideology and wheat crops. The result being failed crops and starving people. As the first premise was ideological rather than scientific, the failure was explained in communist ideological terms and the failures repeated.
The upshot here is that these moonbat "scientists" are in a headlong, mad rush to crush modernity and send us all back to their medievel agrarian society.
And, they'll lie, cheat, fudge facts, skew data, and whatever else is necessary to achieve the desired end result.
Anyone care to theorize on the nexus of fascist islam, radical environmentalists, and socialism?
These guys probably are NOT deliberately fudging the data. Although I only have the math necessary to finish a degree in chemistry, and not the PhD in stat alot of these people have, I DO have some experience with this type of programming, having mucked around in the financial markets for years, and having worked as an environmental engineer.
Normalizaton of data (or "curve fitting") is also a real problem when you are trying to analyze data from the financial markets or environmental trends. You are looking for patterns of linear regression (is there market price behavior there that repeats itself with enough regularity that I should buy/sell, say, soybean futures at THIS point in the graph?). I call it the technological equivalent of reading chicken entrails to determine the future.
Anyway, the problem comes from the following.
1) The data is random
2) Within that random data are clear patterns
These seemingly contradictory statements have led some of the best minds and fastest computers and biggest players in the markets to crunch MOUNTAINS of data looking for a way to disprove item #1 above.
The lure is so strong that one is always tempted to look for a mathematical formula that will explain and predict the future. The problem is, that usually the formula only explains PAST patterns and is totally worthless to predict future behavior.
Though some folks who hawk environmental models have the same level of sleazy technoshysterism as the hacks bawling out their wares in Techical Analysis magazine, most of em are just blind to their own prejudiced conclusions. Therefore, they find patterns that TRULY ARE THERE, they are just curve fitted and not very useful.
Peer review is a great way to shut this stuff down as noted here.
Hockey stick? I thought the NHL players were locked out.
As a fellow chemist, I must point out that "the data ARE random" is the correct usage.
Read Gross & Levitt's 'Higher Superstition' or 'Fight From Science and Reason' or Noretta Koertge's 'House Built on Sand' or, best of all, Alan Sokal's essay 'Transgresing the Boundaries'. It'll all be clear.
Environmental Wacko Ping!
What took MIT so long??
John Daly debunked Mann and his "Hockey Stick" more than four years ago. For his efforts, Daly was crucified by the global warming advocates. Too bad he didn't live to see this.
Well done John....
Is this what they are talking about with "fuzzy math"?
Don't these upstarts realize it's not the nature of the evidence but the seriousness of the charge?
You said it very well. When people want to find a particular result within random data, they will tend to do so.
I know a two things for certain: The Sun rises in the east and everything the left says is a lie.
Well done John....
Amen to that. Thanks John.
Thanks for posting this. Few things brighten my day more than running across something sure to frost the half-baked globull warmers.
That is being charitable. Occam's Razor requires the other obvious explanation to be true: the procedure was tailored to get the desired results. This would require great mathematics to hide the means so well for so long. Fraud, pure and simple.
For many years now, I have been trying to find a reasonable explanation for why "environmentalists" exist. Other than the simple pleasure of controlling other people's lives. I have yet to find one.
Saving the world is not an option. Delusion and ignorance on such a scale is simply too unreal to accept.
The global warming theroy is not a result of science, but a result of POLITICAL SCIENCE.
Nonsense!!! The sporty utility vehicle was, fortunately, there 20,000 years ago to pull us out of the ice-age. But, today we simply need to get rid of them because there over doing the warming effect now. We need to start building something today that will have the Left screaming of global cooling in the far future.
Love your Personal Philosophy, which appears to be less of a philosophy and more of factual reality, and applies whether data are or is. Global warming in the past was overcome in the single instant of the explosion of Krakatoa and other past vocanic activity which caused the loss of or severely limited the next growing season in much of the fertile regions of earth. People who postulate and pontificate about a global warming, have an agenda that does not include the success and well being of the inhabitants of the planet, IMHO.
In all fairness, that is not true of real science. A real scientist goes where the data takes him, no matter how silly the result. A real scientist knows when the results are silly and seeks the reason why and iterates, and tries again, or seeks alternative approaches to a solution.
Junk science, on the other hand, science with an agenda, is right up there with political chicanery, and worse than useless.
Always look for the spike in temperatures which occurred during the 1930s. If that spike is not shown, then something is wrong with the presentation.
Only if you're a limey.
Excellent, and so true.
Moonbat Mathematics? They must have been using the
Might that be "Flight from Science and Reason"?
Tree huggers are such fun loving pranksters/s
I'll have to show this to my mathmatician/statistician husband (Sir SuziQ). He'll get a real charge out of it! He absolutely HATES it when folks fudge numbers to support their own personal agendas!
The data upon which Kyoto is based (Mann, Bradley, Hughes: Global-Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries, Nature, No. 392, pp. 779-787, 1998) has been documented to be fraudulent by a recent paper published in the British journal "Energy & Environment" and available on the Internet at http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf
In their paper, titled "CORRECTIONS TO THE MANN et. al. (1998) PROXY DATA BASE AND NORTHERN HEMISPHERIC AVERAGE TEMPERATURE SERIES," Canadian researchers Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick examined the data set of proxies of past climate used by Mann, Bradley and Hughes for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980. McIntyre and McKitrick determined that the Mann data "contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects."
Applying the Mann methodology to the corrected data "yielded a Northern Hemisphere temperature index in which the late 20th century is unexceptional compared to the preceding centuries."
The fact that Kyoto is based upon fraudulent data should be troubling to anyone without some hidden agenda.
I've always thought that the global warming disaster scenarios were the result of computer models going ballistic. I've written many physics simulations and they're only valid for a relatively short amount of time (iterations). Energy conservation has to be strictly enforced or you get runaway, etc.
Wrong--born and rasied in South Louisiana. Now admittedly, my dissertation advisor "was" a Brit, but I also cannot recall any instances of hearing "data is" from any of my analytical chemist colleagues at professional meetings. Maybe there are fields of science other than analytical chemistry where such (incorrect) usage is the norm, but to us analytical chemists, "datum" is singular, and "data" is plural (and yes, I realize that in this specific case, "data" IS singular).
The hockey stick will still be universally cited as fact 25 years from now.
Remember the first line of inquiry when trying to explain behavior is to follow the money. If you want lots of funding in any scientific disipline you need a crises. If there isn't one there many will create one. The louder you scream that the sky is falling the more money you get. This also helps explain why aids research gets over three times the funding Breast Cancer does.
Couldn't we reverse the process by driving backwards for 10,000 years?