On Biffra's Cherry-Picking.

I seem to keep coming back to climate studies, why?

They are second to none right now in the misuse of science and agenda driven “science meant to be used to change our lifestyles in way most still can’t comprehend.  And in spite of the growing evidence contradicting  the  climate change “science”  scientific, media and political forces are still acting like there’s nothing to see here and that critics are off their gourd.   Since this involves what is supposed to be a “hard” science instead of my usually field, the “social” sciences   it make it especially egregious when this sort of thing goes on.

Today Anthony Watts  has  an interesting analysis of the issues involving tree-ring studies in general, and the studies if Keith Biffra,  which get cited over and over again as authoritative, in particular.  I’ll link it at the end of this post.

Here is the problem.   Conservationism has been taken over by folks who want to use conservation as a means to concentrate the population in urban centers that they may be more easily controlled by a powerful government.  Some of these folks actually believe we are a cancer on the earth.  In the warming of the eighties they saw a possible way to achieve their agenda, the globe warmed up a little.  So, the plan was advanced to convince people that we are the cause of the warming and that it is unprecedented in history.  Then people would be inclined to give up technology freedoms and rights in the name of restoring the climate before disaster strikes.

Unfortunately the historical record doesn’t cooperate with the thesis they were advancing.  We know from records kept world-wide in certain civilizations that there have been warm periods and cold periods throughout human history.  We even have names for them such as the Medieval Warming Period (MWP ) and the Maunder Minimum (MM).  But global warming theory doesn’t allow for that.

So they started looking at so called proxies, natural evidence which could possibly be used to infer temperatures such as sediment cores, etc.    But those didn’t cooperate very well either, until two men enter the arena Dr. Michael Mann and Keith Biffra.   Both men purported to use tree-ring ring dendrology to measure earth’s past temperatures.  Dr. Mann came first and produced the sensational “hockey-stick” graph which purportedly proved that temperature was stable through the millennia until modern man started spewing carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere.   Biffra next appeared to duplicate Mann’s result using  trees from another area of the earth.  Mr. Watts gives an excellent summary on the problem with tree-ring dendrology for measuring temperatures:

For many years, scientists have used tree-ring data to try to measure temperatures from the distant past, but the idea is problematic in and of itself. Why? Because tree-ring data reflect many variables besides temperature. Russian tree growth, like that of trees around the world, also reflects changes in humidity, precipitation, soil nutrients, competition for resources from other trees and plants, animal behavior, erosion, cloudiness, and on and on.

Watts is examining Biffra’s study in his article which is why he   mentions Russia in particular.  Mann ‘s study was debunked pretty quickly after he published it.  First he used a species of tree which is notorious for its unreliability for documenting seasonal variations because of its growth range among other reasons.  There were other problems with his methodologies and Mann wasn’t forthcoming in reporting all the statistical tests used or           sharing his data.  And one could go on. 

Biffra, on the other hand, used trees in the Yamal region of Russia for his study, a seemingly more stable choice with a better chance of yielding reliable results.   So his study was hailed for “confirming” Mann’s and is cited to this day as authoritative proof that the historical record is wrong and that we are driving our planet over the edge.

What Watts then concentrates on is the sampling of the trees, that is how many trees are included and why.  That is the point of his article.  The general rule in statistics is the larger and inclusive the sampling, the better the picture and the more accurate with reality.   Now it’s impossible to sample and analyze the rings of every tree of the species chosen in the Yamal region for a study.  But that’s alright as every statistician knows.   Methodologies have been developed and the appropriate statistical analysis developed over the years which yield amazingly accurate results.  That was why Ford could crash just a few Pintos and predict almost to the person how many would die in rear-ending crashes of that defective car.   Biffra claims to have done that.

What Watts explains is that, no, he didn’t.  At least not in the case of the trees used in the study he released.  Oh, Biffra did sample many more trees, but the results weren’t acceptable to him, so he cherry-picked the trees he finally used for his final product to inflate the temperature record in favor of the climate science party line.  That is one very big scientific no-no!   And Watts goes on to lay the case out quite convincingly along with some of the other known misleading steps Biffra worked into the final product.

So we get a rather sordid picture of just how far true-believers in   catastrophic global warming are willing to go to achieve their ends.

My dear friends and readers, these sorts of tactics aren’t limited to the climate science community. They are far more widespread than most people realize.  Dishonesty is now endemic in academia.  Science is being turned into a political tool right before our eyes to advance agendas and smear those who aren’t onboard.   Outside science academia is being harnessed to re-write history in a way which   conforms to a certain worldview, a dangerous one.  That is the point of this blog, to highlight what is going on and warn those who come across it to the dangers posed for us.   

Question, always question what is presented to you as “truth.”   Check the facts before deciding what you do.  But most of all do your own research and be informed.   

The Sum of Yamal Is Greater than Its Parts.                                                            

Flat Ocean Tmeperatures For 55 Years!

Here’s an interesting piece of new out of Anthony Watt’s site:

Trenberth's Missing Heat Still missing.

It seems the ocean temperatures aren’t rising as expected, or even touted, just a mere 0.09C rise in the last 55 years!  And this isn’t denier whooie, its authoritative research published in Geophysical Research Letters!  Now that is interesting!

If You Don't Believe In Climate Change You Must Be Sick

Here we go:

If you Don't Believe In Climate Change You Must Be Sick.

This is what happens when the facts aren't really on the environmentalists’ side.  Attack the messengers.  Skeptics MUST be mentally diseased and need treatment.  Sorry Ms Norgaard, your PhD is wasted.  Skepticism isn't a disease, it is founded in fact.

For many years the premise that it is solely man’s contribution to the CO2 in the atmosphere was up for question on several points.  It is now demonstrated scientifically that man’s contribution is so minimal it might as well be considered miniscule.  Although man does contribute to the rise, it’s mainly on natural sources, including massive amounts of CO2 released as the earth warms from sources locked up in the tundra.

The feedback loops assumed to increase warming exponentially as more CO2 enters the atmosphere are now shown by satellite observation not to be in play.  The current “rising” of the seas is now known to be from sinking land masses not melting ice which is strangely enough binding up more water again.

The current slight dip in global temperatures experienced during the last decade wasn’t predicted by the global warming models and defies the theory as to what should be happening.  We’ve seen major rivers freeze over which haven’t in decades, watched massive casualties from cold winters like we used to have and many other anecdotal things which defy global warming theory.

Yet WE are the ones who are crazy?

With things not going your way and scandal on every side in the Global warming community all you are left with is good old attack the messenger arguments.  Don’t look too close at the evidence, we’re the experts and you can trust us.  They are mentally defective and need to be treated for not believing us.  Those are the tactics of people who’ve lost the debate because the evidence just doesn’t fit and have no recourse left but to ridicule those who do have the facts behind them.  And the really sad part of all this is that WE are paying your salary and for whatever bogus studies you and your colleagues may dream up to “prove” your point.  How despicable!

Look, the earth has been warming since the late nineteenth century.  Before that there was a little ice age Dr. Mann and his cronies tried to rewrite out of existence.  The earth warms and cools.  It is an irregular cycle which is not well understood by scientists, though my money is on the folks who say solar activity is the main driver.  I don’t think the warm has completely stopped and we are headed into another ice age of some sort as some do.  My worldview calls for some more warming before all is said and done.

However, warming on a global scale isn’t in our hands.  We aren’t the driver and the extreme proposals for dealing with it won’t change a thing.  All they’ll do is divert resources from what we should be doing, finding ways to adapt to it.  As you divert us from that important task and if you succeed in your agenda it won’t be us skeptics who’ll be despised throughout history.  It’ll be you.

So stop attacking us and look for real solutions to real problems while you still can.

Note:

This essay was accidentally posted in the wrong blog last month.  So I've moved it  here where it belongs even though it's a little out of date.  Enjoy!