Thursday, November 22, 2007

Old Article about the "Hockey Stick"

I've been meaning to show this article but never got around to it. Unfortunately, this finding never gets any pub whatsoever.

Keep in mind. I am not piling on the anti-democrat bandwagon. This, I repeat, is NOT a political statement in an way. I, like many of my colleagues, try to see the science through the garbage/politics.

The rebuttle to this finding is at the end of the article.


WSJ Editorial July 14, 2006 (Original findings were published in early 2005)

It is routine these days to read in newspapers or hear — almost anywhere the subject of climate change comes up — that the 1990s were the “warmest decade in a millennium” and that 1998 was the warmest year in the last 1,000.

This assertion has become so accepted that it is often recited without qualification, and even without giving a source for the “fact.” But a report soon to be released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee by three independent statisticians underlines yet again just how shaky this “consensus” view is, and how recent its vintage.

The claim originates from a 1999 paper by paleoclimatologist Michael Mann. Prior to Mr. Mann’s work, the accepted view, as embodied in the U.N.’s 1990 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was that the world had undergone a warming period in the Middle Ages, followed by a mid-millennium cold spell and a subsequent warming period — the current one. That consensus, as shown in the first of the two IPCC-provided graphs nearby, held that the Medieval warm period was considerably warmer than the present day.

Mr. Mann’s 1999 paper eliminated the Medieval warm period from the history books, with the result being the bottom graph you see here. It’s a man-made global-warming evangelist’s dream, with a nice, steady temperature oscillation that persists for centuries followed by a dramatic climb over the past century. In 2001, the IPCC replaced the first graph with the second in its third report on climate change, and since then it has cropped up all over the place. Al Gore uses it in his movie.

The trouble is that there’s no reason to believe that Mr. Mann, or his “hockey stick” graph of global temperature changes, is right. Questions were raised about Mr. Mann’s paper almost as soon as it was published. In 2003, two Canadians, Ross McKitrick and Steven McIntyre, published an article in a peer-reviewed journal showing that Mr. Mann’s methodology could produce hockey sticks from even random, trendless data.

The report commissioned by the House Energy Committee, due to be released today, backs up and reinforces that conclusion. The three researchers — Edward J. Wegman of George Mason University, David W. Scott of Rice University and Yasmin H. Said of Johns Hopkins University — are not climatologists; they’re statisticians. Their task was to look at Mr. Mann’s methods from a statistical perspective and assess their validity. Their conclusion is that Mr. Mann’s papers are plagued by basic statistical errors that call his conclusions into doubt. Further, Professor Wegman’s report upholds the finding of Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick that Mr. Mann’s methodology is biased toward producing “hockey stick” shaped graphs.

Mr. Wegman and his co-authors are careful to point out that doubts about temperatures in the early part of the millennium do not call into question more-recent temperature increases. But as you can see looking at these two charts, it’s all about context. In the first, the present falls easily within a range of natural historical variation. The bottom chart looks alarming and discontinuous with the past, which is why global-warming alarmists have adopted it so eagerly.

In addition to debunking the hockey stick, Mr. Wegman goes a step further in his report, attempting to answer why Mr. Mann’s mistakes were not exposed by his fellow climatologists. Instead, it fell to two outsiders, Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick, to uncover the errors.
Mr. Wegman brings to bear a technique called social-network analysis to examine the community of climate researchers. His conclusion is that the coterie of most frequently published climatologists is so insular and close-knit that no effective independent review of the work of Mr. Mann is likely. “As analyzed in our social network,” Mr. Wegman writes, “there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis.” He continues: “However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.”

In other words, climate research often more closely resembles a mutual-admiration society than a competitive and open-minded search for scientific knowledge. And Mr. Wegman’s social-network graphs suggest that Mr. Mann himself — and his hockey stick — is at the center of that network.

Mr. Wegman’s report was initially requested by the House Energy Committee because some lawmakers were concerned that major decisions about our economy could be made on the basis of the dubious research embodied in the hockey stick. Some of the more partisan scientists and journalists howled that this was an attempt at intimidation. But as Mr. Wegman’s paper shows, Congress was right to worry; his conclusions make “consensus” look more like group-think. And the dismissive reaction of the climate


Since the original release of the statistical findings, Mann issued this rebuttle.

" 'correction' was nothing more than a botched application of the MBH98 procedure, where the authors (MM) removed 80% of the proxy data actually used by MBH98 during the 15th century period... Indeed, the bizarre resulting claim by MM of anomalous 15th century warmth (which falls within the heart of the "Little Ice Age") is at odds with not only the MBH98 reconstruction, but, in fact the roughly dozen other estimates now published that agree with MBH98 within estimated uncertainties..."

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

The Best Picture Ever

So a buddy of mine, on a suggestion made by his friend, decided back in early September to go to Dubai on a week's vacation.

Yes, Dubai.

Aside from the obvious cultural differences one needs to adapt to when traveling to the middle east, the trip was great according to him. But of all the pictures he took, this one of his taxi driver is by far the best one and quite frankly, the best picture I have seen in a long time.
This now resides as the background on my computer at work.

Friday, November 09, 2007

Global Warming: Article from Founder of the Weather Channel

Some of my colleagues might not find this article credible or correct but I feel the need to share this being that John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel is a respected meteorologist and has been for decades. Granted, he mentions the Democratic Party by name which adds unnecessary fuel, in my opinion, to an already fueled argument but his other points are valid.


It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.

Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.

Now their ridicules manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.

However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you "believe in." It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won't believe me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I suspect you might like to say to me, "John, look the research that supports the case for global warming was done by research scientists; people with PH D's in Meteorology. They are employed by major universities and important research institutions. Their work has been reviewed by other scientists with PH D's. They have to know a lot more about it than you do. Come on, John, get with it. The experts say our pollution has created an strong and increasing greenhouse effect and a rapid, out of control global warming is underway that will sky rocket temperatures, destroy agriculture, melt the ice caps, flood the coastlines and end life as we know it. How can you dissent from this crisis? You must be a bit nutty.

Allow me, please, to explain how I think this all came about. Our universities have become somewhat isolated from the rest of us. There is a culture and attitudes and values and pressures on campus that are very different. I know this group well. My father and my older brother were both PHD-University types. I was raised in the university culture. Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PHD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else.

And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.

So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90's they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like minded PHD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question.

There were a few who didn't fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them brushed their studies aside.

I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970's to always be a skeptic about research. In the case of global warming, I didn't accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science.

I am not alone in this assessment. There are hundreds of other meteorologists, many of them PH D's, who are as certain as I am that this global warming frenzy is based on bad science and is not valid. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped.

The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway.

I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.

Monday, November 05, 2007

Elaina's Birth-Day Revisited

I finally have a few minutes to write after the wham-bang past two weeks since my daughter Elaina was born. Rather than just bore you with an endless run-on of "mommy-and-baby-are-doing-great" cliches, an embellished events chronology starting from when left the house to go to the hospital and ending with birth I feel is the best way to encapsulate the day. I had better do this now because, after all, Time is now flying by even faster now...not like it wasn't already. (See earlier posting)

As you read, don't forget to make a mental note of the memorable quotes from doctors and nurses as I assure you, some of these you will NEVER hear again.

8:30AM We get up, have breakfast and get in the car for the marathon 3.5 mile drive to the hospital. "Why does this seem weird?", I say to my wife. She laughs.

I continue. "We woke up this morning and by lunch, we'll have another child. This seems...we'll planned," I say.

She says, "That's why this is called a 'planned' C-Section."

I nod in agreement.

9:10AM Now at the hospital, a pile of paperwork was immediately thrust at us that would make filing your taxes seem like writing thank you cards for Christmas. My wife and I feverishly check boxes, initial and initial some more.

9:12AM The nurse hooks her up to an IV as she continues to dot I's and cross T's.

The nurse asks, "So what are we having today?"

Seems harmless enough but the fact that this was a planned "C" made the question seem on par with a inquiry like, "Would you like to have fries with that?" I mean that not to diminish the birth of my daughter, she just asked the question so "matter-of-factly" and I wasn't ready for it.
9:25AM I utter the word "SPHYGMOMANOMETER" for the third time since arriving.

10:20AM I get dressed in my operating room garb.

10:35AM My wife is wheeled into the OR.

10:40AM I wait patiently for the doctor to arrive. He shows up with a Jeff Gordon surgical hat on, scrubs up, tells a few off-color jokes and proceeds to the OR.

10:40:10AM I remove flask from my back pocket and promptly take 2 shots.

10:42AM I pop a few Tic-Tacs to cover up the smell of J.D.

10:52AM The C-Section begins. I hold my wife's hand as I watch the Nascar-loving doctor slice into her abdomen. There is something surreal watching your wife being opened up while medical technicians utter phrases like "more suction" or "clamp" or, and this is my favorite, "pass the metzenbaum". This is not to be confused with the aged former Ohio Senator Howard Metzenbaum who at last check, has never performed a C-Section.

10:54AM A nurse asks me how it is to work with local celebrities. Before I could answer the question, she continues on her lengthy diatribe on how she often runs into a few of these local celebrities at the grocery store on Saturdays. She doesn't take the hint that I could really care less given my wife is on the operating table numb from the chest down. So she continues to tell her story while I watch the water break.

10:56AM Our baby girl, ELAINA GABRIELLE was born, 8 lbs. 14 oz, 21 inches.

11:00AM I cut the cord.

11:30AM Back to the room.

Fast forward to 3PM.....

A nurse enters the room to check in on my wife. She then says the most strangest sentence I guarantee I'll EVER hear.


I quickly retorted, "What does that mean?"

Mistake number one was to ask a follow-up question. A mistake that I quickly regretted.

She answers, "Oh, it was just so red and full."

At this point, I had nothing. I mean, where do you go from that answer? I'll tell you where, you don't say a word and pretend like the dialogue never happened. So I took the path of least resistance and went to get a cup of coffee.