Journal n54's Journal: Big flaw in global warming analysis 8
Ah... rejected again. Whatever problems the editors (or was it just that one bad one again?) had with this one here it is for all to see, carbon copied below.
MIT Technology Review reports that a prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics here.
From their article (note that "hockey stick" refers to the graph segment shaped like one and used as evidence for global warming):
"Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick 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 wasn't 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."
The details of McIntyre and McKitrick can be found here
So is this just the last example of science being corrupted by large groups blindly believing in science as a religion? How about DU and radiation? In each case it seems to be mostly the same groups who get caught with their trousers down...
MIT Technology Review reports that a prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics here.
From their article (note that "hockey stick" refers to the graph segment shaped like one and used as evidence for global warming):
"Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick 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 wasn't 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."
The details of McIntyre and McKitrick can be found here
So is this just the last example of science being corrupted by large groups blindly believing in science as a religion? How about DU and radiation? In each case it seems to be mostly the same groups who get caught with their trousers down...
Conspiracy theorists abound (Score:3, Insightful)
There are many here who's opinions are their faith.
Re:Conspiracy theorists abound (Score:1)
Next time I'll try blaming it on the freemasons
I won't do that, better not to get the story accepted, and I've found that "self-publicising" the rejected stories as journal posts works to a certain degree. Maybe over time someone will figure out an even better idea
on global warming (Score:1)
Re:on global warming (Score:1)
Or it could just be... (Score:1)
Keep in mind that the MIT Technology Review is a private organization with no peer review. When a science reporter bases some analysis on a paper rejected by Nature, and has yet to be received elsewhere, I seriously doubt the veracity of the claims made.
Re:Or it could just be... (Score:1)
Re:Good riddance, hockey stick! (Score:1)
"Great article by Muller!
I think the global warming fanatics have had their day, and the next ten years will finally see all the junk science and slimy politics taken out to the trash.
Global warming ideologues will push hard to dismiss this new bombshell and attack the scientists, as they have so relentlessly done in the past, but this time around their tactics will fail, and this nightmare 15-year