192-Human Shields In Gaza | View Thread

Peter

How Scientists Cherry-Picked Trees To Create The Global Warming Hockey Stick

The term "hockey stick" was coined by the head ofNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) GeophysicalFluid Dynamics Laboratory, Jerry Mahlman, to describe the pattern ofhistorical temperatures in the northern hemisphere (it kind of lookslike a hockey stick on its side). The chart, created by ProfessorMichael Mann of Penn State, shows relatively stable temperatures untilaround 100 year ago when we see a spike up. It is one of the keypieces of information used to prove that global warming is about todestroy the world.

To create most of the chart , climate change scientists had to usenatural sources (as opposed to someone taking the temperature with athermometer). Tree rings and ice core samples were used to measure thetemperature levels, which are standard procedure. What isn't standardprocedure is the revelation via the "stolen" CRU emails, that the treesamples were "cherry-picked to skew the study. You see, the famous Hockey stick isfudged. The scientists substituted a different kind of tree, who'srings would not show a medieval warming spell with temperatures muchhotter than today. And it may be the cherry-picking of one kind ofSiberian tree that Phil Jones of the CRU may have meant when he talkedabout using Dr. Mann's "trick" to adjust the data :

Itis therefore vitally important that we should trust the methods bywhich these men have made their case. The supreme prize that they havebeen working for so long has been to establish that the world is warmertoday than ever before in recorded history. To do this it has beennecessary to eliminate a wealth of evidence that the world 1,000 yearsago was, for entirely natural reasons, warmer than today (the so-calledMedieval Warm Period).

The most celebrated attempt to demonstratethis was the "hockey stick" graph produced by Dr Mann in 1999, whichinstantly became the chief icon of the IPCC and the global warminglobby all over the world. But in 2003 a Canadian statistician, SteveMcIntyre, with his colleague Professor Ross McKitrick, showed how thegraph had been fabricated by a computer model that produced "hockeystick" graphs whatever random data were fed into it. A whollyunrepresentative sample of tree rings from bristlecone pines in thewestern USA had been made to stand as "proxies" to show that there wasno Medieval Warm Period, and that late 20th-century temperatures hadsoared to unprecedented levels.

Although McIntyre's exposure of the "hockey stick" was upheld in 2006 by two expert panels commissioned by the US Congress,the small group of scientists at the top of the IPCC brushed this asideby pointing at a hugely influential series of graphs originating fromthe CRU, from Jones and Briffa. These appeared to confirm the rewritingof climate history in the "hockey stick", by using quite different tree ring data from Siberia. Briffa was put in charge of the key chapter of the IPCC's fourth report, in 2007, which dismissed all McIntyre's criticisms.

At the forefront of those who foundsuspicious the graphs based on tree rings from the Yamal peninsula inSiberia was McIntyre himself, not least because for years the CRU refused to disclose the data used to construct them. This breached a basic rule of scientific procedure. Butlast summer the Royal Society insisted on the rule being obeyed, andtwo months ago Briffa accordingly published on his website some of thedata McIntyre had been after.

This was startling enough, as McIntyre demonstrated in an explosive series of posts on his Climate Audit blog, because itshowed that the CRU studies were based on cherry-picking hundreds ofSiberian samples only to leave those that showed the picture that waswanted. Other studies based on similar data had clearly shown theMedieval Warm Period as hotter than today. Indeed only the evidence from one tree, YADO61, seemed to show a "hockey stick" pattern, andit was this, in light of the extraordinary reverence given to the CRU'sstudies, which led McIntyre to dub it "the most influential tree in theworld".

This may turn out to be Dr. Mann's famous "trick" talkedabout in Phil Jones email released two weeks ago. It wasn't aboutmanipulating numbers, it was all about changing the trees:

The most quoted remark in those emails has been one fromProf Jones in 1999, reporting that he had used "Mike [Mann]'s Naturetrick of adding in the real temps" to "Keith's" graph, in order to"hide the decline". Invariably this has been quoted out of context. Itstrue significance, we can now see, is that what they intended to hidewas the awkward fact that, apart from that one tree, the Yamal datashowed temperatures not having risen in the late 20th century butdeclining. What Jones suggested, emulating Mann's procedure for the"hockey stick" (originally published in Nature), was that tree-ringdata after 1960 should be eliminated, and substituted – withoutexplanation – with a line based on the quite different data of measuredglobal temperatures, to convey that temperatures after 1960 had shot up.

A further devastating blow has now been dealt to the CRU graphs by an expert contributor to McIntyre's Climate Audit,known only as "Lucy Skywalker". She has cross-checked with the actualtemperature records for that part of Siberia, showing that in the past50 years temperatures have not risen at all.

In other words, what has become arguablythe most influential set of evidence used to support the case that theworld faces unprecedented global warming, developed, copied andpromoted hundreds of times, has now been as definitively kicked intotouch as was Mann's "hockey stick" before it. Yet it is on a blindacceptance of this kind of evidence that 16,500 politicians, officials,scientists and environmental activists will be gathering in Copenhagento discuss measures which, if adopted, would require us all in the Westto cut back on our carbon dioxide emissions by anything up to 80 percent, utterly transforming the world economy.

None of this has been reported by the Mainstream Media,who are single minded promoting the progressive agenda. Then there arethose college scientists getting rich off of government grants,whotrade in their scientific ethics and pile on to the supposed globalwarming consensus without bothering to investigate any of the glaringscientific discrepancies and procedural flaws. Over the coming fewyears, as the costs of global warming policies mount and the evidenceof a crisis continues to collapse, perhaps one day they will be allowedto tie their shoes without first getting permission from the likes ofProfessors Mann and Jones.

John 552 1107 Sunshi...	RE: Human Shields In Gaza 12/6/2009 10:57:58 AM
	Hi Peter More on the ~~global warming~~ climate change scam. It used to be called global warming but when they found out the globe wasn't warming they now call it 'climate change'. Here is what chief bedwetter Al Gore says regarding climate change, as against the true facts: Gore: The Arctic is warming at an unprecedented rate. Fact: The Arctic region warms and cools dramatically every few decades, due to shifting currents and winds. Arctic ice also melted significantly during the 1930s; it is now back to seasonally normal levels. Gore: If the Greenland and Western Antarctic Peninsula ice sheets were to melt and collapse into the ocean, seal levels would rise 40 feet. Fact: Snow and ice are increasing in interior Greenland and Antarctica. The peninsula ice is mostly unstable sea ice, and interior Antarctica temperatures would have to rise 85 degrees (from an average annual minus -50) to cause Gore’s fanciful cataclysm. Gore: The US West and the Southeast are experiencing prolonged severe droughts. Fact: America also endured the Dust Bowl and a 25-year drought that forced Anasazi Indians to abandon their villages. Gore: Carbon dioxide “pollution” is acidifying our oceans. Fact: Higher CO2 levels fertilize ocean algae and improve seashell growth. In some areas upwelling can acidify surface waters with carbon-rich water from deep ocean zones. Gore: Global warming is increasing the number of wildfires in US forests. Fact: Fires continue to threaten habitats, wildlife and homes because insects are killing trees and environmentalist legal actions prevent foresters from managing dense stands of brush and thin diseased and dead trees. Gore: Climate change is increasing the intensity of hurricanes. Fact: Hurricane numbers and intensity are on par with historic records and trends. Katrina was a large Category 3 hurricane when it hit a poorly prepared New Orleans. It’s a good thing the committee didn’t put Gore under oath. He’d be sanctioned for wanton and reckless disregard for the truth – if not perjury – in both his testimony and the movie he produced to terrify young children, so that they pressure their parents into demanding passage of cap-tax-and-trade legislation. A British High Court judge ruled that “An Inconvenient Truth” promotes “partisan political views,” was riddled with errors and falsehoods, and could not be shown any more in schools, unless accompanied by a teacher’s guide correcting information that Gore had misrepresented.Two of the most egregious distortions are especially likely to scare kids. * Polar bears are drowning because a warming planet is melting the Arctic. Fact: Four bears drowned during a particularly violent storm, and polar bear populations are actually increasing in Alaska and Canada. * Warming temperatures have brought malaria to Nairobi, Kenya, killing little children. Fact: Nairobi has always had malaria, andanti-insecticide policies promoted by Gore have helped perpetuate the problem. Indeed, contrary to Gore’s false assertions, there has been no globalwarming for a decade – and Earth has actually cooled slightly since2002 – even as atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise. Climate alarmists habitually magnify the alleged risks of warmer temperatures, ignore the potential economic and health benefits of a warmer world, and obfuscate the clear dangers to agriculture and life from planetary cooling. But Al Gore passionately wants Congress to enact punitive cap-and-trade legislation, because he detests the hydrocarbon fuels that provide 85%of the energy that powers America – and because he stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars via carbon trading deals and subsidized renewable energy technologies. Gore refuses to give up his private jets, limousines and carbon-intensive lifestyle. He refuses to correct any of the errors in his movie, lectures or testimony. He just wants us to give up our living standards. The former VP’s media, Hollywood and congressional friends always protect him and his junk science. He will not debate anyone. When he gives six-figure talks on college campuses, the only questions allowed are those he has pre-approved. On the extremely rare occasions when someone does ask an inconvenient question, as during a recent convention of friendly journalists, Gore dodges the question until the uppity interrogator’s microphone can be switched off. And, to top it off, Al Gore has purchased an oceanfront property from his 'convenient profits' after telling the world that sea levels would rise by 20 feet. Lastly, this will make you smile: Unlike most fossil fuel company CEOs, Massey Energy’s Don Blankenship knows his global warming. Nevertheless, in a new interview, E&E TV reporter Monica Trauzzi seems bent on making a fool of him Blankenship, however, is more than up to the challenge - http://eenews.net/tv/video_guide/1073 If more U.S. CEOs were as knowledgable and articulate as Blankenship, our nation wouldn’t be on the precipice of a swan dive into junk science-fueled totalitariansim.
	Membership Site Profits For Baby Boomers
	+0

Peter 1470 7259 Lod	RE: Human Shields In Gaza 12/6/2009 12:20:34 PM
	Hi John, I've read so many reports disproving the science behind the Global Warming hoax that I find it hard to believe that there are still many out there that are buying into this scam. Al Gore has consistently refused to debate this with anyone that is knowledgeable and that on its own should show the "believers" that there is something very un-kosher with the whole proposition. It's a shame that people won't make the effort to read up on it and educate themselves to the differences within the scientific camp. They would be able to understand the ramifications and the end results if they allow the politicians to pass these draconian laws. I know that Australia also has their own "cap and trade" bill on the books as do other countries. The expense and enslavement to the governments would as I said in my previous post make the law "cap and enslavement" to the detriment of the good citizens of the different countries. I loved the video. Blankenship was so laid back and refuted everything she tried to throw at him. We need more people of his caliber and guts that are willing to take a public stand. You know last year sometime I was discussing this with friends and when the subject of the melting icebergs and the eventual rise in the ocean levels one of them went into the kitchen and brought a big glass full of water with 2 ice cubes in it. He put it on the table and said according to the "scientists" when the ice melts the glass should overflow. We all know that doesn't happen. Now this isn't the same thing as icebergs but in a basic and simplistic way the idea is similar. I really appreciate your input and again welcome back. Shalom, Peter
	Peter Fogel Babylon 7
	+0

Peter 1470 7259 Lod	RE: HSIG - Climategate - "Scientists" Getting Big Money - AND Big Al Too! 12/6/2009 8:46:04 PM
	Hello Friends, Here's an interesting article over at The Lid showing that there is BIG money being a scientist in on the big scam/hoax. Among the many documents they found spreadsheets showing the grants Phil Jones received for the CRU "research". Over the past few years they received well over $22,000,000! I guess they thought that is sufficient reason to release false scientific information. Shalom, Peter CRU Climate Scientists Have Been Riding the "Gravy Train" Posted: 05 Dec 2009 07:55 PM PST Thename of the game for research scientists is research grants. The wayyou advance up the ranks and receive notoriety is to be awarded newgrants (they also pay many of the bills). Over the past few yearsProfessor Phil Jones has received more than 13 million British Poundsin research grants (the equivalent of $22.5 million). Which givesProfessor Jones strong a incentive to make sure those globaltemperature numbers keep rising. The figure is disclosed in a leaked, internal documentposted on the internet by climate change sceptics who have seized uponit as evidence of a funding "gravy train" for scientists conductingresearch into the area. The money is largely for research into the effects of global warmingand is in addition to the main government education grant awarded tothe university. The spreadsheet listing all successful grant applications made byProfessor Jones was part of the batch of leaked documents. It showsProfessor Jones, along with other academics at the university, receivedmore than 50 separate grants with a value of £13.7 million from anumber of funding bodies including the European Union, Nato, and the USdepartment of energy. Several British bodies also gave substantial sumsincluding the Met Office, the Environment Agency, the National RiversAuthority and the Department for the Environment. Prof Jones' name appears alongside all the grants, which range in valuefrom as little as £730 for work carried out on Scottish temperatureindices for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to £6.6 milliongiven by the Higher Education Funding Council for England for theestablishment of the Zuckerman Institute for Connective EnvironmentalResearch at UEA, an award wining research facility which includes theTyndall Centre for Climate Change. According to the spreadsheet, Prof Jones's first successful grantapplication was made in 1991 to the Department of Environment and wasworth £179,484 for 'climate change detection'. Other grants appear more obscure such as a European Union grant for£42,464 for a project entitled: "Assessing the impact of futureclimatic change on the water resources and the hydrology of the Rio dela Plata Basin." Several grants, totalling more than £3 million, are made by theNational Environment Research Council, a quango based in Swindon. Theyinclude research for "Exploring the potential for dendroclimatologicalanalysis in Northern Ethiopia" which was worth £18,639. Besides Prof Jones, many of the leading academics – past and present atCRU – are also named on the spreadsheet, including Prof Trevor Davies,who is now pro-vice-chancellor at UEA but who once headed up the CRU. Professor Ross McKitrick, visiting professor of environmental economicsat the University of Buckingham and an arch sceptic who was subject ofsome of the leaked emails, said: "Climate sceptics are always accusedof taking money from industry but it is now clear the money is on theother side. "There is a huge amount of money on the global warming side.Institutions like the CRU have a very large budget but that woulddisappear if global warming ceased to exist. LikeProfessor Jones, Al Gore has made a fine income from the global warminghoax. He is founder and chairman of the Alliance for ClimateProtection. The group acts as a venture capital company for "greenstart-ups." Venure capitalists never take a salary, Gore will make hismoney when he sells the interest in a start-up. Not that Gore isn'tmaking any money on the his green effort. The Alliance paysall-expenses for his worldwide trips on his private carbon burningairplane, taking to speaking events where he makes $175,000 on average.He has to be making the cash somewhere, reports are that his net worthis now $100 million, when it was put at $2 million when he leftpolitics. Climate-gate deniers ask what motivation would anybody have to fake theeffects that man has on climate change? Little by little the answersare coming out....MONEY!!
	Peter Fogel Babylon 7
	+0

Peter 1470 7259 Lod	RE: HSIG - "Creativity" In Collating Scientific Data - Climategate At Its Best 12/7/2009 6:44:35 AM
	Hello Friends, Here's some more information on Climategate and the global warming hoax/scam. All it takes are some unscrupulous people to that are looking for the money to create the greatest scam of the century and change the world as we know it today. When you take into account that the UN is involved it doesn't surprise me in the least. They were very "creative" and "selective" in the data they based their false "scientific" conclusions on. Hmmm, I wonder why MSM isn't reporting any of this information? Shalom, Peter How Scientists Cherry-Picked Trees To Create The Global Warming Hockey Stick The term "hockey stick" was coined by the head ofNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) GeophysicalFluid Dynamics Laboratory, Jerry Mahlman, to describe the pattern ofhistorical temperatures in the northern hemisphere (it kind of lookslike a hockey stick on its side). The chart, created by ProfessorMichael Mann of Penn State, shows relatively stable temperatures untilaround 100 year ago when we see a spike up. It is one of the keypieces of information used to prove that global warming is about todestroy the world. To create most of the chart , climate change scientists had to usenatural sources (as opposed to someone taking the temperature with athermometer). Tree rings and ice core samples were used to measure thetemperature levels, which are standard procedure. What isn't standardprocedure is the revelation via the "stolen" CRU emails, that the treesamples were "cherry-picked to skew the study. You see, the famous Hockey stick isfudged. The scientists substituted a different kind of tree, who'srings would not show a medieval warming spell with temperatures muchhotter than today. And it may be the cherry-picking of one kind ofSiberian tree that Phil Jones of the CRU may have meant when he talkedabout using Dr. Mann's "trick" to adjust the data : Itis therefore vitally important that we should trust the methods bywhich these men have made their case. The supreme prize that they havebeen working for so long has been to establish that the world is warmertoday than ever before in recorded history. To do this it has beennecessary to eliminate a wealth of evidence that the world 1,000 yearsago was, for entirely natural reasons, warmer than today (the so-calledMedieval Warm Period). The most celebrated attempt to demonstratethis was the "hockey stick" graph produced by Dr Mann in 1999, whichinstantly became the chief icon of the IPCC and the global warminglobby all over the world. But in 2003 a Canadian statistician, SteveMcIntyre, with his colleague Professor Ross McKitrick, showed how thegraph had been fabricated by a computer model that produced "hockeystick" graphs whatever random data were fed into it. A whollyunrepresentative sample of tree rings from bristlecone pines in thewestern USA had been made to stand as "proxies" to show that there wasno Medieval Warm Period, and that late 20th-century temperatures hadsoared to unprecedented levels. Although McIntyre's exposure of the "hockey stick" was upheld in 2006 by two expert panels commissioned by the US Congress,the small group of scientists at the top of the IPCC brushed this asideby pointing at a hugely influential series of graphs originating fromthe CRU, from Jones and Briffa. These appeared to confirm the rewritingof climate history in the "hockey stick", by using quite different tree ring data from Siberia. Briffa was put in charge of the key chapter of the IPCC's fourth report, in 2007, which dismissed all McIntyre's criticisms. At the forefront of those who foundsuspicious the graphs based on tree rings from the Yamal peninsula inSiberia was McIntyre himself, not least because for years the CRU refused to disclose the data used to construct them. This breached a basic rule of scientific procedure. Butlast summer the Royal Society insisted on the rule being obeyed, andtwo months ago Briffa accordingly published on his website some of thedata McIntyre had been after. This was startling enough, as McIntyre demonstrated in an explosive series of posts on his Climate Audit blog, because itshowed that the CRU studies were based on cherry-picking hundreds ofSiberian samples only to leave those that showed the picture that waswanted. Other studies based on similar data had clearly shown theMedieval Warm Period as hotter than today. Indeed only the evidence from one tree, YADO61, seemed to show a "hockey stick" pattern, andit was this, in light of the extraordinary reverence given to the CRU'sstudies, which led McIntyre to dub it "the most influential tree in theworld". This may turn out to be Dr. Mann's famous "trick" talkedabout in Phil Jones email released two weeks ago. It wasn't aboutmanipulating numbers, it was all about changing the trees: The most quoted remark in those emails has been one fromProf Jones in 1999, reporting that he had used "Mike [Mann]'s Naturetrick of adding in the real temps" to "Keith's" graph, in order to"hide the decline". Invariably this has been quoted out of context. Itstrue significance, we can now see, is that what they intended to hidewas the awkward fact that, apart from that one tree, the Yamal datashowed temperatures not having risen in the late 20th century butdeclining. What Jones suggested, emulating Mann's procedure for the"hockey stick" (originally published in Nature), was that tree-ringdata after 1960 should be eliminated, and substituted – withoutexplanation – with a line based on the quite different data of measuredglobal temperatures, to convey that temperatures after 1960 had shot up. A further devastating blow has now been dealt to the CRU graphs by an expert contributor to McIntyre's Climate Audit,known only as "Lucy Skywalker". She has cross-checked with the actualtemperature records for that part of Siberia, showing that in the past50 years temperatures have not risen at all. In other words, what has become arguablythe most influential set of evidence used to support the case that theworld faces unprecedented global warming, developed, copied andpromoted hundreds of times, has now been as definitively kicked intotouch as was Mann's "hockey stick" before it. Yet it is on a blindacceptance of this kind of evidence that 16,500 politicians, officials,scientists and environmental activists will be gathering in Copenhagento discuss measures which, if adopted, would require us all in the Westto cut back on our carbon dioxide emissions by anything up to 80 percent, utterly transforming the world economy. None of this has been reported by the Mainstream Media,who are single minded promoting the progressive agenda. Then there arethose college scientists getting rich off of government grants,whotrade in their scientific ethics and pile on to the supposed globalwarming consensus without bothering to investigate any of the glaringscientific discrepancies and procedural flaws. Over the coming fewyears, as the costs of global warming policies mount and the evidenceof a crisis continues to collapse, perhaps one day they will be allowedto tie their shoes without first getting permission from the likes ofProfessors Mann and Jones.
	Peter Fogel Babylon 7
	+0

Peter 1470 7259 Lod	RE: HSIG - To Kill An american 12/7/2009 8:18:09 AM
	Hello Friends, I just received this and had to share it with you all. Shalom, Peter *Written by an Australian Dentist* *To Kill an American* *Youprobably missed this in the rush of news, but there was actually areport that someone in Pakistan had published in a newspaper, an offerof a reward to anyone who killed an American, any American.* *Soan Australian dentist wrote an editorial the following day to leteveryone know what an American is . So they would know when they foundone. (Good one, mate!!!!)* 'AnAmerican is English, or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish ,Polish, Russian or Greek. An American may also be Canadian, Mexican,African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Australian, Iranian, Asian,or Arab, or Pakistani or Afghan *An American may also be a Comanche, Cherokee, Osage, Blackfoot, Navaho, Apache, Seminole or one of the many other tribes known as native Americans.* *An American is Christian , or he could be Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim. In fact, there are more Muslims in America than in* *Afghanistan . The only difference is that in America they are free to worship as each of them chooses.* *AnAmerican is also free to believe in no religion.... For that he willanswer only to God, not to the government, or to armed thugs claimingto speak for the government and for God.* *An American lives in the most prosperous land in* *the history of the world.* *Theroot of that prosperity can be found in the Declaration ofIndependence , which recognizes the God given right of each person tothe pursuit of happiness.* *AnAmerican is generous. Americans have helped out just about every othernation in the world in their time of need, never asking a thing inreturn........* *WhenAfghanistan was over-run by the Soviet army 20 years ago, Americanscame with arms and supplies to enable the people to win back theircountry!* *As of the morning of September 11, Americans had given more than any other nation to the poor in Afghanistan .....* The nationalsymbol of America , The Statue of Liberty , welcomes your tired andyour poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the homeless,tempest tossed. These in fact are the people who built America Someof them were working in the Twin Towers the morning of September 11 ,2001 earning a better life for their families. It's been told that theWorld Trade Center victims were from at least 30 different countries,cultures, and first languages, including those that aided and abettedthe terrorists. Soyou can try to kill an American if you must. Hitler did. So didGeneral Tojo , and Stalin , and Mao Tse-Tung, and other blood-thirstytyrants in the world.. But, in doing so you would just be killingyourself . Because Americans are not a particular people from aparticular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit offreedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American. *Please keep this going!* *Pass this around the World* . *Then pass it around again.* *It says it all, for all of us* . *Please do not just delete.* *Pass it on first.* *Thanks*!
	Peter Fogel Babylon 7
	+0

Menu

Forums

Hello Friends,

Here's some more information on Climategate and the global warming hoax/scam.

All it takes are some unscrupulous people to that are looking for the money to create the greatest scam of the century and change the world as we know it today. When you take into account that the UN is involved it doesn't surprise me in the least.

They were very "creative" and "selective" in the data they based their false "scientific" conclusions on.

Hmmm, I wonder why MSM isn't reporting any of this information?

Shalom,

Peter

How Scientists Cherry-Picked Trees To Create The Global Warming Hockey Stick

Like us on Facebook!