Home Computer Talk

On the other side are aligned a much smaller number of scientists, some dedicated amateurs, very little money (the grants get taken away as soon as it’s clear the research is leading away from AGW) and a lot of measurements that get ‘invalidated’ regularly each time they show anything contrary to the AGW hypothesis.

It’s hard to know who to believe. But on the AGW side there’s some seriously poor science going on. Early on, one Michael Mann, now PhD, presented the ‘Hockey Stick’ graph seen below in Using the Net as evidence that in the 1900’s the temperature began to climb. The problem is, the graph is made up of tree ring data for the period up to 1900, then measurements made in the 20th century for the ‘blade’ of the hockey stick.

Another problem is that Mann was, at that time a PhD student, (hard to claim he was a ‘leading scientist’) and also a Leading Reviewer for the IPCC report, so he got to help make the decision to accept his Hockey Stick graph as a significant piece of evidence.

The tree ring data fails to show two events we know from history actually happened – the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Look them up – they happened, yet the Hockey Stick graph fails to show them. This invalidates the use of tree rings to show global temperature changes.

And if tree rings are so good as data, how come they didn’t simply use the 20th century tree rings to complete the hockey stick? There would seem to be something wrong with a ‘conclusive’ case that requires manipulation of evidence, don’t you think?

More problems come with how many times the pro-AGW side invalidates previously accepted measurements – not interpretations or theories, but actual measurements and then applies ‘corrections’ to the data so it shows what they are saying is happening. Yet before the IPCC came along, there seemed to be nothing wrong with those measurements.

Back in the 1970’s, there was voiced concern over whether the Earth was heading into a new Ice Age – the average temperatures had been trending down for something like thirty years. Yet now, the pro-AGW scientists have applied a ‘correction’ to show those measurements were actually wrong and that really, things were getting warmer during that three decades and the scientists of those times simply didn’t notice.

Your mission, should you accept it, is to use the information here to go and inform yourself as to what might be really going on. Don’t let a bureaucratic ‘inter-governmental’ body with an agenda decide what you will think – use the internet as it is meant to be used and go take a look for yourself.