If you believe the New York Times (golly, who doesn’t other than people who read?), then global temperatures are the highest they’ve been in 4,000 years.
Perry White must be rolling over in his grave. The fictional Daily Planet regularly ran stories about a flying extraterrestrial and his battles with aliens, robots, monsters and evil geniuses, yet the — again, fictional — staff always placed more emphasis on getting the facts straight than the New York Times seems to these days.
It’s not entirely the fault of journalists at the Grey Lady and other outlets that the study they based their 60-point headlines on was yet another fraud full of manipulated numbers, but the silence upon finding that out is deafening.
The study, called “A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years,” appeared originally in the journal Science, which is supposed to do the fact-checking the NYT no longer does, and it slipped by their editors too.
The authors of the study which was called by the NYT “the most meticulous reconstruction yet of global temperatures” have now admitted — not in so many words — their facts are complete hogwash.
The study relied heavily on underwater core samples, which don’t pick up short-term trends and which don’t normally provide reliable 20th century data because the method of drilling disturbs the topmost layers of silt.
Most of the samples used were taken by researchers other than the study’s authors, and the authors got their results showing a huge uptick in 20th century temperatures by changing the start dates on the core samples, a fact that was excluded from their original paper.
The lead author, Shaun Marcott, under questioning by scientists who noted some odd features in the data used, finally admitted what the authors had done. Eliminating the step of changing the dates — I believe “correcting” is the term warmers use for this sort of fudging — eliminates the whiz-bang conclusion of the paper, that the 20th century has wiped out 5,000 years of cooling.
This is how a climate scientist admits that his data are worthless. Pay close attention:
“Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record.”
Some translation is necessary. “Shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure” means that the method used for long-term temperature trends is not sensitive enough to pick up short-term variations. Elsewhere in his explanation, Marcott says that the methods used can’t pick up anything occurring over less than 120 years at best.
The phrase “not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes” translates to it’s fabricated and based on wishful thinking (and probably the desire to win future grants).
The last phrase is crucial. “As documented by the instrumental record” means that the study’s authors came up with their 20th century “uptick” by simply assuming what was found in previous studies using thermometers at weather stations around the world. In other words, the study uses a completely different method for the 20th century than for all the other data it covered going back over thousands of years.
All the kerfuffle over the study was based on the original claim that the long-term data and the modern thermometer data (which itself has problems) matched. But the authors’ “clarifications” make it clear their data were manipulated to reach a preconceived conclusion.
In the popular parlance, I suppose I am what liberals like to call a “climate denier.” But what liberals don’t get is that my — and I think most people’s — skepticism about climate change is not the product of any ideology but simply the fact that time and time again, every major study claiming to find this alleged global warming has major flaws in it, flaws that even a first-year science student should be able to spot.
When highly paid researchers are known to have manipulated data and even lied about it when caught doing it, when the big scare is over a supposed one- or two-degree average temperature difference over a century but the majority of weather stations have a five-degree plus or minus error, when all the changes in arctic ice and weather patterns can be attributed to known natural phenomena that are ignored by climate studies, when species like the polar bear that are supposedly endangered by global warming are in fact more populous than at any time on record, then yes, I get a little skeptical about all the panic over “climate change.”
At what point do the climate scaremongers — because that’s what they seem to be — just give it up and admit what most people have concluded long ago, that global warming is nothing but a ginned-up crisis to justify expensive government programs and to create “carbon credits” that will make people like Al Gore spectacularly wealthy?