Slashdot Mirror

True. But supposedly "in the know" geeks really should Google a little bit because this is not hidden information. Also, if they haven't fully explored the issue, why the hell are they commenting when they don't have the facts? But yes I was being a dick and deserved the flamebait mod. You make a good point and next time I'll post some useful links instead of just being a jerk.

So here are a few posts on the CRU software in question:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/hadley-hack-and-cru-crud/
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/11/cru-data-cooking-recipe-exposed/
a href="http://www.breitbart.tv/fudge-factor-uk-programmer-explains-problems-with-cru-climate-data/"

This is really my main beef with them because it violates everything I know as a programmer. You can't rely on bad code. So they should acknowledge it and do it again correctly. That's it. I'm not a scientist but I am a programmer and this is not the way you do it. I'm not saying they are deliberately doing anything, but these guys have some explanations to make.

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/climategate-30-year-timeline/

Ah yes the Medival Warm Period affecting northern Europe

... and the rest of the world.

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/hockey-stick/mwp-global-studies-map-i-1500.jpg

The unknown author reminds me of this Jonova pic posted recently.

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics-handbook-ii/web-pics/circular-journo-flat-web.gif

That paper does not support a hockeystick - did you even read it?

According to our reconstruction, high temperatures —similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990— occurred around AD 1000 to 1100, and minimum temperatures that are about 0.7K below the average of 1961–90 occurred around AD 1600. This large natural variability in the past suggests an important role of natural multicentennial variability that is likely to continue.

Is the concept of "hockeystick" unclear?

With regards to your question: http://co2science.org/articles/V11/N5/C1.php

The map at the top here claims (although I haven't personally gone through them all) that there are quite a lot of peer reviewed studies all pointing to a MWP warmer than today:

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/

Sure. Let's take the case of AGW currently resting on a single dead tree in Siberia as an example. Faulty research is used as the base for other papers, and thus overthrowing the original research casts doubt on everything that has been built upon it later.

You see, while it's a common misconception that there are "numerous independent data sources" that "prove" anthropogenic global warming, it's simply not true.

Now I'll try to come up with a comprehensive single link to convey this picture. Maybe this works:

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/ ... and in detail:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168

You mean the 800-1300 AD warming period seen in Europe due to changes in the gulf stream/jet stream, which was not warmer anywhere else on Earth?

vs

Marked on the map are study after study (all peer-reviewed) from all around the world with results of temperatures from the medieval time compared to today. These use ice cores, stalagmites, sediments, and isotopes. They agree with 6,144 boreholes around the world which found that temperatures were about 0.5C warmer world wide.

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/

Maybe because those periods weren't as warm globally as you think they were. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warming

Wikipedia has lots of problems where edits get reverted even when they're factual because it doesn't fit with someone's opinions. Better info on the (global) MWP here:

It’s clear that the world was warmer during medieval times. Marked on the map are study after study (all peer-reviewed) from all around the world with results of temperatures from the medieval time compared to today. These use ice cores, stalagmites, sediments, and isotopes. They agree with 6,144 boreholes around the world which found that temperatures were about 0.5C warmer world wide.

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/

Perhaps you'd like to explain why not one scientific organization has produced a convincing argument against the existence of global warming, while many other scientific studies have.

Hmmm.... Here's a scientific organization that doesn't take money coerced from taxpayers, and it actually uses scientific evidence in its conclusions: Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.

And if that's not enough for you, how about a scientist, journalist, and educator who actually thinks that science should be based on evidence, not psychic prognostications of computer programs and scientific "consensus": Joanne Nova.

And yes, the "built-in bias" is billions of dollars of money coerced out of the pockets of impoverished taxpayers. When a "scientist's" job depends on continued political support, he'll ignore and distort data in order to produce the result his political handlers are looking for. Those political handlers want a result that allows them to control ever more of the world's economy to their own benefit and the impoverishment of everyone else.

Yes, warmer. Not everywhere, but certainly not where we've been led to believe.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/13/arctic-non-warming-since-1958/

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/02/13/the-skeptic-that-wasnt/