Of course you’re going to do whatever interests you, but I for one hope that you still intend to publish your refutation of the Team’s work. While doubtless these areas also merit significant investigation, it seems a loss to me that CA appears to have moved on (if you’ll pardon the expression) from its original raison d’etre, especially without reaching what I would have thought was the logical climax of your efforts. (I’m paraphrasing please excuse me if I’ve misstated something, but that’s the impression I got.) One could say that CA has done exactly that in the course of many hundreds of posts, but distilling it all into a few solid papers, published in the formal literature, remains a very worthy goal IMHO.įor all I know, this work has been proceeding in the background but in the past few months, there’s been little content on this subject and a great deal now on the surface temperature record, discussions of hurricanes, the IPCC process, etc. Some months ago you mentioned that you were working on producing one or more succinct papers which would in essence demolish the corpus of work surrounding the Hockey Team’s climate reconstructions. The Hawaiian Reporter-Freedom to Report Real NewsĪpologies if this has been linked already Good scientists welcome replication and solid reviews. This opposition by the authors also is an intellectual red-flag indicating that something besides good science was involved, such as politics, funding, or fame, etc. Their efforts were obstructed at many steps along the way by the studies’ authors. …Incredibly, there were two individuals, Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre (M&M), two Canadians who had the wits, statistical and computer skills, and doggedness to unravel the complex data and the obscure statistical techniques used to construct the “Hockeystick’. Replication of the results by others is essential, as are the analyses of measuring errors and uncertainties… Data need to be checked and validated, measurements need to be explained and justified, as well as the calculational techniques described. The basics of science involve a number of simple rules, a healthy skepticism, and a guiding principle of letting the data settle the disputes. The ‘Hockeystick’ – Global Warming Scandal of the Decade Had pretty much nothing but wet Atlantic south-westerlies) (personally I suspect it is mainly a reflection of Atlantic circulation, as this winter we have The site? Evidence of fiddling data or evidence of some changes to Atlantic Ocean conditions? Evidence of global warming? Evidence of an urban heat influence extending to
Prior to the mid 80s, after which it has been climbing rapidly to nearly 1.5 deg C above the Temperature, which just bumbled along on a gently rising trend (with noise of about +/- 0.5 deg C) What I found most interesting though was the graph about half way down, showing the average Office, and this winter has been notably warmer and wetter than last, so obviously this becomes Warmest 12 month period ever (but then, 06 was the warmest year ever according to the UK Met I’ve alwaysīeen somewhat skeptical of the ‘Anthropogenic’ in AGW, as it seems to disregard the scale of theĮarth and the complexity of atmosphere-ocean-biosphere interactions.Īnnounced yesterday (and prominent in BBC news reports last night) that this winter has been theĢnd warmest on record according to the Central England Temperature record (which has been runningĬontinously for nearly 400 years), and that the last 12 months (March 06-Feb 07) has been the Geochemistry (with a significant environmental component) and a degree in Geology. I hold a PhD in analytical geochemistry, and prior to that undertook a Masters in First, I should introduce myself, as this is the first time I’ve posted, after reading the siteįor a while.