[H/t: Ace]

Iowahawk has deviated from his usual super-snark-parodies to provide a (relatively) simple-to-comprehend layman’s guide to climate-change statistical modeling. The MSM has never done much investigative homework on climate change and have constantly parroted the supposed “scientific consensus” to one and all; obviously it must take super-scientists with super-computers to crunch all those numbers, right? Iowahawk answers:

Au contraire! The climate reconstruction models used by Mann, et al. are relatively simple to derive, don’t take a lot of data points, and don’t require any special or expensive software. In fact, anybody with a decent PC can build a replica at home for free. Here’s how:

I didn’t play along with my Open Office Calc, but I did read through all of it. My head’s kinda spinning right now, but I certainly do get the drift. The graphs representing the analysis are only as good as the data being used to do the modeling. The significance of the Climategate emails and working-data that was released by the hackers for, finally some independent review, is that the climate scientists have been massaging their working data for decades. Their credo: If the data didn’t predict the intended outcome, ie rapidly accelerating temperatures at the end of the 20th Century, then keep working the little suckers until it did just that! Tossing all the original core data into the dustbin of history leaving only the manipulated data for further review was a masterful touch, a veritable scientific touché on the skeptics, so to speak. “Here you climate heretics, just try and prove us wrong now — HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!! Can’t be done! Our Hockey Stick is the most robustest of all Hockey Sticks!”

Oh . . . really? As Iowahawk so deftly puts it:

What you’ll find is that contrary to Mann’s assertion that the hockey stick is “robust,” you’ll find that the reconstructions tend to be sensitive to the data selection. M&M found, for example, that temperature reconstructions for the 1400s were higher or lower than today, depending on whether bristlecone pine tree rings were included in the proxies.

What the leaked emails reveal, among other things, is some of that bit of principal component sausage making. But more disturbing, they reveal that the actual data going into the reconstruction model — the instrumental temperature data and the proxy variables themselves — were rife for manipulation. In the laughable euphemism of Philip Jones, “value added homogenized data.” The data I provided here was the real, value added global temperature and proxy data, because Phil told me so. Trust me!

“[V]alue added homogenized data.” Gotta LUV that one. “Trust me”, indeed.

NOT!

Now, go out there and emit some carbon, lots o’ carbon! I double-dog dare ya!

This entry was posted on Saturday, December 12th, 2009 at 10:49 am and is filed under Climategate, Global Warming B.S.. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.  |   Print This Post  |   Email This Post

Recently Posted:

• “Young Mattie Fein” Political Ad — Hot Linkage & More . . .
• Just Bloggin’ Around: VJ Day Video, Ground Zero Mosque, Obaminations & More . . .
• We The People — An Open Letter To President Obama
• Remembering Annie & Some Hard-Life Lessons
• Obama’s Nightmare In The Gulf
• Obama’s Exectuive Order Banning Federal Funding of Abortion Proves To Be Just More B.S.
• American Women — Takin’ Names, Kickin’ Butt!
• Now Obama’s F’ing Up NASA!
• Happy 4th of July Y’all!
• VOTE!

Tags: Climate Change, climate reconstruction, climate scientists, hockey stick, iowahawk, Philip Jones