IPCC Relied On Study Which Used Tiny Sample.
Results Collapse With Available Data Added.
Numerous peer reviewed studies which form a substantial part of the IPCC’s global warming argument, refused to make their data public until now, when it has been shown they relied on a statistically invalid small set of data. Whether this was the result of deliberate cherry picking, or sloppy technique remains to be seen. The Financial Post, Climate Audit, The Daily Telegraph, National Review and The Register among others report that Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre have shown that researchers led by Professor Keith Briffa relied on only ten samples from studies of tree rings in Siberia’s Yamal Peninsula despite the availability of wider samples that when included produce different results.
Climate Audit’s graph show’s the data from the ten chosen samples (from ca. 1800 on) in red recreating the infamous discredited “hockey stick” temperature trend. Climate Audit shows a larger data set of living trees in black without Briffa’s samples. Proponents of global warming theory are up in arms, yet have no good answer for the simple question, why did the researchers refuse to share their data? A response from Professor Briffa failed to explain why he kept the data secret. Transparency does not frighten those with nothing to hide.
How can we trust studies that keep their data secret? How can we trust computer models designed and programmed by fallible humans when the real world observational data fails to fit? The science is not settled.
Related stories auf Deutsch at Readers Edition and eigentümlich frei.
