Gaia Menopausal?

She’s having hot flashes! Last year was the hottest in 6 billion years (except, of course in areas where it was cooler):

WASHINGTON, June 22 — A controversial paper asserting that recent warming in the Northern Hemisphere was probably unrivaled for 1,000 years was endorsed today, with a few reservations, by a panel convened by the nation’s pre-eminent scientific body.
The panel said that a statistical method used in the 1999 study was not the best and that some uncertainties in the work “have been underestimated,” and it particularly challenged the authors’ conclusion that the decade of the 1990’s was probably the warmest in a millennium.

But, hey, why quibble over piddling details along the way if the conclusion is what you want? It’s the new, improved scientific method: decide on your conclusion and make a computer model to schmudge the data into it.

11 Responses to “Gaia Menopausal?”

  1. John says:

    That model has been used ever since computers becuase cheap enough to filter their way into assistant professors’ labs.
    I once saw a post-doc quit over the prof’s misuse of computer models.
    Garbage In, Garbage Out.

  2. John says:

    Arrrgh – preview is my friend: “That method has been used ever since compouters became
    Got any coffee Bing?

  3. Mr. Bingley says:

    hahahaha, way too much at times!

  4. recent warming in the Northern Hemisphere was probably unrivaled for 1,000 years was endorsed today
    No debatin’ that. But go back 2000 years and voilá ~ deju vu. Theory ‘hockey stick’ gets ‘stuck’ and all pucked up. Let’s review.

  5. Nightfly says:

    Well, judging from the comments in the older post, Ms. Sister, the only people reviewing that article are the spammers. (Wanna buy a watch?) But I’m printing it out anyway and sticking it on the bulletin board at work. Today’s Newark Star-Ledger ran the following front-page, above the fold:
    Global warming is real, scientists warn
    Study confirms late 20th-century temperature spike
    “A blue-ribbon panel of researchers assigned to provide Congress with a clear analysis of the Earth’s surface temperature changes over time has concluded the planet warmed more rapidly over the past 25 years than at any other period in the past 400 years.
    In doing so, the group validated controversial climate reserach published in the journal Nature in 1998, describing warming trends at the end of the 20th century as unprecedented in the last 1,000 years.”
    There’s a graph on the front which you won’t see online, and it suffers from the old “Panavision Crush,” like you’ll remember from watching Planet of the Apes on TV in the 70’s: the credits would suddenly smoosh the extra-wide picture into your screen, making everyone look like Yinka tribesmen. Needless to say, it makes the temp spike seem as if Chimpy McKyotokiller tossed the Western Hemisphere into the microwave and hit “Scorch.”
    You have to follow the jump to page 14 and wade through several grafs of boilerplate and admiration from this chair and that climatologist before getting to the two dissenters – and the first is “science-fiction writer Michael Crichton.” They then include a quote from “Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based free market think tank.”
    In other words, scientists on one side, and Jurassic Park and Uncle Moneybags on the other.
    Here’s the close:
    ” ‘The report has wiped the slate clean of any remaining excuses for inaction,’ said Daniel A Lashof, science director of the National Resources Defense Council’s climate center.
    ” ‘Congress can no longer just turn up the air conditioning and pretend global warming isn’t happening,’ he said. ‘In ordre to avert irreversible global warming damages, the United States must start cutting global warming pollution within 10 years and cut them by more than half by mid-century.'”
    Since that’s the end of the article, there’s no investigation of Lashof’s assertion – no wondering why it’s only the US that has to do this, and not India, China, or a half-dozen other industrial nations; no questioning the numbers. Also, no helpful coded description of the National Resources Defense Council like you had with the Competitive Enterpirse Institute. (I link, you decide.)
    PS – page 15 was “Canada apologizes to Chinese for ‘shameful’ tax” – the immigrant laborers who helped build the railroads were forced to pay a fee, the “head tax,” to remain in the country with their families. Canada is officially sorry.

  6. Nightfly says:

    Sent a comment on that, THS – it’s long and has three links, so check the moderation.

  7. The_Real_JeffS says:

    Ah, the “Yes, but….” approach for approval, as applied to committees. Always flaky as hell, but let’s everyone have their say.
    What a friggin’ joke!

  8. Searching…searching…gotcha!
    Frickin’ spammy watch mongers. We try to keep the decks clear, but they’re cagey bastards.
    Thank you, Diptera, for appreciating my hard work! (And, by the by, you’re looking mighty hunky in the latest pic from Bingley…)

  9. (I didn’t mean to imply…)

  10. Nightfly says:

    Heheheh. It’s all thanks to the cheez fries!
    Actually, your post and this article are just kismet. I even wore my National Review tee shirt to work today… I can see waves of horror coming off some of my coworkers like heat from the blacktop. (Or maybe that’s the global warming?)

  11. Mr. Bingley says:

    Dang, I could use one of those cheesesteaks right now.

Image | WordPress Themes