read the link ... the reconstructions you are using are just few of the many reconstructions. http://junksciencearchive.com/Hide_the_decline.html It should also be noted that societal histories ranging from Chinese Dynastic records to Viking Sagas, European trade records and tax histories all feature periods of warmth, when human societies flourished, and colder periods, when crops failed and humans suffered severe privation. Mannâs revisionism successfully flew in the face of history but it is the "hockey stick" that is demonstrably incorrect. It is simply an artifact of Mann-ian 'statistics' and dodgy data.[6] Recently we have seen the Oxburgh Report [7] charitably state: Although inappropriate statistical tools with the potential for producing misleading results have been used by some other groups, presumably by accident rather than design, in the CRU papers that we examined we did not come across any inappropriate usage although the methods they used may not have been the best for the purpose. It is not clear, however, that better methods would have produced significantly different results. ... (Dendroclimatology, item 3) With very noisy data sets a great deal of judgement has to be used. Decisions have to be made on whether to omit pieces of data that appear to be aberrant. These are all matters of experience and judgement. The potential for misleading results arising from selection bias is very great in this area. It is regrettable that so few professional statisticians have been involved in this work because it is fundamentally statistical. ... (Dendroclimatology, item 6) and conclude: We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians. Indeed there would be mutual benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of temperature specialists. (Conclusions, 2) More succinctly then, dendroclimatology depends heavily on data selections made by the researchers, with very great potential for misleading results due to selection bias, is heavily statistical in nature, dendroclimatologists are not professional statisticians and their results are significantly skewed because they do not use the best statistical methods. Talk about damning with faint praise! And this was from a rushed âinvestigationâ by a tame and very friendly committee.[8] Wonder what a bad report card would say? Specifically about Mann, Professor David Hand,[9] head of the Royal Statistical Society said [10] that the research led by US scientist Michael Mann would have shown less dramatic results if more reliable techniques had been used to analyze the data. Did the Medieval Warm Period really exist? Forestry expert and mathematical ecologist Craig Loehle, for example, published a reconstruction restoring the Medieval Warm Period and which suggests that our thermometer records are based in the coldest period of the last 2,000 years, relative to which we are warming. Loehleâs reconstruction relies on diverse subsets of proxies that produce similar results. This suggests that his reconstruction is quite robust. A 2000=Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Treering Proxies Loehleâs reconstruction, actually multiple reconstructions overlaid, clearly indicates that prior warm period and does so without reliance on any individual or set of proxies. In contrast, Mannâs âhockey stickâ reconstruction fails without the inclusion of the unique bristlecone pine tree ring series.[11]
Feds caught altering past temperature data: NOAA claims 1998 was previous âhottest on recordâ â But in 1999, the same year was only the 5th warmest before âadjustmentsâ Read the Full Article at http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/the-big-lie-becomes-official-at-noaa/ "Over the past decade, NASA and NOAA have continuously altered the temperature record to cool the past and warm the present. Their claims are straight out of Orwellâs 1984, and have nothing to do with science."
There have been adjustments made to the historical temperature record by NOAA. Absolutely. But not for for fraudulent reasons like you denier nuts think. It was for reasons like; a change to electronic thermometers, the realization that some past records were inaccurate due to siting in urban areas, etc. The idea that NOAA would engage in fraud for some mysterious reason is simply insane. But of course the propaganda denier websites that you ninnies frequent fail to mention this for some reason.
1. from what we read over time almost all the adjustment seem to work in concert with one idea the past was cooler and we are now warmer. 2. the idea that any institution can not be corrupted is crazy. We just saw the IRS target groups for political reasons. If NOAA had a choice no funding or data massaging... what do you think most people earning the salaries to pay for their mortgages and their kids would do? 3. Money has gotten establishment republicans to play clown tricks on t.v. and jeopardize their leadship positions and their future political lives. You think it was a coincidence boehner was pushing amnesty on a party that was massively against it... and then all of sudden goes down and buys a house on marco island?