At preparere politikere

Diverse — Drokles on April 13, 2010 at 7:20 pm

I don’t want the truth. I want something I can tell Parliament” betror en desperat Jim Hacker sin departementssekretær i den klassiske Yes Minister. Watts Up With That har et klokkeklart eksempel på manipulation med FNs klimapanels rapporter, som de bliver præsenteret for “policymakers”. Rapporterne praler med at 2.500 videnskabsmænd med et vist antal peer-review processer har bidraget til det samlede resultat, hvilket signalerer et konsensus.

Here is one of the key graphs from the AR4 report:

The graph is Figure 1 from FAQ 3.1, to be found on page 253 of the WG1 report. The slope over the last 25 years is significantly greater than that of the last 50 years, which in turn is greater than the slope over 100 years. This ‘proves’ that global warming is accelerating. This grossly misleading calculation does not just appear in chapter 3 of WG1. It also appears in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM):

“The linear warming trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years“.

Thus, policymakers who just look at the numbers and don’t stop to think about the different timescales, will be misled into thinking that global warming is accelerating. Of course, we could equally well start near the left hand end of the graph and obtain the opposite conclusion! (Just in case this is not obvious, see here for an example). A similar grossly misleading comparison appears at the very beginning of chapter 3, page 237:

“The rate of warming over the last 50 years is almost double that over the last 100 years (0.13°C ± 0.03°C vs. 0.07°C ± 0.02°C per decade).“

How did this get through the IPCC’s review process?

The IPCC reports are subjected to careful review by scientists. So how did this blatant distortion of the temperature trends get through this rigorous review process? The answer to this question can now be found, because the previous drafts of AR4, and the reviewer comments, can now be seen on-line. (The IPCC was reluctant to release these comments, but was forced to do so after a number of freedom of information requests).

The answer is quite astonishing. The misleading graph was not in either the first or the second draft of the report that were subject to review. It was inserted into the final draft, after all the reviewer comments.

It is not clear who did this, but responsibility must lie with the lead authors of chapter 3, Kevin Trenberth and Phil Jones.

Det skyldes at sige at grafen, som IPCC bruger er baseret på de tvivlsomme data fra Phil Jones forskningsenhed CRU. Det er værd at bemærke at mens nogle frygtede en ny istid i halvfjerserne fordi man dengang bemærkede at temperaturen faldt, ser IPCC i tilbageblik gennem statistisk massage en lille temperaturstigning.

natgeonorthernhtemps

Og for lige at vade i det. BBCs interview med professor Phil Jones kan meget vel vise sig at blive et historisk interview på linie med Frost-Nixon interviewet. Sammenlign udsagnet fra IPCC rapporten, som citeret ovenfor

“The rate of warming over the last 50 years is almost double that over the last 100 years (0.13°C ± 0.03°C vs. 0.07°C ± 0.02°C per decade).“

og

“The linear warming trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years“.

Med udsagnet til BBC, der netop havde bidt mærke i det samme

The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Med andre og lidt forsimplende ord fortæller Phil Jones at de gange man direkte har kunnet måle temperaturen er alle perioder med en stigning meget ens og altså ikke accelererende.

0 Kommentarer »

Ingen kommentarer endnu.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress