Journal Journal: Big flaw in global warming analysis 8
Ah... rejected again. Whatever problems the editors (or was it just that one bad one again?) had with this one here it is for all to see, carbon copied below.
MIT Technology Review reports that a prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics here.
From their article (note that "hockey stick" refers to the graph segment shaped like one and used as evidence for global warming):
"Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.
But it wasn't so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken."
The details of McIntyre and McKitrick can be found here
So is this just the last example of science being corrupted by large groups blindly believing in science as a religion? How about DU and radiation? In each case it seems to be mostly the same groups who get caught with their trousers down...
MIT Technology Review reports that a prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics here.
From their article (note that "hockey stick" refers to the graph segment shaped like one and used as evidence for global warming):
"Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.
But it wasn't so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken."
The details of McIntyre and McKitrick can be found here
So is this just the last example of science being corrupted by large groups blindly believing in science as a religion? How about DU and radiation? In each case it seems to be mostly the same groups who get caught with their trousers down...
