60 years and 0.5 deg C how and how data and public perception can be manipulated!
Whether or not you believe in global warming, everyone can agree on the impact of the hockey stick chart shown here.
This is the chart that shows that big swing in temperature and points the finger directly at man.
We know that man has put much more Carbon into the atmospere in the last 60 years and this chart shows a response in global temperature.
So what would it mean if the chart was bogus? Basically it would destroy any credibility that the IPCC had because this is the only proof that they can offer to show a link between Carbon and warming.
So lets show how bogus that it is! The first thing that stands out is that is uses a cherry picked time frame. So I'll put a link for the entire Holcene period ~ 12,000 years here. That just shows that they took a few liberties with the time frame, it's not a smoking gun.
But here's a smoking gun! They removed some of the data! See whereamInow's post here!
Why did they remove it? Because Briffa used tree ring data and it disagreed with their own temperature measurments over the last 60 years. What did they use for data before they had temperature readings? The same tree ring data that Briffa used! So the data was fine to use as long as it agreed with their climate model. When asked about how the data could be considered accurate for the previous years, they responded that the tree ring data for the last 60 years must have been affected by man made forces and the previous data was without that man-made effect. They never said what those man made forces were. I was really hoping that they would have said that CO2 was bad for trees, but that never happened.
Ok so that's a smoking gun, but it is at least plausible. Can I find more proof that the it might be their own temperature readings that are flawed? How about the fact that satellite readings agree with Briffa and show a small decline in temperature over that time frame! Satellites measure the temperature of the globe as a whole by looking at it's radiation. They should in practice be more accurate than surface readings because we have a large part of the Earth's surface that don't have weather stations. (Including the 70% of the globe that is ocean.)
So the climate gurus are claiming that the satellites are also wrong, but NASA is confident in it's measurements. Read their response here. Not only does NASA defend their measurments, but the do postulate a few reasons why the IPCC's climate model may be flawed. Read the whole page if you can, it's worth it!
Ok, so how can the surface based readings possibly be wrong? Well, first there is a large part of the globe that simply doesn't have weather stations. The stations that they do have tend to be located in large, urban areas. This in itself disturbs the measurments. The Urban heat island effect makes the readings in the urban areas higher than in surrounding areas. Rather than find a flaw in their own data, the IPCC chooses to look elsewhere.
So the 2 trillion dollar question is...
Do you trust the hockey stick chart enough to go into debt for another government scheme?