Gibbs on Climategate: The science is settled

AGW is the proposition that there is something going on that is different than the normal understood climactic changes seen in all other inter-glacial periods.

Thus those purporting the AGW hypothosis must present valid and verifiable data on that topic.

EA CRU destroyed their original datasets, and their programmer’s document demonstrates that their derived data sets are contaminated, unlabeled, inaccurate, and do not use rigorous definitions for data types. Thus they only retain derived datasets and no one, not even the original researchers and individuals who’s names appeared on their papers can replicate the results of their papers. Any paper depending in whole or in part on those results are suspect of inaccuracy and will need re-examination of their results in light of the inability of EA CRU to reproduce their results.

Anyone depending on NASA Goddard numbers from the 1990′s data processing era must also re-evaluate their data as Goddard mis-processed multiple datasets over that era and has publicly acknowledged that to be the case after they were called on the fact that their processed datasets did not match actual temperature readings fed into the system.

Mean Sea Level measurements were found to have been skewed due to the large number of stations situated on subsiding land which was not taken into account. When the rate of subsidence per station was put in, MSL showed a remarkable steadiness across the entire 20th century.

The tree ring proxy dataset of the original hockey stick graph has been demonstrated to rest with a total of 12 trees. When a wider forest tree sampling is taken the hockey stick disappears completely.

To date these datasets show no measurable influence that is outside the norm expected for inter-glacial periods which are notable for rapid climactic fluctuations based on previous inter-glacial periods in the Tertiary and Quatenary. None of the datasets used to show AGW has been found to pass muster. Antarctic ice sheets are at the furthest reach as seen in the historical record and wind patterns that had changed Arctic ice flows have returned to normal and we now see winter pack ice farther south than in living memory of the fishing fleet and in the historical record.

There is a problem with AGW: it lacks any basis via data sets. The EA CRU data release is just the largest of the data sets that have gone down over the past 3 years, but not the only AGW data set that has been invalidated, not by a long shot.

If we can’t understand the microclimates for growing good grapes then perhaps we should be a bit more humble on saying what is driving global climate in any direction. Proof of AGW is incumbent upon those pushing it. Show me the valid data and ensure that all analysis is documented and that others can reproduce the analysis and examine the results. As a geologist I can take huge changes in understanding about what happens on this planet. I accept the boloid impact theory at the K-T boundary because nothing else explains that event and what it left in the geological record, and changed our understanding of what ‘normal’ is for the solar system’s bodies. The data is good, solid, global and reproduceable. AGW isn’t a ‘theory’ by that standard and is barely a hypothosis when compared to the K-T impact theory.

ajacksonian on November 30, 2009 at 7:14 PM