Sep 28 2009

Paul Krugman Tries To Play Scientist, As Real Scientist Uncover Serious Flaw In Global Warming Data

Published by at 11:37 am under All General Discussions,Global Warming

Major Update Below!

Paul Krugman’s ego runneth over. He thinks he can wade into the scientific debate surrounding global warming and be credible. Where he gets these delusions of grandeur is unknown to me. As someone who works in the complex and competitive world of space systems and aerospace, I know that the young and unproven ‘science’ of global climate and global warming is complex and still being tested through the scientific method.

Right now, while the layman view of the subject is assumed to be settled, the scientific testing of the global warming theories, along with the past decade’s measurements, have thrown enormous doubt into the doom and gloom scenarios that Paul Krugman has apparently prematurely accepted as defacto fact.

As Krugman ably demonstrates, lay people should not jump into this debate without some experience and expertise in science, math and engineering. The real professionals, on the other hand, have discovered that the source of all the recent global warming is not CO2, but bad data used in climate models which forces the models to show recent warming – where OTHER DATA shows there is no recent warming.

Let me repeat this. The statistical models used by the High Priests of Global Warming are using a newly identified and specific data set which wrongly produces decades of warming where none exists in the raw temperature data 0r other data sets.

The work was produced by Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit in his report Yamal: A “Divergence” Problem. H/T to WUWT for the heads up. Steve is a gifted scientist, therefore he speaks in the babble of PhDs deep in the bowels of scientific debate. You can go to both links and see the raw conclusions, but I will try to synthesize the PhDese into normal language. My job as an engineer is to translate between the PhDs and the Program Managers to make a successful system for both. I am fluent in both cultures. I am also much more blunt and less diplomatic in my conclusions. So here it goes.

I will let the authors be more reserved, but I find the results damning. To summarize, the infamous Hockey Stick (HS) warming trend that supposedly shows man made CO2 forcing the Earth’s temperature higher is in fact an artifact of one set of bad data.

One of the many independent representations (proxies) of the Earth’s historic temperature profile before 1970’s (and the advent of global temperature measurements from space) are things like tree rings. Data sets from all over the world were used to construct the history of Earth’s climate, and previous research shows none of them show a significant hike in global temperature except one from Russia (see here and here for examples of previous reporting on this find).

Let me explain this using an example everyone can relate to. We measure the tides and the gravitational forces of the Sun and Moon using sensors spread across the globe. Even if there is a set of data that is lost, all the other data sets show the same tidal nature of gravity on the Earth’s oceans.

Now suppose someone had a set of data from Alaska which showed something completely different form the other data (e.g., tides are caused by Mercury, not the Moon or Sun).  It would take some serious weighting and jiggering of the statistics to have this one data set override all the other data sets. But it can be done.

Now suppose there were many measurements from Alaska, but the scientists claiming Mercury (smallest planet in the solar system) was the driving force behind tides instead of the Sun (largest) or the Moon (closest) had used only those data sets that proved their theory, ignoring the other Alaska data. Would anyone see this as deliberate data manipulation to force and preferred outcome?

So with that example in mind look at the graph produced when Steve McIntyre included the other Russian tree ring data (black line) and compared that with the IPCC selected data (red line):

No recent warming in the non-IPCC data set. In fact, it shows recent cooling! This cannot be an accidental result, for that one data set to override all the other data in the region. It just doesn’t add up.

This is more evidence of a broader trend in the IPCC claims of global warming. More and more we find, when we look into the data, that it is skewed. Even the National Climate Data Center admits openly that for some measurements the raw measurements do not show any warming, that is added in later. Here is their own graph on one such data set (click to enlarge):

Areal vs Final Difference

Warming only appears after the data is run through ‘processing’ that magically produces a recent warming trend. Up until 1960 the raw and processed data are consistent, after that there is a processed warming trend added to the raw data – growing over the years to modern day. They openly admit they have added warming to raw data that shows no warming. More here on cooking the books of global warming.

Above is the final chart produced at Climate Audit. What this shows is that when you take out the suspected tree ring data, there is no global warming (black line) but actually global cooling. If you add in ALL the data sets from that region of Russia, there is no global warming (green line) at all. Only if you carefully select some special data from the world of data sets (red line) do you see something that could be advertised as global warming.

Since all other data around the world is apparently showing little to no warming during the last few decades of increased CO2 production, then this revelation scientifically proves CO2 is NOT warming the planet.

One has to wonder at the forensic evidence discovered to date showing the UN IPCC and its doom and gloom fanatics were able to magically produce phantom warming from data that shows no such phenomena. One has to also wonder at the motives of such people who are obsessed with collecting trillions of dollars from everyone on the planet in order to ‘save the planet’ from this phantom danger.

It looks like a grand extortion scheme. Either pay us to stop global warming or the end of the world will come. Of course, to make this scam work, one needs to show data that indicates pending doom. Pathetic.

Major Update: The chronology of this fiasco is as damning as the results. Check out the WUWT story and read the notes:

1. In a 1995 Nature paper by Briffa, Schweingruber et al., they reported that 1032 was the coldest year of the millennium – right in the middle of the Medieval Warm Period. But the reconstruction depended on 3 short tree ring cores from the Polar Urals whose dating was very problematic.

2. In the 1990s, Schweingruber obtained new Polar Urals data with more securely-dated cores for the MWP. Neither Briffa nor Schweingruber published a new Polar Urals chronology using this data. An updated chronology with this data would have yielded a very different picture, namely a warm medieval era and no anomalous 20th century.

Emphasis mine. That’s the first 1.5 notes out of 10. Read the rest. This forensic data illustrates a potentially criminal scam in my humble opinion. And the scientific method of challenge and reproducing results is the mechanism by which this came to light.

21 responses so far

21 Responses to “Paul Krugman Tries To Play Scientist, As Real Scientist Uncover Serious Flaw In Global Warming Data”

  1. AJ,

    Don’t mess with drunks or religious fanatics.

    With AGW, you are dealing with both.

  2. crosspatch says:

    I have been watching this unfold over at SteveM’s blog. It is damning of the whole AGW issue. Mann’s infamous (and now completely discredited) “hockey stick” graph now has a stake driven through its heart.

    In particular, one should look at comment #10 by Ross McKitrick for the background on what has been going on over the years.

    Just to be clear, the ENTIRE AGW DEBATE has been based on these tree core studies and surface temperature measurements that have now been shown to also be flawed. BUT … there are a lot of people with millions and possibly billions of dollars at stake in climate hysteria who are going to fight tooth and nail to keep this hysteria going. Everything from carbon credit trading, carbon credit retail sales (such as the kiosks at SFO airport that sells “carbon credits” to passengers for 60x the current market price) and “green” companies betting on AGW regulations to make millions of dollars.

    That is the blog posting that killed AGW. It might be the most important blog posting of the century if it holds up.

  3. AJStrata says:

    CP, this is bad and impossibly due to random data selection it really does invoke criminal investigation.

    Since these studies are the basis for demanding trillions in taxes and millions of lost jobs, the stakes are more than high enough to warrant scrutiny.

  4. OregonGuy says:

    I liked the Patrick Michaels’ take, “The Dog Ate Global Warming” over at NRO.

  5. crosspatch says:

    I’ll repost a comment I made over at Anthony’s blog:

    This explains why they have been loath to release their raw data and the methods they use on those data. They have been caught cheating. And once they have one lie out there, other lies must be fabricated to support it. And so we have the wholesale deletion of global rural surface temperature recording stations leaving an urban-biased network that reflects UHI in order to back up their earlier conclusions.

    In the meantime, the worry that we might be boiling ourselves alive creates a huge surge in research grants for their field of study and launches various climatologists onto the jet setting speaking circuit making celebrities out of them and advancing their career. All of this being done with the expectation that once the world discovered what was going on, they would be retired or dead and their kids would be quite rich.

    That puts the “carbon credit” kiosk at SFO selling credits for 60x market value in a whole different light. We now have proof that the foundation science for AGW was based on the selection of data that would guarantee the desired outcome. Practically every AGW paper out there can trace its origin back to those tree ring studies either directly or indirectly (referencing a paper that references the study).

    Most importantly, Steve M’s work shows NO 20th century temperature anomaly. And so again, people who in their hearts believe they want to do something good for their neighbors and future generations have been taken to the cleaners hook, line, and sinker and have been parted from considerable portion of their hard earned income.

    I sincerely feel that someone should go to prison for this. This wasn’t an accident. This was not a mistaken conclusion. This shows that the conclusion was “cooked” from the start. Billions and possibly trillions of dollars have been wasted on this nonsense globally.

    It’s pitchfork and torch time.

  6. crosspatch says:


    “the dog ate global warming” is an entirely different yet tangentially related issue.

    They were claiming that the raw climate surface data backed up the tree ring studies. Now it turns out there is no such data.

    So we have neither any real tree ring data nor any surface temperature data that supports AGW.

    In other words, they have absolutely no case for global warming. There is no data anywhere that supports the notion that human caused CO2 emissions have any impact whatsoever on climate.

    They have no temperature data, and the tree ring data has been shown to be a fraud.

    Again … it is pitchfork and torch time. We have been robbed.

  7. crosspatch says:


    And it gets worse. Not only has CRU somehow “lost” the data, they also do not have a list of the stations used in the original data so that the data set can be reconstructed.

    They can not even tell you what stations they used over which periods of time. In other words, it is all, basically, a matter of “faith”. You simply have to take their word for it that things are as they say they are.

    Got a lighter? I need to get this torch lit.

  8. WWS says:

    “I sincerely feel that someone should go to prison for this.”

    I do too – but the problem is that those who are complicit in the fraud are those who control all of the effective enforcement mechanisms in the world.

    As much fun as it would be to fantasize about Eric Holder indicting Henry Waxman, the odds are against it. And every big player is going to protect the smaller players since they know that they don’t let the edifice crumble anymore. We’re already at the “facts! We don’ need no steenkin’ facts!” stage – just look at Krugman’s pathetic excuse for an article referenced by AJ. He starts right off by moaning about how “the icecaps are shrinking faster than ever!” without caring in the least that they are in fact growing. (as you well know)

    Facts no longer matter to them. We are engaged in a battle of pure PR where they are going to try and ram this through as the embodiment of all of their political hopes and dreams. There is no good faith on their part anymore – not on the part of *anyone* who supports this.

    This is no longer a debate – this is war.

    Pitchfork and torch time, indeed.

  9. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by AJ Strata. AJ Strata said: new: Paul Krugman Tries To Play Scientist, As Real Scientist Uncover Serious Flaw In Global Warming Data […]

  10. […] Paul Krugman Tries To Play Scientist, As Real Scientist Uncover Serious Flaw In Global Warming Data […]

  11. […] Scientist Uncover Serious Flaw In Global Warming Data Paul Krugman Tries To Play Scientist, As Real Scientist Uncover Serious Flaw In Global Warming Data Published by AJStrata at 11:37 am under All General Discussions, Global Warming Major Update […]

  12. OregonGuy says:


    I referred to Pons and Fleishmann in an earlier post today.

    Where is the academy?

    We’ve seen George Taylor retire, to be replaced by Phillip Mote. You know, the former Washington State Climatologist who fired his assistant becaus that assistant was correct on snowfall predicitions?

    We’ve adopted the Chicago Way when it comes to science. Unfortunately, this isn’t a reference to UC.

  13. […] opinings of economist (and idiot) Paul Krugman against a backdrop of solid information regarding grossly erroneous data about global warming where none actually […]

  14. […] In a previous post I noted the great work Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit was performing in tracking down some of the questionable (i.e., cherry picked) data used by the IPCC and global warming alarmists to create the impression that the Earth has experienced unnatural warming over the last 50-100 years. In my mind this discovery is the nail in the coffin of the global warming mythology, and the credibility of everyone who cried “Fire!” and the end of the Earth. […]

  15. […] Paul Krugman Tries To Play Scientist, As Real Scientist Uncover Serious Flaw In Global Warming Data […]

  16. […] to historic trends has been shown to be … let’s say ‘unique’. As noted here, here, here and here it turns out that only a very select set of data from a remote Russian […]

  17. […] today’s climate to historic trends has been shown to be … let’s say ‘unique’. As noted here, here, here and here it turns out that only a very select set of data from a remote Russian […]

  18. SteveGinIL says:

    …just beginning to read the article, and wanted to add this input before I forget it:

    “As Krugman ably demonstrates, lay people should not jump into this debate without some experience and expertise in science, math and engineering.”

    It is one of the most frustrating things to try to discuss this with people who simply cannot understand the basic tenets of the scientific method and who accept the “consensus” and the “1500 scientists are in agreement” at face value, or who remember that when they were kids it was not so warm where they live (which in this area isn’t even true [Chicago]). The worst are the ones whose last line of defense is, “But what id it is true? Shouldn’t we err on this side of caution?” Mann et all LIVE off these people, who think their version of thinking is logic, but all it is is repeating something they’ve heard enough times that it has ingrained itself in their brains.

    Thanks to the author for including engineers along with the scientists and mathematicians. I’m an engineer and know you can’t just accept something because someone says it is so. That is why I delved into this in the first place, simply trying to see for myself what the hoopla was all about. I had no reason to doubt it – until I started trying to find the evidence. The evidence was WEAK, and that was apparent VERY early on. Suggestive evidence was presented as absolute fact, qualifying wishy-washy comments by the scientists, parsing words, was taken as gospel. This was the late 1990s, and things haven’t changed much in that time – except that people have had 10 more years of having in ingrained in their brains.

    I have had ZERO luck trying to present things to people who weren’t already skeptical. I am looked at like I am crazy. Mann et al using the term “denier” is a really low blow, and completely uncalled for.

    The emails is the best thing to happen in the entire decade, IMHO. These gangster scientists/co-conspirators are shown to be the liars and frauds they really are. No matter their initial “good intentions,” they have grown into a mafioso, subverting science and piling up huge wads of money, all based upon a lie.

    A quick and true anecdote: In about 1985-6 a friend of mine was the Country Coroner (CC) here. He told of a young guy coming to a County Board meeting, declaring the lakes in our county were suffering from acid rain. The CC was shocked, as he would have known if they were. The CC told the young man to come to the next month’s Co Board meeting, that the CC would have tests done and results back by then. One month later, the CC had his results at the Board meeting – ALL WERE COMPLETELY NEGATIVE. NO acidity whatsoever. When told this at the meeting, the young man said, “Well that doesn’t matter, we have to do something anyway!”

    When facts don’t matter, how does one deal with them?

    Who are really the deniers?