Climate Audit: IPCC AR6 is Worse than you Thought
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Steve McIntyre is at it again, dissecting questionable climate science. If you thought Michael Mann’s original climate hockeystick was interesting, with its intriguing apparent use of upside down proxies and apparent data deletions, check out McIntyre’s deep dive into the product of an entire team of climate scientists who think like Mann.
The IPCC AR6 Hockeystick
Although climate scientists keep telling that defects in their “hockey stick” proxy reconstructions don’t matter – that it doesn’t matter whether they use data upside down, that it doesn’t matter if they cherry pick individual series depending on whether they go up in the 20th century, that it doesn’t matter if they discard series that don’t go the “right” way (“hide the decline”), that it doesn’t matter if they used contaminated data or stripbark bristlecones, that such errors don’t matter because the hockey stick itself doesn’t matter – the IPCC remains addicted to hockey sticks: lo and behold, Figure 1a of its newly minted Summary for Policy-makers contains what else – a hockey stick diagram. If you thought Michael Mann’s hockey stick was bad, imagine a woke hockey stick by woke climate scientists. As the climate scientists say, it’s even worse that we thought.
It’s hard to know where to begin.
The idea/definition of a temperature “proxy” is that it has some sort of linear or near-linear relationship to temperature with errors being white noise or low-order red noise. In other words, if you look at a panel of actual temperature “proxies”, you would expect to see series that look pretty similar and consistent.
But that’s not what you see with the data used by the IPCC. You’d never know this from the IPCC report or even from the cited articles, since authors of these one- and two-millennium temperature reconstructions scrupulously avoid plotting any of the underlying data. It’s hard for readers unfamiliar with the topic to fully appreciate the extreme inconsistency of underlying “proxy” data, given the faux precision of the IPCC diagram.
Plenty more where that came from, well worth a few minutes read.
One of the most fascinating finds McIntyre interprets as a new attempt to “hide the decline”, though he has grave concerns about the entire reconstruction which was snipped. Read his full article to delve into the details of this latest episode of alarmist data torture.
What can I say, as long as we keep paying them, they will keep on producing.
via Watts Up With That? https://ift.tt/1Viafi3