Hokkíkylfan og lofslagssvindlið

Glópahlýnunarútgáfan Guardian birtir graf frá 2008 eftir Michael Mann og félaga sem fengið hefur nafnið hokkíkylfan. Grafið á að sýna hækkun hitastigs á jörðinni 1961-1990.

Mann og félagar hafa ávallt neitað að afhenda gögnin að baki grafinu. Það eitt og sér er svindl í vísindum. Aðrir vísindamenn hafa reynt að nota fyrirliggjandi gögn en ekki fengið sömu niðurstöðu. Tilgátu Mann og félaga ætti því að hafna á vísindalegum forsendum.

Mann lögsótti einn gagnrýnanda fyrir meinyrði en tapaði.

Allt er hægt að rekja þetta samkvæmt fyrirliggjandi gögnum. Engu að síður er hokkíkylfu-grafið notað sem aðalsönnunargagn glópahlýnunarsinna.

Hunsar loftslagsráðstefnuna en mætir í húsið

Athugasemdir

[Ragnhildur Kolka, 21.9.2019 kl. 15:03]

Aðeins við þetta að bæta að Mann lögsótti tvo menn fyrir meiðyrði. Dómur hefur aðeins verið kveðinn upp í öðru málinu, en hitt málið er á hendur Mark Steyn (rithöfundi og álitsgjafa) og munu lyktir þess líklega vera á sömu nótum, þ.e.a.s. ef Mann þráast við að sýna ekki gögn sín.

[Benedikt Halldórsson, 21.9.2019 kl. 15:18]

Tony Heller 41,5 þ. áskrifendur

Ever since I exposed Michael Mann's heatwave malfeasance he has been on a Twitter rampage. He is grossly misrepresenting my statements, just like he does with his junk science and proxy records. He also has me blocked, so that I can't respond. Please post this video on his twitter feed, because I can't.

[Benedikt Halldórsson, 21.9.2019 kl. 15:19]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L530b4nnQ8

[Jón Þórhallsson, 21.9.2019 kl. 15:39]

Er það ekki bara þannig að það

skiptast alltaf á hlý og kulda-skeið út frá náttúrunar hendi

vegna þess að jörðin er mislangt frá sólu í sinni hringferð?

Hérna kemur fyrirlesturinn sem að mætti sýna í sjónvarpinu: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxERTlbAo7g

[Benedikt Halldórsson, 21.9.2019 kl. 15:44]

Mark Steyn

We now know that the hockey stick graph is fraudulent. How should we treat those who approved it? What should the EPA do now proposing to adopt rule making for CO2 mitigation? To do so they must embrace the underlying fraudulent science, and the terrible harm it will bring. EPA action seems simple: do not proceed with the rule making for greenhouse gas mitigation. Have the courage not to mitigate man-made CO2 and avoid joining with the scientific deceptions. Close analyses of the hockey stick scandal are essential for policy makers, educators, media, and many scientific institutions and their PhD staffers. All of them played a role in creating and/or spreading the deceptions. It has shaken the pillars of institutional science to its foundation and undermined the public trust science once had. We are either dealing with willful scientific deceptions or woeful and lazy scientific mediocrity from PhDs themselves.

[Benedikt Halldórsson, 21.9.2019 kl. 15:54]

Mark Steynin

...2008 I was on a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it, and I spent a day or so - half a day maybe - on Google. And I was horrified by what I learned… Global warming has become a new religion - because you can’t discuss it, and that’s not right… Pseudoscience is a very strange thing, because in pseudoscience you begin with a hypothesis which is very appealing to you, and then you only look for things which confirm the hypothesis. You don’t look for other things.

[Benedikt Halldórsson, 21.9.2019 kl. 16:05]

Mark Steynin

For many years, Richard Muller was a columnist for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Technology Review. He was one of the first to recognize that McIntyre & McKitrick had dealt the hockey stick’s credibility a fatal blow. In his column of October 15th 2004, Professor Muller wrote, with remarkable prescience45: If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions. Suppose, for example, that future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously – that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small – then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling. A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one – if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it. As noted above, that column was amazingly prescient. In the years that followed, there was, indeed, a “pause” in global warming, which the climate-change industry has struggled to explain precisely because it chose not to “reject the hockey stick” - and, as a result, has it hanging round its neck, rotten and maggot-ridden, like the Ancient Mariner’s albatross. What Professor Muller could not have foreseen was that hockey-stick science was not just “phony” but corrupt.

[Benedikt Halldórsson, 21.9.2019 kl. 16:28]

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the Little Ice Age took hold in the 14th century. Warmer climate brought a remarkable flowering of prosperity, knowledge, and art to Europe during the High Middle Ages. The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be “gotten rid of.” In 1769, Joseph Priestley warned that scientists overly attached to a favorite hypothesis would not hesitate to “warp the whole course of nature.” In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues published a reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply vanished. This unique estimate became known as the “hockey stick,” because of the shape of the temperature graph. Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent. No matter. By 1998 a “favorite hypothesis” was on its way to “warp the whole course of nature”.

[Benedikt Halldórsson, 21.9.2019 kl. 17:13]

Til að framkalla "hamfarahlýnun" eru valinn mismunandi ártöl svo að prikið vísi upp eða niður eftir atvikum. Hitastig miðalda er lækkað svo að hamfaraprikið vísi upp á við.

Skógareldar eru taldir frá og með árinu 1983. Það voru miklu fleiri skógareldar árin 1920 til 1950 þegar hitinn var hærri. En ef miðað er við 1983 er hamfaraprikið í fullri reisn þótt brunum hafi fækkað um 80%. 

Yfirborð sjávar hefur hækkað í þúsundir ára en ef miðað er við árið 1920 - bingó, prikið fer upp á við.

Af hverju? Marxistar vonuðust eftir miðstýrðum sósíalisma. Fjárfestar sem "veðjuðu" á hamfarahlýnun vilja ávaxta sitt pund og trúverðugleiki stjórnmálamenna og allra þeirra sem hafa eitt bestu árum ævi sinnar í "göfugan málstað" sem reynist vera "lygar". Það er erfitt að viðurkenna það. Því er hagur svo margra að láta sem hamfarahlýnun sé framundan.  

[Benedikt Halldórsson, 22.9.2019 kl. 07:28]

[rhansen, 22.9.2019 kl. 12:47]

Fyrirspurn til Benedikts  ...hvorkt megi deila þessum skrifum hans heðan ? 

[Benedikt Halldórsson, 22.9.2019 kl. 16:53]

rhansen - að sjálfsögðu, já takk, mín vegna.

[rhansen, 22.9.2019 kl. 16:55]

Takk Benedikt ..