© unknownSmearing around data or paint - the results are similar.
Jeff Id of The Air Vent emailed me today inviting me to repost Ryan O's latest work on statistical evaluation of the Steig et al "
Antarctica is warming" paper (
Nature, Jan 22, 2009) I thought long and hard about the title, especially after reviewing the previous work from Ryan O we posted on WUWT where the paper was dealt a serious blow to "robustness". After reading this latest statistical analysis, I think it is fair to conclude that the paper's premise has been falsified.
Ryan O, in his conclusion, is a bit more gracious:
I am perfectly comfortable saying that Steig's reconstruction is not a faithful representation of Antarctic temperatures over the past 50 years and that ours is closer to the mark.
Not only that, Ryan O did a more complete job of the reconstruction than Steig et al did, he mentions this in comments at The Air Vent:
Steig only used 42 stations to perform his reconstruction. I used 98, since I included AWS stations.
The AWS stations have their problems, such as periods of warmer temperatures due to being
buried in snow, but even when using this data, Ryan O's analysis still comes out with less warming than the original Steig et al paper.
Antarctica as a whole is not warming, the Antarctic peninsula is, which is
significantly removed climatically from the main continent.
Comment: The Global Warming Propaganda is ramping up daily. The political machine and psychological marketers now control Climate Science. Every aspect of daily life is coming under worldwide control.
Scientists, climate scientists, solar scientists, statistical analysts, physicists, you name it, all must tow the political line regardless of what their own research tells them, regardless of what common sense tells them, regardless of objective reality.
There are thousands and thousands of scientists and their research and data and analysis that finds the global warming hypothesis falsified. They are called deniers, a dirty derogatory slanderous term that dehumanizes them by equating them with the familiar term used for Nazi Holocaust deniers. A clever move by the psychological marketing team running the show. And now an all too cooperative media commonly uses this disgusting term to belittle and taunt and lower the image of these scientists in the eyes of the world. Why is that okay? Why is it accepted and even encouraged?
Why are scientists everywhere skeptical?
Ian Plimer's recent article here, is a good example explaining just some of the issues as to why skepticism and disgust abounds in the scientific community.