tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post2320576892571384692..comments2024-03-25T16:30:58.213+13:00Comments on GREENIE WATCH: JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-68913452376937590742009-10-12T18:36:39.478+13:002009-10-12T18:36:39.478+13:00"The 18th and 19th century portion of the sam..."The 18th and 19th century portion of the sample, for instance, contains at least 30 trees per year. But that portion doesn’t show a warming spike. The only segment that does is the late 20th century, where the sample size collapses. Once again a dramatic hockey stick shape turns out to depend on the least reliable portion of a dataset."<br /><br />Essays like these almost always fail to point out in which MANNER the scam artists carry out their cherry picking to SUCCESSFULLY AVOID being officially accused of fraud.<br /><br />They use a statistical method that searches for a signal in a set of very noisy data, in this case individual tree cores. Only the ones that match the THERMOMETER data are used. So the randomness of each tree's life makes some trees get included and others excluded because each tree indeed has a very specific life story. One tree could have been growing under the shade of an older tree that suddenly died, by sheer coincidence, right when temperature data began to appear 100 years or so ago.<br /><br />They *claim* they can toss out perfectly good data sets (individual trees) because based on comparison to thermometer data, those trees FAIL TO CONTAIN A TEMPERATURE SIGNAL AT ALL.<br /><br />That is where the scam lies: using an objective system that automatically cherry picks data via computer.<br /><br />-=NikFromNYC=-Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com