They have stacked the deck in their favor with rigged data.

Even then, the proper statistical methods must be used and statistical models must be free from numerous problematic violations of basic assumptions. These models must be tested for these violations and corrected for any which exist PRIOR to drawing conclusions. Errors can cause estimated parameters to be biased, inconsistent, or cause hypothesis tests to fail.

Judging from the emails, Mann et. al. violated every precept of good science. They took an inadequate sample of only a handful of trees from one region of the globe. They systematically ignored other tree data which contradicted their other data, i.e. cherry picking. They used statistical “tricks” to make the data do precisely what they wanted it to do rather than letting the chips fall where they may.

The problem gets worse from there. They apparently rigged the jury by submitting their papers to peer-reviewed journals where the “peers” were like-minded people who did the same thing they did: start from a preconceived conclusion and work the process backward (tweaking as necessary) to justify it. They identified people with different viewpoints and had them removed from the peer-review process. They systematically rejected papers from people with contrary conclusions. And they did all this while collecting billions of dollars of taxpayer money.

No, the problems with their methods and motives does not PROVE the converse, i.e. that GW or AGW does not exist. But it leaves the null hypothesis of no GW intact. We FAIL TO REJECT that there is no Global Warming.

Scientists must face two types of errors in statistical analysis: Type I and Type II.

A Type I error is rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true. Specifically, it’s concluding that Global Warming exists when in fact it does not.

A Type II error is failing to reject a false null hypothesis, i.e. concluding that GW does not exist when in fact it does.

Scientists SELECT the probability of a Type I error, called the Level of Significance, which limits their exposure to this error. They cannot know the probability of a Type II error because it relies on unknown population parameters. These probabilities move opposite one another. If you increase the probability of a Type I error, you decrease the probability of a Type II error. Both probabilities can be lowered by taking a larger (random) sample size.

When selecting the level of significance, the scientist must weigh the costs of each error. If we ignore existing global warming… well, we’ve heard all the consequences. What liberals are NOT discussing is the cost of a Type I error: the production, employment, profits, and economic benefits forgone from anti-GW measures. These costs are ENORMOUS. They will set industrialized societies back 20 years or more in terms of GDP (with a larger population).

Production is measured by GDP. Standard of living is measured by GDP per capita. Energy intensity is measured by energy usage per unit of GDP. In the short run, energy intensity is FIXED by current technology. If better, cost-effective technology existed, it would be used.

So when environmentalists use PER CAPITA measures of energy usage, the implicit consequence is that reducing energy per capita, with energy intensity fixed by existing technology, will REDUCE GDP per capita. We will have a lower standard of living! Unless they can magically reduce our energy intensity through technology TODAY, any reduction in energy per capital will NECESSARILY lower our standard of living. Countries like China and India prefer to use per capita measures because their massive energy usage is diluted by their huge populations, most of which do not contribute to nor benefit from their GDP. The CORRECT measure is energy per unit of GDP (or its inverse). That measures the energy (or emissions) per unit of production (valued by markets). A more efficient society has lower energy per unit of GDP.

This has NEVER been about the environment. Their policies from Cash for Clunkers to buying locally to alternative energy to driving a Prius all HURT the environment worse than it helps. Do a little correct math and you see that almost all their choices are not cost-effective, pollute more, or both.

Their goal has ALWAYS been to cripple capitalism, the engine of prosperity. And that is precisely why their “science” needs to be scrutinized so closely.

On another topic, I thought you would find this news article about AIDS treatment interesting:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577706,00.html

Gallo’s Egg is hatching.

Yeah, impresses the daylights out of me, that’s for sure.

I’ll tell ya what: I’d believe the northern spotted owl is really endangered before I’d believe any of the AGW clowns. At least the owls are honest.

One showing elevated levels of CO2
Another showing elevated temperatures.

OK: one of three things is happening - there either is or is not a causal relation between the two,

if there is;
1. either increased levels of CO2 are causing increased temps, or
2. increased temps are causing increased levels of CO2,
OR
if there is not,
3. both sets of data are just coincidental, and just happen to be rising at the same time.

Yet, I have not heard at least of one these bloated “academic” egos lay it out that manner. Thats all they have to do. We dont need books, movies and Nobel prizes to tell us that.

But noooo, we have to be educated you see, they have to impress us with their great knowledge first, like a bunch of Pharisees.