WUWT readers may recall that Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit blog discovery of UNEP’s use of a Wikipedia “hockey Stick” graphic by “Hanno”, was the subject of last week’s blog postings.
The Yamal data hockey stick controversy overshadowed it, and much of the focus has been there recently.
The discovery of a Wikipedia graphic in the UNEP Climate Change Science Compendium must have been embarrassing as it shows the sort of sloppy science that is going into “official” publications.
In this case, the United Nations simply grabbed an image from Wikipedia that supported the view they wanted to sell. The problem with the graph in the upper right of page 5 of the UNEP report is that it itself has not been peer reviewed nor has it originated from a peer reviewed publication, having its inception at Wikipedia.
And then there’s the problem of the citation as “Hanno 2009” who (up until this story broke) was an anonymous Wikipedia contributor.
Yet UNEP cited the graph as if it was a published and peer reviewed work as “Hanno 2009″.
Here’s my screencap of the page from the UNEP Climate Change Science Compendium report from last week
In this case, the United Nations simply grabbed an image from Wikipedia that supported the view they wanted to sell.
The hockey stick, based on tree ring proxies has met an inconveniently timed death it seems.
It appears now that somebody at the United Nations must have gotten the message from blogland, becuase there has been a change in the graphics on page 5.
Below is page 5 as it appears in the UNEP Climate Change Science Compendium today:
It’s gone. It has been replaced with the familiar GISS land-ocean record, not quite a hockey stick, but close enough.
You can see the GISS graph from the GISTEMP web page right here, oddly the UN used the 2005 version (citing Hansen et al 2005) rather than the 2009 version of the graph, seen below. Might it be that pesky downturn at the end of the graph? Or maybe they are just Google challenged?
It sure would be nice if such publications could display animated GIFS, for example this one showing two different vintages of GISS data:
Maybe climate blogs can convince the UN to change their graph yet again.
Thanks to sharp eyed WUWT reader Lawrie (of Sydney Australia) for pointing out the change made to the UNEP document.
Sponsored IT training links:
Testking offers up to date LX0-102 exam dumps and HP0-J27 practice test with 100% success guarantee for HP0-S25 exams.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The UN’s IPCC process was hijacked right at the beginning by political activists, some of whom happened to be climate scientists. Since then the science (genuine and invented by anonymous wiki contributors) is mere decoration to a sociopolitical agenda.
Recession good news for polar bears, says IEA
The recession is ‘a window of opportunity to curb climate change and build a low-carbon future’, says the International Energy Agency (IEA).
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/44207/178/
The future is bright with equality….we will ALL be miserable!
Thomas J. Arnold. (01:28:34) :
How refreshing! A little UN honesty, there is a long way to go, say to providing total objectivity and the conflicting evidence side by side in the their ‘compendiums’/ propaganda sheets.
—————————————-
Honest as in “yes, I had my hand in the cookie jar – but see! I’m honest about it!”
Wikipedia is, by its very nature, a ‘less than honest’ source of information – put up 2+2=4 and you’d get various edits and discussions about such ‘opinions’.
But it does make one wonder who is actually compiling, editing and checking these documents. More effort was put into creating the logo on the front cover than the actual content.
In “The Times” today and online at;
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6862384.ece
“Explorer’s logbooks prove a welcome bounty for climate change doubters”
Read and enjoy.
Thank the UN for a lesson in Latin…
A corrigendium for the compendium.
(Did I spell that right?)
RR Kampen (03:35:24) :
Re: Richard (01:50:30) : “When we look at the 10,000 year history of temperatures, reconstructed from the very reliable GISP2 ice core data however, the current warm period seems very normal, though a little cooler than, most of the past 10,000 years.”
At that station, maybe. How can this graph represent global temperature?
At that station? For heavens sake when the temperature remains high for centuries on end – is it happening just at that station?? This has been reflected at other stations in Greenland.
The temperature is measured with great accuracy in intervals of about a decade.
Dont you think this is far better representation of Global Temperatures or at least NH temperatures than Briffa’s one tree somewhere in Siberia, which has been depended on by the IPCC?
You are quite happy to accept that BS are you?
Yep, they screwed up the first time and they did it agin this time. Why would they use a shorter GISS plot when they could easily have placed the Mann et al. (2008) plot?
Whomever is responsible for this needs a science spanking. 🙂
“Respecting Religious Belief
Friday, October 2, 2009
By Thomas Brewton
The belief in man-made global warming is a secular religious dogma, one which the rest of us should be allowed to respect without being compelled by the secular political state to suffer its disastrous consequences.”
>>> “In the classic gnostic pattern, liberal-progressives see political society as badly aligned, causing all sorts of human misery.”
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/10/02/respecting-religious-belief/comment-page-1/
…-
Eric Voegelin:
““The revolution of the Gnostics,” writes Voegelin, “has for its aim,” one at least among others, “the monopoly of existential representation.” It cannot abide challenges or alternatives to itself. In addition to this, the Gnostic assault on reality seeks “a change in the nature of man and the establishment of a transfigured society.”
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3966
Trouble is , its only one graph, and with the weight of the media, sifs, polictians, financiers etc all pushing it, I fear it will be many years before rational science and proper debate takes place.
Its interesting that WUWT is a number one science blog which suggests to me that a lot of people with an interest in science quietly question the AGW doom and gloom we are constantly fed, but are, quite rightly, fearful of nailing their colours to the mast.
Ding dong, the stick is dead. 😀
Still a broken link on the blink comparator….
How does anybody feels 0.4°C temperature difference?. Nevertheless it works the same as a 40°C increase, nobody cares about such tiny details. It´s Global Warming anyway, take it or leave it!, anyway they will proceed as planned.
March writes, “Imagine how much would pass under the bridge if it wasn’t for te efforts of the likes of a certain A Watts and S McIntyre. Alarmists down-under frequently posit that a nobel prize awaits those who disprove the current consensus. By my reckoning both you guys are winners, several time over. KUTGW”
From Japan, awaiting a super typhoon, without the ability to think and/or comment except in the most cursory way, I am so much in agreement with March that I had to chime in. There are many others who also have been making the herculean efforts to restore the integrity of the scientific method, but I agree that Watts and McIntyre, Anthony and Steve, have been exceptional leaders and researchers. If the Nobel recognized truth, science, and cutting edge research, these two deserve awards. The efforts and results are magnificent. I am more grateful than I can express.
Its interesting isn’t it. For the UN to pull this graph someone must be reading the realist blogs and in particular Anthony’s.
I wonder what they are making of the Briffa problem and the team response.
redneck (02:11:46) : I’m not really familiar with a “hickey stick”
It was a misprint. It should read “hokey stick”.
hokey – dictionary definitions –
Merriam-Webster : obviously contrived, phoney.
Cambridge : too emotional or artificial and therefore difficult to believe.
I learned many years ago that there are, amongst many others, two honorable professions; being an advocate and being an analyst. The job of the advocate, as, for example, the defence attorney at a murder trial, is to convince the jury that his client is innocent; he/she is not looking for the truth. By contrast, the analyst is always looking for the truth, and must present ALL the evidence; that which supports his/her idea, and that which does not.
What is highly immoral and reprehensible, is for an advocate to pretend he/she is behaving as an analyst. It is here that the IPCC fails; miserably.
The explorers logbooks are almost useless. They give a snapshot in time and place. As was reported by a ship docking on the west coast of canada in the 17th century where it recorded a temperature of 133°F.
You can contruct nothing with this anecdotal evidence. However, other evidence indicates that the planet has warmed and cooled several times since some of those logs were written. So, yes, climate changes.
It is also worth noting that wood is a great insulator and also a good storer of heat. Try going into your wooden shed in the middle of summer with the windows shut and see how hot you get!!
A hickey stick is a scientific name for an object that when used to strike a person leaves a mark where the stick strikes. My girlfriend used to “give” me hickies on my neck but she did not use the more scientific hickey stick which seems to be getting popular these days with the IPPC.
OOPS –IPCC
“By a register of the temperature of the atmosphere . . . it was found that the thermometer invariably stood at least from two to five degrees Fahrenheit, and on one or two occasions, seven degrees higher on the outside of the ships than it did on the shore, owing probably to a warm atmosphere created around the former by the constant fires on board”
They had BBQ’S!!!!!! Some things never change.
Back in the world of the short-term, RSS for September is in, the first to report this month: 0.467. That’s quite high for recent history, it looks as if it’s returning to trend:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss
Compared with other sources and average of all four, for the past 12 months:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/last:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:12/offset:-0.15/plot/gistemp/last:12/offset:-0.24/plot/uah/last:12/plot/rss/last:12
Algore’s peace prize is not so Noble.
The use of old data in charts is not restricted to the IPCC. In the state of California’s new draft climate adaptation report, there is a sea level chart, on Page 19, that ends in 2000, with projected increases extending beyond that date.
Inconveniently, actual tide station data indicates the mean sea levels peaked in 1998 and have been lower since.
stephen.richards (06:16:29) :
“It is also worth noting that wood is a great insulator and also a good storer of heat.
It appears to be so – ask Briffa, Mann et al.
Re: Richard (05:32:39) :
“At that station? For heavens sake when the temperature remains high for centuries on end – is it happening just at that station?? This has been reflected at other stations in Greenland.”
—
Good. Now, is the globe covered with ice up to a height of some 2 to 4 kilometres? In other words, are stations on top of ice caps representative for the whole world? Does the South Pole exhibit the same warming over the past couple of decennia als, say, Holland?
“Dont you think this is far better representation of Global Temperatures or at least NH temperatures than Briffa’s one tree somewhere in Siberia, which has been depended on by the IPCC?”
Yes. Fortunately that tree showed the same sort of figure as a host of different proxy or non-proxy data, which is where the IPCC depends on also.
“You are quite happy to accept that BS are you?”
No, I’d have preferred an ice age. Unfortunately I lost one of my main hobbies in Holland due to Dutch Warming: skating. I depend on observations like this, among others of course, to accept ‘that BS’.