jimpeel
4/16/10, 04:34am
Seems that even ststisticians see the flaws in the "Hockey stick" bullshit.
SOURCE (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/162b0c58-47f5-11df-b998-00144feab49a.html)
Global warming graph attacked by study
By Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondent
Published: April 14 2010 19:51 | Last updated: April 14 2010 19:51
A key piece of evidence in climate change science was slammed as “exaggerated” on Wednesday by the UK’s leading statistician, in a vindication of claims that global warming sceptics have been making for years.
Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, said that a graph shaped like an ice hockey stick that has been used to represent the recent rise in global temperatures had been compiled using “inappropriate” methods.
“It used a particular statistical technique that exaggerated the effect [of recent warming],” he said.
The criticism came as part of a report published on Wednesday that found the scientists behind the “Climategate” e-mail scandal had behaved “honestly and fairly” and showed “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice”.
[more]
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010.
SOURCE (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/162b0c58-47f5-11df-b998-00144feab49a.html)
Global warming graph attacked by study
By Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondent
Published: April 14 2010 19:51 | Last updated: April 14 2010 19:51
A key piece of evidence in climate change science was slammed as “exaggerated” on Wednesday by the UK’s leading statistician, in a vindication of claims that global warming sceptics have been making for years.
Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, said that a graph shaped like an ice hockey stick that has been used to represent the recent rise in global temperatures had been compiled using “inappropriate” methods.
“It used a particular statistical technique that exaggerated the effect [of recent warming],” he said.
The criticism came as part of a report published on Wednesday that found the scientists behind the “Climategate” e-mail scandal had behaved “honestly and fairly” and showed “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice”.
[more]
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010.