Global warming science nemesis Steve McIntyre of the solid Climate Audit site calls the new paper by Rahmstorf and Mann making claims about Atlantic Ocean currents based on proxies rather than on measurements “much worse than we thought.”
Hat-tip: Reader BruceC
Rarely does one see science get so harshly criticized.
“Dreck” in peer-reviewed literature
One problem, McIntyre writes, is that Rahmstorf’s and Mann’s results are not based on proxies for Atlantic current velocity, but on a network consisting of iffy proxy series which are “statistically indistinguishable from white noise“. McIntyre comments: “It’s hard to understand why anyone would seriously believe (let alone publish in peer reviewed literature) that Atlantic ocean currents could be reconstructed by such dreck...”.
Obviously Rahmstorf and Mann are unable to come to terms with the results derived from real observed data, and thus feel compelled to create another reality based of very fuzzy, indirect data that can be interpreted as desired.
“Balderdash” getting by peer-review process
So how does “dreck” end up getting published in journals? McIntyre quotes Andrew Weaver:
They let these random diatribes of absolute, incorrect nonsense get published. They’re not able to determine if what’s being said is correct or not, or whether it’s just absolute balderdash.” […].
The reputable climate science community should collectively cringe with embarrassment.”
The Canadian statistics expert also writes that the proxies that Mann and Rahmstorf used “do not contain any useful information on the past history of the AMOC.”
McIntyre ends by assigning readers little homework. The answers aren’t that tough.
Read entire post here.
I think an investigation needs to be launched to determine why taxpayer money is being spent on creating such rubbish. Taxpayers have the right to get answers.