Barnett Study Debunked- No Proof of GHG Climate Change

I was waiting for someone objective to get the data published by Dr. Barnett and to re-run some numbers. While Barnett claimed his "model" reproduced the impact of greenhouse gases on the earth's temperatures, and the liberal press went to town, the sober and analytical look at the numbers debunks his claim.

After a statistical analysis, the World Climate Report shows the above graph that contradicts the claims of Barnett. The Barnett study - like so many with a political motive- "smooths" out the data to fit the hypothesis.

"What we are seeing with the Barnett paper is more of the same. We have claims that a general circulation model can reproduce ocean temperatures when, in reality, it cannot. We have evidence of a human fingerprint in ocean temperature patterns that arises only when the data are substantially smoothed. And we have a press corps that's even more convinced of the certainty of significant human-induced global warming. In fact, however, evidence for the human global warming fingerprint remains elusive."

The advocates of Kyoto do their best work in press releases and in reports that have yet to be peer-reviewed. Several questions occurred to me immediately upon seeing Barnett's wild and highly-publicized claims. If the atmosphere does not reflect the global warming model projections, why would the ocean? Patrick J. Michaels, S. Fred Singer and David H. Douglass,”Settling Global Warming Science,” Washington Times, Aug 16, 2004 [referring to the weather baloon and satellite data that show no warming]. Their recent technical report indicates that the atmosphere is not acting like it is assumed to act in the global warming models.

I still have never received a good answer to my fundamental question: since GHG levels have been twenty times higher in the past and have flucuated over periods where we have reliable temperature proxies, why does no data over 500 million years show a correlation between GHG levels and temperature increases?

Randy Mott


Luci Sutherland said…
Randy, this is good stuff. Thanks for posting it. It's hard to wait for people to uncover the truth out of the many myths clouding their eyes. Maybe the GHG are making it hard for them to see?

Anonymous said…
Randy, your only mistake is in believing that you cite an objective publication. When you learn the difference between objective analysis and propaganda, perhaps your posts will make sense.

Note that I am not disputing the claim, in principle--Barnett's model may well be bunk. However, you can't cite a source that is known for distortions as an "objective analysis". Worse yet, the analysis itself relies on most readers' ignorance of statistics--anyone even moderately versed in statistics can spot a number of distortions and exaggerations rather quickly.

To debunk a study you can proceed in two ways--you can show that the results don't match the conclusions or you can show that the procedure has built in biases. When someone comes up with a scientifically accurate analysis of Barnett's errors, we'll be able to file his claims under "debunked". However, it is the "World Climate Report" that is full of factual and methodological errors and has a history of preposterously biased analyses that don't match data. In this case, the only demonstrable "bunk" is the WCR's analysis, not the original model.
Tim Lambert said…
Randy, the satellite data does show significant warming. See here.

Popular posts from this blog

Hitting Reality: Polish Energy Policy Meets the Facts

Pushing Electric Cars Will Do Little to Fight Air Pollution in Poland