Junk Science

In recent years we have seem a proliferation of "Junk Science".

First we need to define what is meant by "junk science". In summary it is faulty scientific analysis typically used to advance special interests and hidden agendas. A common feature is using data sets that are not made freely available to anyone else so that verification of the conclusions drawn can be made and confirmed by other researchers. Another feature is to use slip shod methods.

As a scientist involved with the mining industry I have a moral, ethical and legal obligation to apply full disclosure, ensure proper validation of my raw data and not to make false or misleading statements. As a result I have to ensure accuracy (how close a value is to the actual) and precision (how close measured values are to one another).

Here is an image that illustrates the two (http://www.mathsisfun.com/accuracy-precision.html):

A common modern day use of junk science is the support for "global warming" and "climate change". With the former researchers have collected temperature data from around the world and then averaged them to get what they call the "Global Average" and typically show that number as being at least accurate to the first decimal place (first order of magnitude). In reality the raw data was collected by a myriad of measuring instruments none of which were calibrated to one another which ensures low precision. In addition the measurements were taken in non-suitable locations such that they typically are biased towards populated areas and certain countries in which some sort of network has been established. This has resulted in clustering of the data. If no declustering has been applied then a spatial bias is introduced. The net result is that once averaged any honest researcher would not ascribe a high precision to the results and should only report whole numbers with no decimal places as there is too much uncertainty. Instead we see global average temperatures reported to two significant digits implying a precision that is impossible to obtain.

To illustrate further, think of how you would get a precise measure of the average temperature in, say your living room. Would you take a single measurement in the room? If so where should it be knowing ahead that as warm air rises any measurement closer to the ceiling will be higher than any measurement close to the floor. Keep in mind too that due to air currents we can get some stabilisation of the temperature but there still will be pockets of stagnant air which are either warmer of colder than what the true average is. How do we overcome these issues? Normally one would systematically, using the same measuring instrument, take sample readings at regularly spaced intervals throughout the room making sure no area is over sampled or under sampled. Pretty tough to do for just a room yet we are led to believe we can do it for the whole world and we are not even considering the effects of diurnal variations (day and night) nor elevation and latitude!

Another aspect of global warming/climate change, as we only have poorly measured actual temperature data for roughly a century or so is to use proxies; data sets derived from other means to which we can ascribe a temperature equivalent. A common one is through the use of dendrochronology or, tree rings. While tree rings vary in width depending on the local climate they actually are a poor stand in for temperature as a tree will have widely spaced tree rings if the growing conditions are optimal; warm but not too warm yet also wet but not too wet and therefore not a good measure of temperature alone.

Another factor is the location of the tree species. As Bristlecone Pine trees are very long lived they have been sampled relatively extensively. The problem though is that they only grow in areas where few other plants can grow such as the upper reaches of mountain ranges. So you have a tree that grows in a very forbidding climate zone and you expect to get a reliable proxy of global temperature? Not likely. So the use in generating a temperature time series such as what Thomas Mann did to generate his now infamous "hockey stick" temperature graph is of course junk science and not to be trusted at all!

Other proxies are available and have been used, such as oxygen isotopes measured in ice core samples and marine sediments. But like tree rings they are neither accurate measures not precise. Typically precision and accuracy  are illustrated by showing error bars, like the gray bars in the image below, which by the way is the one originally created by Mann et. al. (1999).

The above chart is from http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp and can be considered a source of junk science as the chart is mixing two different data sets (tree rings and actual temperature measurements) plus has obviously been massaged (altered) as it does not show either the well documented medieval warm period or the little ice age as shown in the chart below (from http://www.passionforliberty.com/2013/08/31/climategate-part-three-what-does-the-data-really-show/)

This web site also has raw temperature data that for some areas dates back to the 1850's. Take a look of the charts of this raw data and compare to the above chart where it is obvious from the red and blue lines that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) can't make up their mind how they wish to doctor the data just so long as it has the near term temperature spike; junk science.

For another perspective, this time by Dr. Richard Keen, a climatologist by training:

Climatologist Dr Richard Keen - Show Me The Data

In summary the real problem with junk science is that it fools just about everyone who is not a scientist and even many who are, but for emotional reasons believe this nonsense. If I was caught doing the same thing with a resource estimate not only would I lose my license to practice I would face serious financial penalties! Unfortunately it is the victims of the government policies enacted to fight a non-existent foe that are being punished financially by these practitioners of junk science; the general public and not the perpetrators of this farce.