Here’s an eye opener………
I read a paper linked by ClimateAudit.com which describes a finding by a statistician, David Stockwell about a widely circulated paper suggesting AGW was getting worse. Stockwell strongly asserts that the paper applied “wrong” statistical smoothing in a non linear data series.
What’s the problem with that?
Well, Garnaut used that paper called Rahmstorf et al (2007) to basically anchor his entire economic analysis. So it could very well be that Garnaut’s advice to the government was actually premised on wrong statistical evidence that AGW was getting worse than originally thought, particularly as it compares to what the IPCC said.
Abstract from the Stockwell paper says:
The non-linear trend in Rahmstorf et al.  is updated with recent global temperature data. The evidence does not support the basis for their claim that the sensitivity of the climate system has been underestimated.
And here is what Stockwell says about Garnaut.
Despite the lapse in statistical rigor, Rahmstorf et al.  has been widely cited in support of more urgent action on emission controls [e.g. Garnaut 2008].
So from what I can gather Garnaut moved away from the science applied in the IPCC report to a much more gloomier report and based his economic study on a paper, which has now been possibly found to be of dubious quality and reliability. Further, if is found to be dubious is there a legitimate claim for a refund?
Here’s my question: are we going to see Garnaut and the Government come back and revise their strategy and economic analysis if the paper is found to be a unreliable?
Who is David Stockwell?
After receiving his Ph.D. degree in Ecosystem Dynamics from the Australian National University in 1992, Dr Stockwell worked as a consultant until moving to the San Diego Supercomputer Center at University of California San Diego in 1997.
[Formatting edited 06/07/09]