Friday, March 23, 2007
WHY THE IPCC & THE CATASTROPHIC WARMING COMMUNITY CANNOT BE TRUSTED UNTIL THEY APOLOGISE TO STEPHEN McINTYRE
An article by writer Orson Scott Card on how Stephen McIntyre proved that the Hockeystick theory of global warming was wrong. More importantly that Michael Mann, who produced it hid the details in such a specific way that there can be no reasonable doubt that he was not incompetent, but engaged in deliberate fraud.
And that the IPCC & the numerous journals which refused to publish the evidence but were willing to publish gratuitous attack on him, either also knew it was a fraud or would have if any of the hundreds of researchers involved had cared to look.
And that the IPCC & the numerous journals which refused to publish the evidence but were willing to publish gratuitous attack on him, either also knew it was a fraud or would have if any of the hundreds of researchers involved had cared to look.
Here's the amazing thing about Mann's original report: He's not the only researcher working in this field. In fact, it's the job of many hundreds of researchers to refuse to accept his data at face value. After all, his findings disagree with everyone else's. Before they accept his results, they have a duty to look at his software, look at his data, and try to duplicate his results.The IPCC & all those scientific journals owe Stephen McIntyre a fulsome public apology. Everybody in any way involved in supporting the warming scare should publicly demand they do so & that all those individuals who failed in their duty to exercise proper scepticism or who attacked McIntyre for what he said without giving him space to say it, are unfit to hold responsible scientific positions. Obviously anybody who maintains catastrophic warming without being willing to denounce the IPCC's position on the Hockeystick is, under no circumstances, to be trusted.
But nobody does it. Not a soul.........
So Steve starts digging. First, he read's Mann's original report. He finds it an exercise in obscurity. From what he published, it's very, very hard to tell just what statistical methods Mann used, or even what data he operated on.
This is wrong -- it's not supposed to be that way. Scientists are supposed to leave a clear path so other people can follow them up and replicate their research.
The fact that it's so obscure suggests that Mann does not want anyone checking his work.
But Mann used government grants in his research. Which means he has an obligation to disclose. Steve contacts him, asks for the information. He gets a runaround. He gets pointed to a website that does not have the information. He tries again, and again gets a runaround -- in fact, Mann sends him a very rude letter saying that he will no longer communicate with him.........
But Steve is now sure there's something fishy going on, and he doesn't give up. He gets other people to help him. Finally they are pointed to a different website, where, to their surprise, they find that someone has accidentally left a copy of the FORTRAN program that was used to crunch the numbers. It wasn't supposed to be where Steve found it -- which is why it hadn't been deleted.......
What's crucial is that Steve now understands why the "censored" data sets are smaller than the ones Mann used. The full source data includes those misleading results that shouldn't have been used. But the "censored" data sets leave it out.
This means that Mann knew exactly what he was doing. This was not an accident. Mann ran the program on the data without the misleading numbers, and then he ran it with the misleading numbers........
Meanwhile, serious publications did publish Mann's savage response to what Steve was saying on the website where he was putting up his results for everyone to read.....
The Hockey Stick Hoax should be a scandal as big as the discovery of the Piltdown Man Hoax. Bigger, really, since so much more is at stake.
But because the media are dominated by True Believers, they are doing everything they can to maintain the hoax, to keep the public from learning the truth.
What were those bad numbers Mann plugged in to get his fake results? Modern bristlecone pine tree-ring data in which recent tree rings showed the widths that would normally mean unusually warm weather.
However, these trees were located near temperature recording stations that showed lower than usual temperatures. So instead of being a sign of warmer temperatures, the tree rings are actually responding to the increased CO2 levels......
If you pay close attention, you'll find that Global Warming alarmists are not actually saying "Global Warming" lately. No, nowadays it's "Climate Change." Do you know why?
Because for the past three years, global temperatures have been falling.
Oops.
Comments:
<< Home
Oh God, another attack of the vapours. Let out your corset and check out:
5. How much does our understanding of global warming depend on the hockey stick graph?
The short answer is "very little."
At
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/hockeystickFAQ.html#4
5. How much does our understanding of global warming depend on the hockey stick graph?
The short answer is "very little."
At
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/hockeystickFAQ.html#4
# posted by 
: March 23, 2007
: March 23, 2007
I would be very happy to have anybody read Norman's link side by side with Mr Card's. I think it quite obvious which is a detailed examination & which is a mmisleading sales pitch. It may be unfair to judge the entire catastrophist scare on this basis.
The answer to the question is that the IPCC thought it so important that they used the Hockeystick graph repeatedly as their main graphic presentation throughout their report.
The answer to the question is that the IPCC thought it so important that they used the Hockeystick graph repeatedly as their main graphic presentation throughout their report.
This is not a new controversy, although you seem to be trying to portray it as one. Mr Card’s article is merely a convenient journalist’s summary of earlier work by McIntyre and McKittrick.
A detailed rebuttal by scientists is:
“False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction
A number of spurious criticisms regarding the Mann et al (1998) proxy-based temperature reconstruction have been made by two individuals McIntyre and McKitrick ( McIntyre works in the mining industry, while McKitrick is an economist). These criticisms are contained in two manuscripts (McIntyre and McKitrick 2003 and 2004--the latter manuscript was rejected by Nature; both are collectively henceforth referred to as "MM"). MM claim that the main features of the Mann et al (1998--henceforth MBH98) reconstruction, including the "hockey stick" shape of the reconstruction, are artifacts of a) the centering convention used by MBH98 in their Principal Components Analysis (PCA) of the North American International Tree Ring Data Bank ('ITRDB') data, b) the use of 4 infilled missing annual values (AD 1400-1403) in one tree-ring series (the 'St. Anne' Northern Treeline series), and c) the infilling of missing values in some proxy data between 1972 and 1980. Each of these claims are demonstrated to be false below.”
can be found here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8
and here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=98
An assessment of how irreplaceable Mann’s work is to the Global Warming hypothesis is:
”MYTH #1: The "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction is based solely on two publications by climate scientist Michael Mann and colleagues (Mann et al, 1998;1999).
This is patently false. Nearly a dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature by different groups all suggest that late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term (multi-century to millennial) context …””
here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
A real lack of killer punch in your argument I think. Just more repetition of the line taken by Big Business/Big Polluters in corporate America.
A detailed rebuttal by scientists is:
“False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction
A number of spurious criticisms regarding the Mann et al (1998) proxy-based temperature reconstruction have been made by two individuals McIntyre and McKitrick ( McIntyre works in the mining industry, while McKitrick is an economist). These criticisms are contained in two manuscripts (McIntyre and McKitrick 2003 and 2004--the latter manuscript was rejected by Nature; both are collectively henceforth referred to as "MM"). MM claim that the main features of the Mann et al (1998--henceforth MBH98) reconstruction, including the "hockey stick" shape of the reconstruction, are artifacts of a) the centering convention used by MBH98 in their Principal Components Analysis (PCA) of the North American International Tree Ring Data Bank ('ITRDB') data, b) the use of 4 infilled missing annual values (AD 1400-1403) in one tree-ring series (the 'St. Anne' Northern Treeline series), and c) the infilling of missing values in some proxy data between 1972 and 1980. Each of these claims are demonstrated to be false below.”
can be found here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8
and here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=98
An assessment of how irreplaceable Mann’s work is to the Global Warming hypothesis is:
”MYTH #1: The "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction is based solely on two publications by climate scientist Michael Mann and colleagues (Mann et al, 1998;1999).
This is patently false. Nearly a dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature by different groups all suggest that late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term (multi-century to millennial) context …””
here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
A real lack of killer punch in your argument I think. Just more repetition of the line taken by Big Business/Big Polluters in corporate America.
# posted by : March 24, 2007
: March 24, 2007
That Nature & other journals refused to publish Stephen McIntyre's evidence, while being willing to publish attacks on it, is refered to in Card's article. He takes it as evidence of bias, you take it as evidence he must be wrong.
It is indeed not a new controversy. McIntyre's maths have ben open to anybody for many years (unlike Mann's) & have not been disputed mathematically, though as your 2 links to Mann's Realclimate site they are verbally attacked.
That, despite the years of proof, the IPCC have not apologised was precisely my point.
Perhaps beyond even mathematical proof is the physical proof. The Hockeystick predicts a fast rising global temperature. In fact global temperatures have, in each year, been lower than in 1998. If the prediction of warming, let alone catastrophic warming, was true it would be getting warmer.
It is indeed not a new controversy. McIntyre's maths have ben open to anybody for many years (unlike Mann's) & have not been disputed mathematically, though as your 2 links to Mann's Realclimate site they are verbally attacked.
That, despite the years of proof, the IPCC have not apologised was precisely my point.
Perhaps beyond even mathematical proof is the physical proof. The Hockeystick predicts a fast rising global temperature. In fact global temperatures have, in each year, been lower than in 1998. If the prediction of warming, let alone catastrophic warming, was true it would be getting warmer.
None of the points in your last comment have the legs to run.
‘Nature’ refused to publish McIntyre’s article because it did not pass peer review. The links I provided are a critique of McIntyre’s sampling and calculation method: a mathematical critique. Have you read the links? Here is another one which amplifies the argument:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121
Your argument about 1998, however, is thoroughly disingenuous. Anyone looking at a large-scale temperature graph of the period will instantly notice that 1998 is a spike on a trend line that resolutely continues to progress upwards thereafter. This point has been made to you a number of times in comments that you yourself have linked to. Perhaps you have not understood the argument. See here:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
I also note that you have not attempted to rebut my assertion that McIntyre is just another shill for American corporate polluters. Perhaps that is because his links to petroleum money are so easily demonstrated.
‘Nature’ refused to publish McIntyre’s article because it did not pass peer review. The links I provided are a critique of McIntyre’s sampling and calculation method: a mathematical critique. Have you read the links? Here is another one which amplifies the argument:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121
Your argument about 1998, however, is thoroughly disingenuous. Anyone looking at a large-scale temperature graph of the period will instantly notice that 1998 is a spike on a trend line that resolutely continues to progress upwards thereafter. This point has been made to you a number of times in comments that you yourself have linked to. Perhaps you have not understood the argument. See here:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
I also note that you have not attempted to rebut my assertion that McIntyre is just another shill for American corporate polluters. Perhaps that is because his links to petroleum money are so easily demonstrated.
# posted by : March 25, 2007
: March 25, 2007
1 is a criticism of Nature's peer review inless you seriously say McIntyre's calculations are so clearly wrong they should never have been published. Is that your claim?
2 If the trand was upwards, resolutely or otherwise, temperature would now be higher. Whether something is part of a trend, a spike or a highpoint depends entirely on what all the other points do. Currently it is a highpoint.
3 Seriously? Oerhaps Norman you can ptoduce some evidence that the time & effort Stephen McIntyre has put into this has been repaid by an oil company. If not you owe him an apology too.
As you are a government employee I take it you are on record as saying that anything you say which agrees with big government is wholly corrupted by this link. If you can prove you have said that I could at least accept that that what you are saying is honestly believed, however foolish.
2 If the trand was upwards, resolutely or otherwise, temperature would now be higher. Whether something is part of a trend, a spike or a highpoint depends entirely on what all the other points do. Currently it is a highpoint.
3 Seriously? Oerhaps Norman you can ptoduce some evidence that the time & effort Stephen McIntyre has put into this has been repaid by an oil company. If not you owe him an apology too.
As you are a government employee I take it you are on record as saying that anything you say which agrees with big government is wholly corrupted by this link. If you can prove you have said that I could at least accept that that what you are saying is honestly believed, however foolish.
Your points above are attempts to define my critique in your terms. Regarding points 1 and 2, I simply refer you to what I have already written.
With regard to point 3, I am amazed that a conspiracy theorist like you is completely unable to see a major conspiracy in action. In this case the conspiracy is that of Exxon Mobile to confuse the global warming debate by hiring a series of authors to write non-peer reviewed articles casting doubt on areas of the science of global warming and to propagate these views through a network of “think tanks” which are really just PR fronts. The phoney “media outlet” Tech Central and the writer Steven Milloy are two agents of petroleum money.
Stephen McIntyre is a “contributing writer” at the George C Marshall Institute which “is strongly associated with attempts to play up scientific uncertainty about global warming, and to prevent regulatory action on global warming… The GMI was described in a 2007 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists as an ExxonMobil-funded "clearinghouse for global warming contrarians"” and “in 1999, GMI received grants from the Exxon Education Foundation. The institute's CEO William O'Keefe, formerly an executive at the American Petroleum Institute and chairman of the Global Climate Coalition, is a registered lobbyist for ExxonMobil.”
These quotes are from a Wikipedia article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute
I am sure that McIntyre believes what he writes. I am also sure that he is a paid agent of Exxon Mobile.
With regard to point 3, I am amazed that a conspiracy theorist like you is completely unable to see a major conspiracy in action. In this case the conspiracy is that of Exxon Mobile to confuse the global warming debate by hiring a series of authors to write non-peer reviewed articles casting doubt on areas of the science of global warming and to propagate these views through a network of “think tanks” which are really just PR fronts. The phoney “media outlet” Tech Central and the writer Steven Milloy are two agents of petroleum money.
Stephen McIntyre is a “contributing writer” at the George C Marshall Institute which “is strongly associated with attempts to play up scientific uncertainty about global warming, and to prevent regulatory action on global warming… The GMI was described in a 2007 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists as an ExxonMobil-funded "clearinghouse for global warming contrarians"” and “in 1999, GMI received grants from the Exxon Education Foundation. The institute's CEO William O'Keefe, formerly an executive at the American Petroleum Institute and chairman of the Global Climate Coalition, is a registered lobbyist for ExxonMobil.”
These quotes are from a Wikipedia article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute
I am sure that McIntyre believes what he writes. I am also sure that he is a paid agent of Exxon Mobile.
# posted by : March 25, 2007
: March 25, 2007
I also refer to what I have written above. I doubt if you would allow me being "sure" on anything else as being a reasonable substitute for evidence, nor would I.
However in the terms you have used you are a paid agent of the British government, a climate alarmist organisation.
As shown on my article about NERC the amount of political money available to alarmists is at least several orders of magnitude greater than that to sceptics. The evidence of individuals being blackballed for politically controlled grant giving bodies is to great to deny not only that it is a major force. That you are reduced to playing the man by saying that the money only flows 99.9% to your side shows the complete inability to play the ball of actual evidence.
However in the terms you have used you are a paid agent of the British government, a climate alarmist organisation.
As shown on my article about NERC the amount of political money available to alarmists is at least several orders of magnitude greater than that to sceptics. The evidence of individuals being blackballed for politically controlled grant giving bodies is to great to deny not only that it is a major force. That you are reduced to playing the man by saying that the money only flows 99.9% to your side shows the complete inability to play the ball of actual evidence.
If you are referring to your post of 24 March as your evidence, it seems to me to prove nothing.
On the other hand it can be proved that “Exxon-Mobil has funneled about $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of ideological and advocacy organizations that manufacture uncertainty on the issue. Many of these organizations have an overlapping—sometimes identical—collection of spokespeople serving as staff, board members, and scientific advisors. By publishing and republishing the non-peer-reviewed works of a small group of scientific spokespeople, Exxon-Mobil-funded organizations have propped up and amplified work that has been discredited by reputable climate scientists.” This from ‘Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air’, a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists available here:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
On the other hand it can be proved that “Exxon-Mobil has funneled about $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of ideological and advocacy organizations that manufacture uncertainty on the issue. Many of these organizations have an overlapping—sometimes identical—collection of spokespeople serving as staff, board members, and scientific advisors. By publishing and republishing the non-peer-reviewed works of a small group of scientific spokespeople, Exxon-Mobil-funded organizations have propped up and amplified work that has been discredited by reputable climate scientists.” This from ‘Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air’, a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists available here:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
# posted by : March 26, 2007
: March 26, 2007
Well it proves that the National Environment Council in Britain receives £320 million a year & that this alone is 40 times, in the UK, in one year, devoted purely to "environmental" considerations what they gave in 8 years, worldwide, to more widespread research.
If you say that this does not prove, to your satisfaction, that £320 million a year is not alone, is orders of magnitude greater than $16 million over 8 years then I must accept that you do not see that. It is simple arithmetic.
If you say that this does not prove, to your satisfaction, that £320 million a year is not alone, is orders of magnitude greater than $16 million over 8 years then I must accept that you do not see that. It is simple arithmetic.
I do not agree with your interpretation of your own material. In the post of 24 March Mr Thorpe of the NERC writes “Those who apply to us for research funding have their proposals submitted for peer review by external experts. Funding is allocated only to those applications with high quality ratings. There is no 'quota' system for research on one or the other side of an issue. The quality of proposals, assessed by independent review, is only criterion.” I cannot therefore see where your “simple arithmetic” applies to automatically stack all this money up in the pro-global warming camp as the funding is open to all.
Of course, the reality is that there is no ‘debate’ on global warming other than that which Exxon Mobile and their corporate friends manufacture. At page 30 of the Union of Concerned Scientists report quoted above we find:
“To get a sense of just how powerful the scientific consensus about global warming is, consider this: in a December 2004 article published in the journal Science, Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at the University of California, San Diego, reviewed the peer-reviewed scientific literature for papers on global climate change published between 1993 and 2003. Oreskes reviewed a random sample of approximately 10 percent of the
literature; of the 928 studies, not one disagreed with the consensus view that humans are contributing to global warming.[173]”
The objections to global warming are not scientific, they are all about the costs of pollution and how corporate America seeks to avoid being landed with them. A comparatively small amount spent on PR is much preferable to the costs which would follow greater regulation. Thus we find on page 4 of the UCS report “As the biggest player in the world’s gas and oil business, ExxonMobil is also one of the world’s largest producers of global warming pollution. Company operations alone pumped the equivalent of 138 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in 2004 and roughly the same level of emissions in 2005, according to company reporting.[5] In 2005, the end use combustion of ExxonMobil’s products—gasoline, heating oil, kerosene, diesel products, aviation fuels, and heavy fuels—resulted in 1,047 million metric tons of carbon dioxide–equivalent emissions.[6] If it was a country, ExxonMobil would rank sixth in emissions.”
No wonder ExxonMobile want “Sound Science”: i.e. their science.
Of course, the reality is that there is no ‘debate’ on global warming other than that which Exxon Mobile and their corporate friends manufacture. At page 30 of the Union of Concerned Scientists report quoted above we find:
“To get a sense of just how powerful the scientific consensus about global warming is, consider this: in a December 2004 article published in the journal Science, Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at the University of California, San Diego, reviewed the peer-reviewed scientific literature for papers on global climate change published between 1993 and 2003. Oreskes reviewed a random sample of approximately 10 percent of the
literature; of the 928 studies, not one disagreed with the consensus view that humans are contributing to global warming.[173]”
The objections to global warming are not scientific, they are all about the costs of pollution and how corporate America seeks to avoid being landed with them. A comparatively small amount spent on PR is much preferable to the costs which would follow greater regulation. Thus we find on page 4 of the UCS report “As the biggest player in the world’s gas and oil business, ExxonMobil is also one of the world’s largest producers of global warming pollution. Company operations alone pumped the equivalent of 138 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in 2004 and roughly the same level of emissions in 2005, according to company reporting.[5] In 2005, the end use combustion of ExxonMobil’s products—gasoline, heating oil, kerosene, diesel products, aviation fuels, and heavy fuels—resulted in 1,047 million metric tons of carbon dioxide–equivalent emissions.[6] If it was a country, ExxonMobil would rank sixth in emissions.”
No wonder ExxonMobile want “Sound Science”: i.e. their science.
# posted by : March 27, 2007
: March 27, 2007
Well your entire case depends on "the reality is that there is no ‘debate’ on global warming other than that which Exxon Mobile and their corporate friends manufacture" - which is a lie depending on the pure assertion that $16 million spent independent of government is automatically corrupt & 8 X £320 billion plus all the money spent in the rest of the world's governments, is not a larger sum & that stories propagated by government MUST be believed.. This is an obviously untrue argument, a circular one (there is no debate no warming because the debate there is doesn't count therefeore there is no debate) & pure fascism.
The reality is that there is a debate, one in which the sceptics rely on evidence & fact & the eco-fascists rely on shouting that there is no debate & that everybody who debates it is under the control of the forces of evil & occasionally that we should be put in prison.
The reality is that there is a debate, one in which the sceptics rely on evidence & fact & the eco-fascists rely on shouting that there is no debate & that everybody who debates it is under the control of the forces of evil & occasionally that we should be put in prison.
"The reality is that there is a debate, one in which the sceptics rely on evidence & fact & the eco-fascists rely on shouting..." In fact, the exact opposite is the case as anyone reading the debate above can see.
# posted by : March 27, 2007
: March 27, 2007
The exact opposite being, according to what you have said above, that there is no debate whatsoever & as with the existence of intelligent lifeforms in Douglas Adams' universe, any appearance of people debating is merely an illusion.
Presumably including yourself.
Post a Comment
Presumably including yourself.
<< Home
