Climate Cover Up Picking Up Steam Online and in the News

Mon, 2009-10-19 17:12Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Climate Cover Up Picking Up Steam Online and in the News

It was a busy weekend for coverage of Jim’s new book Climate Cover Up.

As I mentioned before, if you’re a blogger or a media outlet and you would like a review copy please email me at: [email protected].

Here’s a round-up of the latest media and online stories:

Climate change dispute a ‘fake debate,’ expert says

Confused by all the mixed messages about climate change? There’s a good reason for that, says a public relations expert, who argues in a new book that the so-called global warming debate is a tug-of-war between clever PR tactics and sound science.

Book draws attention to climate change ‘coverup’ by fossil-fuel industry

Public relations executive James Hoggan says there’s no doubt that his new book is provoking some angry reactions from people with its revelations about what is shaping public opinion on global warming.

Hot Topic: Climate Cover-Up

Public relations executive James Hoggan says there’s no doubt that his new book is provoking some angry reactions from people with its revelations about what is shaping public opinion on global warming.

Hoggan’s climate change ‘coverup’ tome sparks reaction

“This should be illegal. People should not be able to pull off this kind of deception and get away with it. And I’m not saying let’s bring out the chains and lock up free speech. What I’m saying is that we should know who is paying for these things.”

New book by Vancouver author details ‘crusade’ to deny global warming

Public-relations executive James Hoggan says there’s no doubt that his new book is provoking some angry reactions from people with its revelations about what is shaping public opinion on global warming.

Peter Foster: The weather exploiters

No names are given, but the evidence is apparently in a book called Climate Cover-Up, by James Hoggan, a close associate of Mr. Suzuki.

Liz Veazy: Climate Cover-Up

I’m sure most of you are familiar with the long-standing deception campaign against global warming.

Climate Cover-up - James Hoggan

This book clearly outlines the millions of dollars spent by huge corporations for the purpose of denying that global warming exists.

Climate Cover Up: The Second Extract

 

Previous Comments

http://www.climateaudit.org/
(Any reasonable person would say that a key IPCC team leader was and is a fraud. There was a warmer Medieval Warm Period and our current temperatures are not in any way “unprecedented”. Ergo.. the alarmists do not wearing any clothes..)

Re-Visiting the “Yamal Substitution”
by Steve McIntyre on October 19th, 2009
.
.
..

Relationship to Local Temperature
Both Jeff Id and I (and others) have discussed on many occasions that there is a notable bias in selecting proxies from a similarly constructed population (e.g. larch chronologies) ex post. However, for present purposes, even if this point is set aside for now and we temporarily stipulate the validity of such a procedure, the temperature relationships do not permit a preferential selection of Yamal over Polar Urals.

The Polar Urals chronology has a statistically significant relationship to annual temperature of the corresponding HadCRU/CRUTEM gridcell, while Yamal does not (Polar Urals t-statistic - 3.37; Yamal 0.92). For reference the correlation of the Polar Urals chronology to annual temperature is 0.31 (Yamal: 0.14). Both chronologies have statistically significant relationships to June-July temperature, but the t-statistic for Polar Urals is a bit higher (Polar Urals t-statistic - 5.90; Yamal 4.29; correlations are Polar Urals 0.50; Yamal 0.55). Any practising statistician would take the position that the t-statistic, which takes into consideration the number of measurements, is the relevant measure of statistical significance, a point known since the early 20th century.

Thus, both chronologies have a “statistically significant” correlation to summer temperature while being inconsistent in their medieval-modern relationship. This is a point that we’ve discussed from time to time - mainly to illustrate the difficulty of establishing confidence intervals when confronted with such a problem. I made a similar point in my online review of Juckes et al, contesting their interpretation of “99.9% significant”. In my AR4 Review Comments, I pointed out this ambiguity specifically in the context of these two series as follows:

There is an updated version of the Polar Urals series, used in Esper et al 2002, which has elevated MWP values and which has better correlations to gridcell temperature than the Yamal series. since very different results are obtained from the Yamal and Polar Urals Updated, again the relationship of the Yamal series to local temperature is “ambiguous” [ a term used in the caption to the figure being commented on]

In his capacity of IPCC section author, Briffa simply brushed aside this and related comments without providing any sort of plausible answer as discussed in a prior thread on Yamal in IPCC AR4, while conceding that both “the Polar Urals and Yamal series do exhibit a significant relationship with local summer temperature.”

In any event, the relationships of the chronologies to gridcell temperature do not provide any statistical or scientific basis for preferentially selecting the Yamal chronology over the Polar URals chronology into a multiproxy reconstruction.

EdB, Keith Briffa has more scientific credibility in a follicle of his hair than Steve McIntyre does. Also, have you seen the following graph? It shows that the MWP is far from being warmer than today.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

This is from several reconstructions, not just one. Average it out and the MWP was about a half a degree cooler than today.

Briffa will one day be fired for gross incompetence, thats for sure.

What he did was so fundamentally unscientific there is no way he should hold on to his position.

Making very bad analysis is forgivable, for amateurs, but Briffa was not an amateur. To compound that with a refusal to provide data to McIntyre, IPCC, co-authors.. when that data would allow others to find gross errors in his work.. well, that is evidence of coverup, ie, proof of a fraud. Jail time is what the layman would expect.

The IPCC case for “unprecedented” warming is thusly falsified. It was based upon bogus science done by one of its wown members.

McIntyre is a hero of Northwest Mounted Police tradition.. against all odds, after 9 years of pursuit, he gets his man!!

“a refusal to provide data to McIntyre”

Data that was not Briffa’s to give to a third party, data McI now admits he had all along.

You are feeding the RealClimate disinformation to us when you claim SM had the data all along. SM had data, but he did not know what the full data set was, so he asked for it, and was refused.

As for Briffa not being able to release it, he needed to release it as part of publishing a paper, where disclosure is REQUIRED. The onus was on him to get those permissions. If that required putting the Russian names on the paper as contributors, so be it.

IMO, Briffa is a bogus researcher, pure and simple. He needs to be fired. He is the Bernie Madoff of the climate world.

Libellous.

Let Briffa sue me, as I would love to ask him in front of jury why he hid the data from S McIntyre and others.

Any jury would discount his credibility.

you idiots keep linking to these false graphs of the MWP. There was a graph of the MWP long before al gore and your team came along. Your team changed the graph, so it is now incorrect.

Is this the graph you were wittering on about?

http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_1990_panel3.jpg

This so called ‘graph’ was effectively a sketch. At that time there was insufficient data to create such a graph. This curve was based on Lamb’s estimated climate history for central England.

Note for Trolls
Intelligent readers will notice that there are no vertical scale graduations!

Seems to me that Jim Hoggan is on somewhat shaky ground himself.

His financial and public support for the Campbell government and its utterly ineffectual climate policy makes his criticism of ‘big oil’ just a trifle hypocritical.

The province of B.C. had a chance to vote for change on May 12 - instead, at the urging of Hoggan and a large handful of so-called climate ‘experts’ Gordon Campbell’s neo conservative government was re-elected for another four years.

I hope folks who buy Hoggan’s book will take the time to investigate exactly how two-faced the advertising business really is. It’s not just the oil industry that pays for the message it wants to hear.

When I got a personal phone call from Andrew Weaver asking me to vote for Gordon Campbell to ‘save’ the environment on May 11 I knew we were living in a modern version of ‘Through the Looking Glass.’

Sorry Mr. Hoggan, I think you need to take another look at your own feet.

We need to call foul on opportunists and dissemblers like Hoggan and his ilk…power means an awful lot more to them than the truth. Cheers.

Well, frankly, I thought DeSmogBlog pushed for Campbell too much, and I would like to see them holding his feet to the fire.

I bought his book, only to find that he misinformed me about Steve McIntyre when he implied that SM was proven wrong, or that the hockey stick was vindicated by others.

Now why would a professor not do what Steve McIntyre did, that is, check the work of Mann etc to find if the hockey stick was valid? Hmm? Lack of skill statistically? Lack of interest as AGW cool aid is the beverage of choice? Would funding be lost if he were to challenge the AGW belief?

Maybe it is politics. I don’t know, but I was SHOCKED to realize that a Professor at U of Vic was feeding me bullshite in a book..

SHOCKED!! SHOCKED!! SHOCKED!!!

(At least D Suzuki has an excuse, he has been a promoter for 40 years, and stopped doing science)

Amazon delivered your book -actually 2 copies, I must have hit an order button twice, but I will give the extra to a friend I am seeing today.

The wow is for your writing. I read the first chapter and it is compelling. I recommend anybody buy it, it is easy to read and not expensive. I hope many people take it seriously. They are destroying our democracy with crass lies, as well as our planet. I like the concluding sentence of the first chapter, “our planet is worth saving.”

Further comments later. Let me explain that it is unusual for me to give gushing reviews. I feel out of character.

There is great confusion about global warming. I have read of over 30,000 real scientists, not business people or polititions that don’t agree with the findings of Al Gore and his comrades. I guess only time will tell. What ever the case I believe it prudent to reduce polution and have wise stewardship of the earth’s lifeforms. We all need a clean environment.
http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=1780932 http://angelasdiscountmarket.com/uterine_fibroids.html

Basically a nicely written comment with one exception. That 30,000 list won’t float around here. Too many dead people and non scientists are on it.

Nice reference to Gore’s “comrades” though. The communism thing is always a handy thing to throw in.