Harper Handout for Friends at National Post?
Harper Handout for Friends at National Post?
Readers of Desmog Blog know very well what we think of the outrageously inaccurate editorial position of the National Post on climate science.
We have often wondered, “Why would a paper on the verge of bankruptcy consistently print articles so clearly wrong about such a high profile issue? What’s in it for them?”
Well the murky waters are becoming slightly more clear. CanWest Global Communications, the parent company of the National Post has been bleeding red ink for years. Their crushing debt now tops a whopping $3.7 billion and the latest deadline to make a massive loan repayment is early next month.
What to do? Now comes word that CanWest has hired Ken Boessenkool to lobby the government of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper for concessions to keep the doors open.
Boessenkool is not just any old lobbyist. He a close confident of Harper and the reclusive Harper doesn’t have many of those. Boessenkool worked with Harper since 2000 and was his chief policy advisor in the 2004 election. He recently was with enormous PR firm Hill and Knowlton in Calgary.
Boessenkool is also registered lobbyist on behalf a number of fossil fuel and tar sands giants including Suncor, Enbridge and TransAlta. TransAlta also has an interest in Harper’s favourite climate panacea – carbon capture and storage.
Hill and Knowlton have a long and dubious record of involvement with so called science skeptics. Way back in 1954, they designed the original campaign for the tobacco industry to deny the link between cigarettes and cancer, including drafting the infamous Frank Statement.
In 1975, they worked on behalf of the CFC industry to obscure the link between chlorofluorocarbons and the ozone hole with the help of notable skeptics such as S. Fred Singer.
Back to the National Post. Their very survival depends now depends on some kind of tax break, regulatory change or hand out from the Harper government. Being represented by close friend of the Prime Minister certainly will help. Consistently printing erroneous articles about climate change might aid their cause as well.
Harper himself has battled the entire scientific community around climate change. He has been a active opponent of international efforts to curb carbon emissions, and one of his biggest worries now is whether the Obama Administration will limit imports of tar sands oil due to concerns about climate change.
This is the largest capital project in the world, in Harper’s home province, with only one customer – the United States. To say that Harper’s friends in the tar sands business would be screwed if their one and only market dried up is an understatement.
The fate of the tar sands, as well as our changing climate, is no longer about science or public policy – it is about public opinion. The National Post been so one-sided and extreme on this front, they are almost not a newspaper at all.
In fact, we at Desmog Blog considered filing a complaint with some of the provincial press councils about the naked propaganda they regulalry publish on climate science. But guess what? The National Post is not a member of any press council in the country.
Such tiny publications as the Cornwall Standard-Freeholder, or the North Bay Nugget find time to be involved in these professional associations, but not the National Post – only one of two national papers in the country.
That means the Post has the luxury of printing whatever dangerously wrong tripe they want and the reading public does not even have a professional body to complain to. Must be nice to never have to say you’re sorry.
All this may work in their advantage in the meetings with Harper. After all, why bother running a successful and responsible newspaper when you can instead cozy up to the oil friendly Prime Minister for a hand-out that will be refused to your competition?
While CanWest may bounce happily in a government-funded safety net, the Heritage Minister has made it clear that our national public broadcaster will be allowed to hit the ground with a splat.
The CBC is looking at a budget shortfall of $100 million and may have to auction hard assets to keep the doors open. There will be no helping hand for them. Heritage Minister Moore instead suggested they should slash up to 1,200 positions.
It is no coincidence that the CBC has dug much deeper on climate issues, last year embarrassing the Harper government by debunking claims that carbon capture will solve emissions at the tar sands. They also have done fine journalism countering the mountain of misinformation from the fossil fuel lobby seeking to confuse the public around climate science.
Perhaps they will take comfort in these good works while they are cleaning out their desks.
In the meantime, the National Post might be rewarded for their journalist malpractice. It seems that far from being a liability, their shockingly irresponsible position on climate science may prove to be one of their greatest assets.
Only in Canada.
- Mitchell Anderson's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
well!!!
Skeptics will continue to question claims that can not be replicated nor proven by the science. And too many studies offered up to the public have 'facts' with confidence levels so low that their results remain open to dispute.
Rakul
Yes indeed,
true skeptics will indeed continue to question claims that can not be replicated nor proven by the science, such as the claim that the sun was the main cause of the warming of the last 30 years, or the claiim that it was galactic cosmic rays, or rather a lack of them, or the claim that some mysterious 'natural' cycle was responsible, or the claim that undrsea volcanoes have caused the long-term decline in Arctic sea ice, etc, etc, etc.
"Question claims"... yeah, indeed, yeah...
true skeptics will indeed continue to question claims that can not be replicated nor proven by the science, such as the claim that the sun was the main cause of the warming of the last 30 years, or the claiim that it was galactic cosmic rays, or rather a lack of them, or [...]
Haha. Rakul and other 'skeptics' keep talking about "questioning claims". So what was the "question" that Rakul was asking? I forgot.
-- bi
Same-o for Carbon Sequestration
Is the same thing happening with carbon sequestration strategies? Harper is more likely to support those (as they would allow continued high levels of oil production: i.e. good for Alberta) as opposed to promoting conservation-based strategies (like the one proposed by Henderson, see Waves of the Future) that would reduce not only greenhouse gases but also toxic contaminants (which sequestration would not do), which would be good for Canada.
Are the sequestration scientists really green?
Tags: carbon sequestration solutions, cap-and-trade alternatives
Move along..
Climate change denialism spans a range from; it's not happening, through it's a different mechanism, to it won't be that bad.
I hypothesise that these claims are promulgated by four types of denier.
The paid denier.
The troll
The fingers in their ears and singing “La La La “
The open minded sceptic.
Not sure
whether to be amused or insulted that one of my posts has been co-opted in this way. I realise that imitation is meant to be the sincerest form of flattery, but I don't think plagiarism is viewed in the same manner.
I am curious to know if the thinly disguised spam being posted on this site, a site dedicated to penetrating misleading PR, is at all successful? It is definitely ironic.
I assume that the site owners and operators find it annoying. Question for the administrators, is it all coming from the same IP address?
Btw. The post hasn't really been scored, I hit the wrong button when I went to reply.
Comment Spam
Why is there so much spam in this thread? If you're going to allow comment links at all, at least make them rel="nofollow".
IPCC "Science"
About 250 years ago there was a theory of combustion that involved a mysterious substance called "Phlogiston". Basically substances that burned in air were said to be rich in phlogiston; the fact that combustion soon ceased in an enclosed space was taken as clear-cut evidence that air had the capacity to absorb only a definite amount of phlogiston.
This was the "consensus" science of the time, even supported by the great physicist Robert Boyle (of Boyle's Law fame). Needless to say it was eventually debunked by careful experimental observation, which demonstrated that the theory did not fit the observable facts.
In years to come the theory of AGW, which places carbon dioxide as the primary driver of climate, will be seen to be equally false and for precisely the same reason.
The National Post is calling it as it is.
Obviously written by someone
lacking sufficient capacity to comprehend their own argument, much less predict the future.
Since the only thing anthropogenic about AGW is the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last two centuries, there is no 'theory' of AGW, there is the fact of the A in AGW.
The theory, derived from observable fact for some 150 years now, is that an increase in CO2, regardless of the source or cause, will cause warming.
For an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere to not warm the globe would require a whole new physics, not just a new theory
Your zombie arguments are pointless
This is fallacious argument: 'argument by forced analogy'.
Comparison of modern climate science with that of 'phlogiston theory' is dishonest as likening chalk with cheese!
The arguments of the deniers are as disconnected with reality as the 'phlogiston theory' of which you speak.
How typical, a troll making unsubstantiated claims!
Show your evidence, or go away!
The inconvenient truth for your argument is that climate science is the growing mountain of evidence that has lead the overwhelming majority of objective scientists to conclude that the recent anomalous warming of the Earth's climate is a consequence of human activity. The most significant factor is the increasing concentration of the greenhouse gas CO2, although other gases are involved. Over longer timescales, a number of other factors have played their part.
Take your zombie arguments and stick them where we don't care!
Also, William Happer = analogy overload
Speaking of analogies, check out William Happer's Congressional 'testimony', which will give you an overload of stupid analogies.
I think from now on I'll be associating Happer with "analogy overload".
-- bi
Type of denier.
Phlogiston, are you a troll, subset seagull?
IPPC "Science"
Hi guys, nice introduction to the blog!
If you had taken the trouble to read my post properly, rather than operating in knee-jerk response mode, you will have found that I did not say that CO2 is not a driver of climate, rather I took issue with "the theory of AGW, which places carbon dioxide as the PRIMARY driver of climate".
I take great care to read the primary literature and I have yet to see anything that conclusively demonstrates that CO2, on its own, is capable of producing the temperature changes projected by the IPCC.
Furthermore I am not at all convinced by the hand-waving "positive feedback" arguments. If this were the case the Earth would have ended up like Mars or Venus at the first significant departure of temperature from the norm. Clearly climate is dominated by negative feedbacks. No need to invoke "new physics" here. CO2 is not a "magic molecule", it is limited by the usual physical rules and therefore cannot be the primary driver of climate.
You've been reading the wrong stuff
For a start, what makes you think there is runaway greenhouse effect on Mars? Secondly, positive feed backs are part of the "usual physical rules" you mention. Ever hear of the Clapeyron-Clausius equation? It relates vapour pressure to temperature, the higher the temperature the higher the vapour pressure and thus the higher the vapour concentration in air. Thus as the sea and air warm there will be more water vapour in the air. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas therefore the greenhouse effect will be enhanced and so on. This is a positive feedback.
There have been no negative feedbacks observed over a wide range of global temperatures. There are a number of introductory books and websites which will explain the simple chemistry and physics involved in greenhouse gas theory and AGW. I suggest you read some of them first before embarassing yourself any further by talking absolute nonsense.
Hello
Hi Phlogiston. I'm new here too. Probably won't be too long before we're accused of being part of some tag team match. You didn't get quite the introduction that I did. You're perfectly right though. Clouds are the biggest uncertainty in climate modeling. This of course is admitted in IPCC AR 4. A new paper by Dr. Roy Spencer deals with the negative feedback of clouds.
Again,
There is no 'theory of AGW.' It is nothing more than a rhetorical invention.
It is the so-called 'greenhouse theory' itself that you are actually questioning.
Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, regardless of source, will produce warming, period.
The only thing A about AGW is how and why CO2 is currently accumulating in the atmosphere: we are introducing essentially 'new'* CO2 to the atmosphere and active carbon cycle faster than natural sinks can absorb it.
(*Fossil carbon fuels have been locked out of the active carbon cycle long enough to be essentially considered as 'new' carbon.)
The only reason CO2 has become the primary driver of the current warming is because the emissions of CO2 have been monotonically increasing over a sustained period of 250 years while all other factors* that influence climate have been of much shorter duration. (*Changes in solar irradiance and insolation, natural variability of internal climate cycles, clouds, volcanic aerosols, industrial aerosols, etc.) However, that does not mean that those other factors can not overwhelm CO2 in the short term.
You have yet to see anything that conclusively demonstrates that CO2, on its own, is capable of producing the temperature changes projected by the IPCC because CO2, on its own, is not capable of producing the total projected temperature change. To discount positive feedbacks as mere 'hand-waving' is both illogical and profoundly ignorant, since positive feedbacks will occur regardless of the initial source of forcing, be it from an increase in solar insolation as at the end of the last glaciation, or as a result of an increase in atmospheric CO2.
Earth would not have ended up like Mars or Venus at the first significant departure of temperature from the norm because amplifying feedbacks are not a positive progression (1 + 1.1 + 1.2 + 1.3 etc.) but rather a self-limiting declining progression (1 + .9 + .8 + .7 etc.). A declining progression needs no negative feedbacks to limit it, which is not to say that there are no negative feedbacks.
Greenhouse Theory
Jim, please read my post again. I am not questioning “greenhouse theory”- although I dislike the analogy with a different physical process. What I question is the magnitude of CO2’s effect in trapping heat within the atmosphere. Increased CO2, on its own is not going to raise the Earth’s temperature to any significant, or dangerous extent. The temperature projections that the IPCC make are simply that-projections.
Again, as you are aware the majority of the warming supposedly results from increased water vapour within the atmosphere. Unfortunately it is uncertain how this
water vapour will operate. Quite possibly it will condense to form low-level clouds which reflect incoming solar radiation, hence causing a cooling, rather than a warming effect.
What is more these GCM, which make these scary projections, have already been conclusively shown to be in error, in that they all predict a tropical tropospheric “hotspot”. The“fingerprint” of AGW (see IPCC 2007).
Guess what? Real World temperature measurements conclusively demonstrate that this hotspot does not exist.
(A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions International Journal of ClimatologyVolume 28 Issue 13 , Pages 1693 - 1834 (2008)).
Given this irretrievable failure, why on Earth should we take the slightest notice of these “projections”?
We can agree
that 'greenhouse effect' is an unfortunate descriptor, but never the less it is the one we are stuck with.
We can also agree that water vapour approximately doubles the warming provided by CO2 alone (around 1-1.2C per doubling), but you don't mention the feedback caused by the lowering of albedo, which pushes climate sensitivity up to around 3C per doubling of CO2. In addition, some think that this only accounts for the fast warming, and that the thermal inertia of the oceans mask still more warming, the so-called 'long tail'.
I mention albedo because it includes your low-level clouds. However, clouds both cool through reflectance of incoming sunlight, and warm by radiating IR back down towards the surface. Their formation also converts the latent heat of water vapour into sensible heat in the atmosphere. Because of these competing mechanisms the net forcing of clouds is still a genuine source of uncertainty, but clearly there must be a good deal of cancelation, so the net effect, regardless of sign, will be reduced. In addition, it's not a sure bet that any increase in cloud formation will be in low-lying clouds, since as the atmosphere warms the lapse rate of water vapour shifts upward in elevation.
In any case, that both atmospheric CO2 and temperature have been higher in the paleo record demonstrates that clouds did not prevent temperatures higher than present from being achieved, so there goes that argument.
The lack of a clear tropical tropospheric “hotspot” is not as conclusive as you assert:
Tropical tropospheric trends
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphe...
But I note that you do not mention the greenhouse theory prediction of stratospheric cooling, which has been observed. Nor do you mention the prediction of the northward expansion of Hadley Cells, nor the accelerated warming at higher latitudes, both of which have also been observed. Why is that?
Jim, a thoughtful post, but
Jim, a thoughtful post, but spoilt by the link to "Surreal Climate". Gavin is an arch defender of the faith (AGW). he even (says he) believes that Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick" is an accurate representation of the last 1000 years of climate history!
Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Too bad you don't have a thoughtful reply
Just typical denier dishonesty and ad hominem attacks on respected scientists.
There are links
to actual published research in that RealClimate post that closed minds will never read.
Typical. And a good example of why the so-called 'debate' that so-called 'sceptics' demand is a sham.
Closed Shop at RC
Looks like Gavin is the one who's scared of debate. I, like many other RC posters, found out early in the RC days that if you paint Gavin into a corner he just presses the 'cough button' and never posts your comment. This can hardly be news to you. Your link to RC on TTT by 'the group' is timely. Within months of posting this, Santer et al 2008 was published. Of course, Gavin put his name to Santer et al and this study was about TTT. Apparently Santer's dog ate all the 2000-2007 data as Santer's study only included data from 1979-1999, the ultimate cherry pick especially because of the super ENSO in 1998. And as par for the warmists, Santer refused to release all of his data for revue anyway. Incidentally, McIntyre and McKintrick have a study pending before the IJoC as we speak. This study includes data from the same millennium that we live in.
I held my nose and checked your cites at climatefraudit
What a laugh. That bunch of pseudo-scientists are just a laughing stock. Their obnoxious self-righteousness is sickening. Here is a quote from the head fraudster himself: "In order to help to determine my status for purposes of determining the applicability of any fees, you should know that I have 5 peer-reviewed publications on paleoclimate; that I was a reviewer for WG1; that I made a invited presentations in 2006 to the National Research Council Panel on Surface Temperature Reconstructions and two presentations to the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee". The local dog-catcher earns more respect.
Here is another quote "I believe a fee waiver is appropriate since the purpose of the request is academic research". It is self-evident why no real scientist gives any credence or respect to that bunch of deniers. If you are a frequent visitor to climatefraudit then it is no surprise that the sort of stuff you would try and post at Realclimate would be unceremoniously rejected.
And a typical reply
from the resident mental gymnast.
Talk about obnoxious self-righteousness.
Whilst there is the usual
Whilst there is the usual and expected "piling-on" with ad-hominens on “deniers” from individual posters on this blog , one has to commend this site for its openess, allowing comments from both sides of the debate to be aired.
Such openness needs to be compared with that of Surrealclimate, Closed Mind (Tamino) and many other pro-AGW sites.
Those who deride “Climatefraudit” should also compare its moderation policy with the above and draw one’s own conclusions.
Now, Mann’s “Hockey-stick” reconstruction. Who wants to defend (like Gavin), datamining PCAs, non-standard use of statistics (as demonstrated by the Wegman Report) and its lack of robustness in the absence of certain, key, tree ring chronologies? The latter of which have been stated (again by Wegman and by Graybill and Idso- the original collectors) as unsuitable proxies for temperature reconstructions.
You haven't a clue
All you do is slander honest scientists. You should be banned since DeSmogBlog has a comments policy which you consistently abuse. You should not be allowed to post you dishonest and slanderous lies here.
Hello Ian. In your comment
Hello Ian. In your comment “ You haven’t a clue” you state “You should not be allowed to post you dishonest and slanderous lies here.”
Please inform we which of my comments fall into this category?
However before you do, please read the relevant sections of the Wegman Report.
Where there are a number of highly relevant comments, including;
“Overall, our committee believes that Mann's assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis. "
“However, our perception is that this group (Mann’s) has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.”
“It is clear that many of the proxies are re-used in most of the papers. It is not surprising that the papers would obtain similar results and so cannot really claim to be independent verifications."
And in Dr Wegman’s answer to questions posed by the Congressional Committee
“The MBH98 (Mann) methodology puts undue emphasis on those proxies that do exhibit the hockey-stick shape and this is the fundamental flaw. Indeed, it is not clear that the hockey-stick shape is even a temperature signal because all the confounding variables have not been removed.”
OK are you accusing Dr. Wegman of lying before a Congressional hearing?
Sounds to me that you don’t like the message, so you simply want to shoot the messenger by accusing me of “dishonest and slanderous lies”
The Wegman report is biased junk
Anyone who uses the Wegman Report for their information on either climate science or statistics knows nothing about either.
It took a lot of searching before the deniers could come up with a fellow denier statistician to support their fraudulent case.
He signed a letter whose content was statistical nonsense. QED.
Ian, I sense a lot of anger
Ian, I sense a lot of anger in your reply, which is a pity as it often clouds rational judgement.
“Anyone who uses the Wegman Report for their information on either climate science or statistics knows nothing about either.
”
A couple of points here:
1) Personally I would tend to believe a statistician of Professor Wegman’s stature:
Here is a brief resume of Professor Edward J. Wegman’s career.
He received his B.S. in mathematics degree from St. Louis University in 1965 and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in mathematical statistics from the University of Iowa and has published more than 160 papers and eight books.
He has served as associate editor of the Journal of the American Statistical Association, Statistics and Probability Letters, Communications in Statistics, the Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, the Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, now Naval Research Logistics, Computational Statistics and Data Analysis and the Journal of Nonparametric Statistics. Dr. Wegman completed a four-year term as the Theory and Methods editor of the prestigious Journal of the American Statistical Association.
2) “It took a lot of searching before the deniers could come up with a fellow denier statistician to support their fraudulent case”.
Interesting and untrue on both counts;
a) The whole point of the Congressional Enquiry was to establish whether or not the statistics used in Mann et al.’s paper were correct. Hence an independent reviewer was sought, by Congress, not the “deniers”.
b) Unlike Mann et al, Wegman did not work in isolation, rather he sought out the opinion of his fellow statisticians before publishing his report. For information these were
• Professor Grace Wahba, statistics, University of Wisconsin,
Madison, elected member of the National Academy of Science
• Professor Noel Cressie, spatial statistics, Ohio State University
• Professor David Banks, statistics, Duke University, Editor of
Applications Section, Journal of the American Statistical
Association
• Professor William Wieczorek, geophysics, Buffalo State SUNY
• Dr. Amy Braverman, Senior Scientist, remote sensing, data
mining, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (CalTech)
• Dr. Fritz Scheuren, statistics, NORC, University of Chicago, the
100th president of the American Statistical Association
I guess these guys, by your logic, are “deniers” too?
Check out what an honest statistician has to say
Here is a quote by an honest statistician on the credibility of Wegman:"
"That’s because Deltoid commented on an open letter in the National Post signed by a collection of scientists which includes many, if not most, of the usual list of denialists. The open letter has some rather outrageous claims; possibly the most egregious (and most easily proved false) is this:
Regarding the claim that there hasn’t been any global warming since 1998, I’ve already posted about it, the claim is demostrably false. What’s really surprising (well, maybe it isn’t so surprising) is that some of the signatories to this drivel are trained in statistics, including Ross McKitrick and Edward Wegman".
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/pca-part-4-non-centered-hockey-sticks/
Yes, you are right, I get angry when ignorant, stupid and arrogant people like you distort the scientific reality and potentially cause untold harm and suffering on our children and their children. You should be ashamed of yourself (I see you are so ashamed you do not identify yourself) for the rubbish you post here.
Check Out An Honest Statistician Indeed
You seem to have forgotten that besides the Wegman panel there was a NAS panel chaired by Dr. (a real Ph D) Gerald North invovled as well.
Highlights of the Wegman report:
While the work of Michael Mann and colleagues presents what appears to be compelling evidence of global temperature change, the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid.
Where we have commonality, I believe our report and the NRC panel essentially agree. ...We believe that our discussion together with the discussion from the NRC report should take the 'centering' issue off the table. [Mann's] decentred methodology is simply incorrect mathematics ... I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong Answer Correct = Bad Science.
- - -
The papers of Mann et al. in themselves are written in a confusing manner, making it difficult for the reader to discern the actual methodology and what uncertainty is actually associated with these reconstructions.
- - -
It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the MBH paper.
- - -
We found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling.
- - -
Overall, our committee believes that Mann's assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.
- - -
[The] fact that their paper fit some policy agendas has greatly enhanced their paper's visibility. ... The 'hockey stick' reconstruction of temperature graphic dramatically illustrated the global warming issue and was adopted by the IPCC and many governments as the poster graphic. The graphics' prominence together with the fact that it is based on incorrect use of [principal components analysis] puts Dr. Mann and his co-authors in a difficult face-saving position.
- - -
We have been to Michael Mann's University of Virginia Web site and downloaded the materials there. Unfortunately, we did not find adequate material to reproduce the MBH98 materials. We have been able to reproduce the results of McIntyre and McKitrick
- - -
Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus 'independent studies' may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.
- - -
It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent.
- - -
Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on MBH98/99. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.
- - -
It is clear that many of the proxies are re-used in most of the papers. It is not surprising that the papers would obtain similar results and so cannot really claim to be independent verifications.
- - -
We note that the American Meteorological Society has a Committee on Probability and Statistics. I believe it is amazing for a committee whose focus is on statistics and probability that of the nine members only two are also members of the American Statistical Association, the premier statistical association in the United States, and one of those is a recent Ph. D. with an assistant professor appointment in a medical school. The American Meteorological Association recently held the 18th Conference on Probability and Statistics in the Atmospheric Sciences.. Of the 62 presenters at a conference with a focus on statistics and probability, only 8 ... are members of the American Statistical Association. I believe that these two communities should be more engaged and if nothing else our report should highlight to both communities a need for additional cross-disciplinary ties.
- - -
Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.
Dr. Gerald North's testimony under oath:
Q: Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?
A: "No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report."
Then Dr. North’s colleague on the NAS panel, Peter Bloomfield, was asked the same question:
A: “Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.”
The worlds most prominent climate science staisticians and AGW believers Hans Von Storch and Eduardo Zorita were asked to comment on the NAS panel. Their highlights include:
1) We welcome the conclusion of the analysis by the NRC committee, which separates between two issues, namely firstly the claim that the last few decades (the last decade, the year 1998) were unprecedented in their warmth compared to a previous time horizon, and secondly the certainty we place into the published estimates of temperature variations in the past 1000-2000 years.
2) The assessment that the last few decades have exhibit a warming likely beyond the range of natural variations has been made on a variety of scientific findings, of which the Mann et al study was possibly the most publicly "sold"�? one, but other studies have provided better evidence (detection and attribution studies).
3) We share the assessment of the NRC committee that the evidence for unprecedented warming of a single decade or even a single year in times prior to 1500, or so, is stretching the scientific evidence too far. However, this was the key claim made in the contested 1998-nature and 1999-GRL-papers by Mann et al.
4) With respect to methods, the committee is showing reservations concerning the methodology of Mann et al.. The committee notes explicitly on pages 91 and 111 that the method has no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless.
5) Other independent efforts (e.g., inversion of borehole temperatures) to reconstruct past temperatures find different temperature ranges albeit qualitative agreement. These quantitative differences underline the methodological limitation of the Mann et al approach, which are described in the sections 9 and 11 of the NRC report.
6) We welcome the major conclusion of the report that further scientific efforts are needed to sort out a variety of problems with respect to methods and data ; also the uncertainty must be assessed in a more objective manner. Thus, the public perception that the hockeystick as truthfully describing the temperature history was definitely false.
7) We find it disappointing that the method of Mann et al. was not sufficiently described in the original publication, and thus not peer-reviewed prior to publication, and that no serious efforts were made to allow independent researchers to check the performance of the methods and of the data used.
Von Storch and Zorita were published in AGW bible Nature.
Von Storch and Zorita were published in Science.
There are literally 100's and 100's of published papers on the extent of the MWP.
Loehle et al 2007 showed that MWP temperatures were aprox. 0.3C warmer than today.
Of course, once again the proof is in the pudding. After trumpeting the hockey stick in IPCC TAR and using it as their poster child, IPCC was singing a different tune in AR 4. The hockey stick was used only as a tertiary spaghetti graph and the IPCC dropped the claim of the 1990's being the warmest of a mellenium to the warmest since 1300 (well duh).
Everyone always seems to forget that the Wegman report also focussed on the sham of the peer review process as well. Not only Mann hid his data from the process but Wegman showed with his matrices that a better name for peer review woud have been the "self admiration society" or the "old boys network".
Do you think that science will change if you use enough words?
No matter how many words, sentences, paragraphs and monographs you write, you will not change the science.
As any competent scientist working in the field knows the paleoclimate data are robust and stand up to continued research and rigorous scrutiny.
You say "there are literally 100's and 100's of published papers on the extent of the MWP". Yes, there are that many but only one or two such as Loehle's discredited paper (first of all it was published in Energy and Environment; see also http://www.tinyurl.com/3ynpdm) support your shoddy interpretation.
Funny that out of all the 100's and 100's of papers you can only quote a discredited paper from E&E to support your shoddy case. You are completely ignorant of the science involved and I see you are so embarrassed by your stupidity that you hide your name. I don't blame you, it would be embarassing for you if your mother, family or boss really knew how stupid you are.
Ian, until Mann et
Ian, until Mann et al’s, should we say “controversial” Hockey Stick reconstruction rewrote climate history and became the only politically correct show in town, even the IPCC acknowledged the existence of a warmer-than-present Medieval period.
But don’t belive me, go and read “Houghton, J.T., et al (Eds.). 1990. Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.”
And when you have finished with that try “Mayewski, P.A., Rohling, E.E., Stager, J.C., Karlen, W., Maasch, K.A., Meeker, L.D., Meyerson, E.A., Gasse, F., van Kreveld, S., Holmgren, K., Lee-Thorp, J., Rosqvist, G. Rack, F., Staubwasser, M., Schneider, R.R. and Steig, E.J. 2004. Holocene climate variability. Quaternary Research 62: 243-255.”
Then try “Moberg, A., Sonechkin, D.M., Holmgren, K., Datsenko, N.M. and Karlen, W. 2005. Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data. Nature 433: 613-617.
Then “”Esper, J. and Schweingruber, F.H. 2004. Large-scale treeline changes recorded in Siberia. Geophysical Research Letters 31: 10.1029”.
OK, getting the idea? I could post more papers showing previously higher Holecene temperatures than you could find to support Mann. And what is more they will be independent studies, not like Mann’s “crony” supporting papers.
Finally,I thought that the letter you so disparagingly refer to in the National Post, was a breath of fresh air in the face of UN-IPCC political corruption of science. And my, my what a long list of “deniers”!
PS and if you think that “Tamino” is open-minded, you have my deepest sympathy.
Oh yes, I get the idea
You have either never read the papers you are quoting (just copied and pasted) or you actually read them but your understanding skills are so poor you completely misinterpreted them. You should never cut and paste from the well known denier sites since they are usually wrong.
Firstly, the figure in the first IPCC assessment was only a qualitative representation without any actual temperature measurement inputs. It was based on anecdotal evidence which is never considered to be scientific (just see how wrong all the denier sites are with respect to the Vikings in Greenland and grapes in the UK). It also stops well before 1990. Some denier did "adjust" it (it might have been Tim Ball) by adding numbers to the y -axis but that is fraud.
Secondly, the paper by Mayewski at al. does not give any evidence that the MWP was warmer than present. In fact, it does not even mention the MWP unless you accept that it was from 800 to 1200 AD, which is not what is usually accepted. They also show that there were indications that more areas were cooling during that period than were warming.
Thirdly, the Moberg at al. paper does not show a warmer MWP than present. In fact it shows that the MWP was 0.4 degrees C cooler than present. It even has a nice graph to show this, you don't even need to be able to read the words.
Fourthly, the paper by Esper and Schweingruber doesn't show a warmer MWP either. It is a study of tree line in one small area of the earth (somewhere in Siberia) and claims that trees may have grown in the past where they are now. Great endorsement for "a warmer MWP." You do realise that growth of trees is not modulated by temperature alone, don't you? I think you have been reading Tim Ball's paper too often since this is his only claim to fame.
So you are zero for four in your selection of papers which you claim prove that the MWP was warmer than now. Don't you think that is a pretty poor average since you have probably picked the best ones?
So a letter full of lies and mis-statements by the deniers is a "breath of fresh air"? You have been breathing from the BS of dishonest scientists for so long you wouldn't know what fresh air smelled like. In fact, I detect vague whiffs of rotting slime everytime I read one of your posts.
So Tamino has blocked you at Open Mind? Can't think why. Your rubbish is not appreciated.
Ian, I actually feel sorry
Ian, I actually feel sorry for you. Like a religious fundamentalist, you are consumed with hatred of “heretics”. Have you ever considered the possibility that you might be mistaken? I have. The thing is neither of us can possibly know whether we are right or wrong, because, contrary to what Al Gore, Jim Hansen and the IPCC say, the science is not settled.
OK, cards on the table, mistaken I may be, stupid and dishonest I am not. I have a first degree and PhD in Science from one of the top 3 Universities in the World. I have done field work in the Antarctic and my last 5 publications have been connected with climate change. I believe that gives me the correct kind of background to examine the “science” and make my own decision. I make no apology if that decision does not concur with yours.
For what it is worth here is some further reading.
Schmidt, R., Kamenik, C. and Roth, M. 2007. Siliceous algae-based seasonal temperature inference and indicator pollen tracking ca. 4,000 years of climate/land use dependency in the southern Austrian Alps. Journal of Paleolimnology 38: 541-554.
Kvavadze, E.V. and Connor, S.E. 2005. Zelkova carpinifolia (Pallas) K. Koch in Holocene sediments of Georgia - an indicator of climatic optima. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 133: 69-89.
McGann, M. 2008. High-resolution foraminiferal, isotopic, and trace element records from Holocene estuarine deposits of San Francisco Bay, California. Journal of Coastal Research 24: 1092-1109.
Zabenskie, S. and Gajewski, K. 2007. Post-glacial climatic change on Boothia Peninsula, Nunavut, Canada. Quaternary Research 68: 261-270.
Ma, C-M., Wang, F-B., Cao, Q-Y., Xia, X-C., Li, S-F. and Li, X-S. 2008. Climate and environment reconstruction during the Medieval Warm Period in Lop Nur of Xinjiang, China. Chinese Science Bulletin 53: 3016-3027.
Mangini, A., Verdes, P., Spotl, C., Scholz, D., Vollweiler, N. and Kromer, B. 2007. Persistent influence of the North Atlantic hydrography on central European winter temperature during the last 9000 years. Geophysical Research Letters 34:
Justwan, A., Koc, N. and Jennings, A.E. 2008. Evolution of the Irminger and East Icelandic Current systems through the Holocene, revealed by diatom-based sea surface temperature reconstructions. Quaternary Science Reviews 27: 1571-1582.
Please get back to me if you want more.
You are a disgrace to the science community
If you actually have a PhD in science all I can say is you are a disgrace to the scientific community. No wonder you hide your identity.
I will not waste any more of my time searching out your cites since I do not think they will support your false claims any more than your previous ones.
If you are a scientist then you should know that the peer reviewed scientific literature is where the honest and quality papers are found, not in such rags as Energy and Environment and denier web sites such as climatefraudit, wattswrongwithwatt, icecap, co2science etc.
You are a pathetic person who hides and slanders prominent scientists with your lies and dishonesty. If you are a scientist, as you claim, where are your published papers backing up your erroneous "'facts"? You and "athlete" are nothing but ignorant and obnoxious trolls.
Ian, if you really believe
Ian, if you really believe your outpourings of bile and gratuitous Ad Hominens advance your cause then you are sadly mistaken. Readers of this Blog can draw their own conclusions.
Oh yes and as a matter of interest just where is “Energy and Environment” in my last list of papers?
Schmidt, R., Kamenik, C. and Roth, M. 2007. Siliceous algae-based seasonal temperature inference and indicator pollen tracking ca. 4,000 years of climate/land use dependency in the southern Austrian Alps. Journal of Paleolimnology 38: 541-554.
Kvavadze, E.V. and Connor, S.E. 2005. Zelkova carpinifolia (Pallas) K. Koch in Holocene sediments of Georgia - an indicator of climatic optima. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 133: 69-89.
McGann, M. 2008. High-resolution foraminiferal, isotopic, and trace element records from Holocene estuarine deposits of San Francisco Bay, California. Journal of Coastal Research 24: 1092-1109.
Zabenskie, S. and Gajewski, K. 2007. Post-glacial climatic change on Boothia Peninsula, Nunavut, Canada. Quaternary Research 68: 261-270.
Ma, C-M., Wang, F-B., Cao, Q-Y., Xia, X-C., Li, S-F. and Li, X-S. 2008. Climate and environment reconstruction during the Medieval Warm Period in Lop Nur of Xinjiang, China. Chinese Science Bulletin 53: 3016-3027.
Mangini, A., Verdes, P., Spotl, C., Scholz, D., Vollweiler, N. and Kromer, B. 2007. Persistent influence of the North Atlantic hydrography on central European winter temperature during the last 9000 years. Geophysical Research Letters 34:
Justwan, A., Koc, N. and Jennings, A.E. 2008. Evolution of the Irminger and East Icelandic Current systems through the Holocene, revealed by diatom-based sea surface temperature reconstructions. Quaternary Science Reviews 27: 1571-1582.
You are full of what comes out the rear end of male bovines
Putting out endless lists of papers which you have neither read nor understood (if you did read them) is a sign of a very immature person.
Your lists are meaningless because noone in their right mind is going to read them after I showed that the very first list you provided had zero papers which supported your false claims.
You and "athlete" need to take some elementary courses in science, logic and common sense. It would also help if you took your head(s) out of the sand since there is plenty of evidence of GW everyhwhere you care to look. And there is no argument by respected climate scientists that, in fact, GW is AGW.
You are pathetic. By the way, you don't understand what "ad hominem" means or how it is used. When I tell people the truth about your dishonesty, stupidity and arrogance, that is only a reflection of the truth as shown by your writings. If you don't like it there is a simple solution, start being honest and civil and cut out the arrogance and selfish narcissism shown by most of the deniers.
"When I tell people the truth
"When I tell people the truth about your dishonesty, stupidity and arrogance, that is only a reflection of the truth as shown by your writings. If you don't like it there is a simple solution, start being honest and civil and cut out the arrogance and selfish narcissism shown by most of the deniers".
You know nothing about my character, yet you reveal much about yourself with your baseless presumptions.
Just because I happen to disagree with your point of view and that of a politicised science. I am in your eyes a "denier" and a "heretic", who should, in your eyes, be cast into eternal damnation.
You are sounding more and more like a religious fanatic. And we all know how much they value truth and science.- Remember Gallileo.
You are dishonest because you claim to be a scientist
Honesty is one of the most important character attributes a scientist can have. 98% of scientists know that AGW is a fact and is happening. What gives you the right to disagree with that overwhelming concensus? Scientists follow the data and results and draw their conclusions from them. Where are the data and results that convince you that AGW is not real? Honest scientists do not lie about data, cherry pick, obfuscate or knowingly misinterpret data. You and all of the deniers are guilty of all those charges.
If you support the deniers you are being completely dishonest as a scientist, that is why I doubt you really are a scientist (having a degree in science does not make you a scientist). You are judged by your honesty and integrity, both of which you have plainly shown to be nonexistent in your character profle as shown by your writings on this blog.
Call me any names you want but it will not change the fact that you know nothing of climate science and that you dishonestly support the deniers.
Please read the comment policy, boys.
You are throwing alot of c### around, and it does nothing to advance the discussion. I'd hate to have to block you.
What is wrong with pointing out dishonesty when it occurs?
I thought that one of the aims of DeSmogBlog was “to clear the PR pollution that is clouding the science on climate change”. Part of that cloud is the lies and dishonesty shown by some of the posters on this blog. I try and do my part in blowing away that smog by commenting on the honesty and integrity of the posters. Anyone who understands the science involved will realise that the whole of the deniers’ case revolves round lying about data, cherry picking, obfuscating and knowingly misinterpreting data. I do not see how showing up posters when they resort to those tactics is going against the goals outlined above.
Over the summer I quit posting for a while because of the troll overload that was occurring. It was as if I was logged on to climatefraudit or wattswrongwithwatt rather than a blog supporting the climate scientists. How can you condone the way these trolls use slanderous lies to smear respected scientists?
If you continue to allow such tactics by the trolls then you won’t have to block me since I will stop posting and spend my time supporting other blogs where such dishonest behaviour by trolls is not allowed. I spend a lot of time checking on the science posted by some commentators. I know that science is not a strong point for DeSmogBlog but you just cannot ignore dishonesty in the science content of posts. Yesterday I spent considerable time checking on the cites by a poster and found that all four did not support his comments. I think that such scrutiny is valuable but it takes up a lot of peoples’ time and effort. Thus my exasperation when I find that someone has been dishonest. The first time one can say it was a mistake but when it is done again and again a pattern emerges. Do you not think that some thing should be done to stop such misuse of citing of scientific papers? At least let us call a spade a spade when such dishonesty is uncovered.
Hi Ian
I am with you all the way on nailing the purveyors of misinformation. But we don't need to resort to name-calling and insults to get the point across. Don't lower yourself to their level, man. You're better than that.
And here's a whole list of
And here's a whole list of rather famous scientists (over100) who disagree.
http://www.cato.org/special/climatechange/cato_climate.pdf
Yes, the open letter is been paid for by the Cato Institute. But so what. AGW Alarmists get paid a lot more via the corrupt IPCC and cynical Governments keen to raise taxes by jumping on the AGW bandwagon.
No, that is a list of deniers
Why do you worship all those dishonest deniers? That list is a list of frauds, cranks, people gone "emeritus" and oil industry shills. Plus there is a good group of resume inflators mixed in.
Why do you call yourself a scientist and associate with people like those? That only shows your complete disrespect for science and scientists.
You are just a pathetic troll with no knowledge of climate science who believes that the longer a list of papers or crooked deniers they can post the more solid their arguments. I have some advice, that may work on denier sites where people are so gullible they will clutch at straws to support their completely mistaken beliefs but it only shows how big a fool you are when you try the same tactics on an intellectually superior audience.
Ian, you obviously dislike
Ian, you obviously dislike the way I pick and choose items from the peer-reviewed literature to support my arguments. Just like a "climate scientist" in fact. A good example is Michael Mann who picks and chooses which records he needs to ensure that he gets the "right answer” (A Hockey Stick). No matter that other scientists have specifically warned against the use of Bristlecones- which are vital to his reconstruction.. He and he supporters actually have the gall to say that the ability to "pick and choose records is an advantage unique to dendroclimatology".
Any reputable scientist would call such a process "fiddling the data". But I guess its O.K. because he is one of the “good-guys”.
Go away, you are just wasting everyones' time
When you cut and paste lists of papers which you have obviously not read nor understood then I will point this out to you. Most of the papers you have cited that I have checked do not support what you claim they are saying. That is not what is expected of someone who claims to be a scientist. You would fail any introductory course in High School, let alone University, for such behaviour.
As for your comments about Mann, once again you show that you have not researched the topic but are merely parroting what you have read on denier websites. It makes very little difference if the BCP's are included or excluded.
The only people guilty of fiddling the data are deniers; see the Great Global Warming Swindle which was full of fraudulent data. The Discount Monk is also guilty of fraud. So are some of the denier scientists.
Check out Open Mind and Deltoid to see for your self. Some of them are also discussed on this Blog.
Ian, I'm so glad you pointed
Ian, I'm so glad you pointed me to the truth about AGW. How could I have possibly disbelieved the objective, truthful and unbiased articles on Doltoid, Closed Mind and Surrealclimate?
You have really opened my eyes.