This article contends that there is so much government money to be made promoting Man-made global warming that the scientists on the dole will stop at nothing.
But Mr. Jones wrote Mr. Mann on March 11, 2003, that “I’ll be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland. Mr. Mann responded to Mr. Jones on the same day: “I think we should stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues . . . to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”
Mr. Mann ultimately wrote to Mr. Jones on July 11, 2003, that “I think the community should . . . terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels . . . and leave it to wither away into oblivion and disrepute.”
Climate Research and several other journals have stopped accepting anything that substantially challenges the received wisdom on global warming perpetuated by the CRU. I have had four perfectly good manuscripts rejected out of hand since the CRU shenanigans, and I’m hardly the only one. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, has noted that it’s becoming nearly impossible to publish anything on global warming that’s nonalarmist in peer-reviewed journals.
Of course, Mr. Russell didn’t look to see if the ugly pressure tactics discussed in the Climategate emails had any consequences. That’s because they only interviewed CRU people, not the people whom they had trashed.
@Shubee (#50),
Wow, you have moved from hating the SDA Church to hating Israel in your signature link. Have you have had enough hating? Maybe you ought to find a new hobby, or maybe a church that doesn’t make you so angry…
@57 Misanthropic Scott
That’s a great link.
Let’s see your first link was to a blog post where you replied three days after mine, and are surprised there was no reply. In addition, you did not respond to the point of the post, where I pointed out errors in the use of proxy data to create a hockey stick.
Since that post, the author cited issued a correction, admitting the upside-down use of data. Michael Mann has yet to do the same.
At least you responded quickly to my post in your second link, but this was also 4 days after the original post. Yet again, you did not respond to the points made, and bring up a point about things being .6 degrees warmer in 100 years.
Perhaps you should stick to the points made in this thread before you refer to other threads.
Or perhaps not, since this thread is old anyway.
#62 – freddybobs68k,
I tried suggesting to them that they make it a bit less confrontational to skeptics so that it could be more persuasive to them. I think anyone who goes to that site and isn’t immediately turned off is likely already convinced by the evidence. I would like a site where I could point people and not have them offended the minute they click there.
Other than that, the questions are very well answered and digging will produce any level of depth you desire and are capable of understanding for the answer to any of the questions. I’ve also yet to hear a skeptic spew put forth an argument that isn’t on the list.
#63 – MikeN,
Since that post, the author cited issued a correction, admitting the upside-down use of data.
A correction to which you are about to post a link presumably.
This so-called vindication of the hockey stick, you frequently point to Mann ’08, which uses a proxy from Tiljander, upside down, and when this was pointed out, Mann not only didn’t correct it, he used it upside down again in a later paper! Given that Mann has now admitted to using instrumental temperatures in smoothing, perhaps he will admit to this upside-down usage in another 8 years or so.
Even having other papers validate the hockey stick only gives credence to the other papers, it doesn’t make Mann’s papers correct. When the other scientists refuse to state that Mann is in error, or say he is correct, that calls into question their own credibility and competence. The website RealClimate suffers a great deal from being associated with Mann.
The main things to look for in seeing if a hockey stick paper is valid or invalid.
1) Does it use bristlecone pines, foxtails, or strip-bark, which the NAS Panel in 2006 stated should not be used? Strangely the NAS Panel said this, and then referred to papers which did use these proxies to validate the hockey stick.
2) Does it use Tiljander in an upside-down fashion? Kaufman corrected this error, and I doubt it will be seen again outside of team Mann.
3) Does it use Yamal? A valid proxy on its own, the scientist who developed it chose not to publish a similar site which shows less extreme behavior in modern times. Yamal is great choice to use if you are trying to create a hockey stick.
4) Does it use an algorithm that tends to produce hockey sticks? Mann’s first papers used a PCA algorithm that tended to mine for hockey sticks, and his latest papers use a CPS method that does the same.
MikeN,
How about if we just look at the tip of the hockey stick in excruciating detail. Here’s actual global average temperatures from instrument readings … again!
http://tinyurl.com/29maadx
How about if you say what you would find to be an accurate temperature record of the past? Instead, you would probably rule out all means of determining temperature prior to the invention of the thermometer and its global use.
Or, you could look at this graph from NOAA.
http://tinyurl.com/qkj9ve
MikeN (cont’d),
Or, you could look at the way we’ve interrupted the Milankovich cycle here.
http://tinyurl.com/26n3ph
When a consensus that global warming is occurring now (and has for a while) has been reached, as it has, then you must present real evidence that challenges the consensus. So far, no strong evidence has emerged that actually challenges that.
It’s sorry that some of you can’t actually understand this.
And to further spark those claiming this isn’t science…
From Russ’ Filtered News:
“NASA: First Half Of Year Is Hottest Ever Recorded More bad news to come:
newly published study has concluded that, by 2039, the United States could experience at least four crop-destroying, life-threatening seasons “equally as intense as the hottest season ever recorded from 1951-1999.”
But because Al Gore is rich and fat, and because it snowed last winter, none of this can be true.”
The NASA link is:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/10/nasa-hottest-year-solar-minimum/
SLOW, Slowly we come
Guards needing absolute truth
Until throats are cut.
#71
Summer upon us
Late for love season
Is it a donkey you play with?
How come every time there’s a snowstorm in winter we have the idiots at Fox (and from under every other right-wing rock) out in droves mocking global warming, yet during this damn heat wave in NYC the idiots are strangely silent?
This is the article for which the correction is issued. The text is no longer available without subscription.
http://sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/325/5945/1236
http://arcus.org/synthesis2k/synthesis/
has the correction. If Mann had bothered correcting in the first place, Kaufman would not have been in this situation. He had two coauthors in common with Mann’s paper, and published after Steve McIntyre published his criticism in the PNAS journal. However, Mann instead of investigating, just responded that the allegation was ‘bizarre.’
Scott, all that shows is that it has gotten warmer recently. The whole point of the hockey stick paper was to say it was unprecedented warming, and to give weight to the idea that CO2 must be the culprit, can’t be natural variation.
The second IPCC report did not have the hockey stick, but for the third report, they jumped on it and put it in all the press releases.
I think having the hockey sticks made with these weak methods like let’s run everything through a filter that keeps the ones with lots of modern warming and average everything together, just throws all the science into doubt. If they can’t call out errors even when they are revealed, then how can any of the science be trusted?
Your reference to Katrina ‘climate refugees’ is on topic with a post by Roger Pielke Jr.
I have sent Chris Field an email as follows:
I read your op-ed in Politico with interest. In it you state:
“Climate change caused by humans is already affecting our lives and livelihoods — with extreme storms, unusual floods and droughts, intense heat waves, rising seas and many changes in biological systems — as climate scientists have projected.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39664.html#ixzz0tbNjwMYY
I am unaware of research that shows either detection or attribution of human-caused changes in extreme storms or floods, much less detection or attribution of such changes “affecting lives and livelihoods”. Can you point me to the scientific basis for such claims?
Many thanks,
Roger
The context of this is that Pielke’s research has found no such changes due to global warming. Instead he has found that the IPCC has misrepresented his research on the subject.
#75 – MikeN,
Did it occur to you that the hockey stick graph was not used while it was controversial and was added back in after it had been thoroughly vindicated? Of course not. You would rather assume the IPCC to be biased than allow for the possibility that scientists might really be doing their best with a very complex subject.
I’ll respond to your links later, probably this evening, as I am expecting a busy day at work today.
One quick thought though, since you posted something that appears to be an alternate model that was able to reproduce actual temperatures with solar variation rather than CO2, do you have any explanation for how increasing CO2 quite significantly could possibly not affect temperature when it’s one of the known greenhouse gases that keep our planet from being a frozen wasteland?
The hockey stick was used in 2001. It was not subjected to rigorous skepticism, which I think is the problem with the field. The scientists are more likely to believe certain things. If the results had come out differently, they would have pored over the paper looking for flaws. Instead it was left to outsiders to find the flaws, and this was many years later.
I’m not sure what model you are talking about that I linked to. I think CO2 does lead to warming.
That said, there are several explanations that would lead to higher CO2 not causing more warming.
Roy Spencer has proposed that it is clouds that are causing the current warming, and the scientists are instead misinterpreting the data to say clouds are a positive feedback, when they are the cause of the warming.
A substantial negative feedback in the ecosystem would reduce the impact of the greenhouse effect. Such a feedback does not have to operate at all temperature levels.
A small negative feedback would yield warming of no more than 1C.