Chris Mooney on the report Joe Barton commissioned on the hockey stick:

I am beyond bored with the whole thing. I’m reaching the point of despair. Listen, people: This is an argument over a study that is now some eight years old. Eight years! You would think there is nothing new under the sun in climate science.

So let us recite, once again, for those who still don’t get it: *One study never definitively proves anything in science. Any single study can be attacked and criticized. Any individual piece of work will have its gaps, shortcomings, and associated uncertainties.* As for those who show no appreciation of this fact, who obsessively beat up on a single study for political reasons: By this behavior, they simply show that they approach scientific information as lawyerly debunkers, rather than by trying to accurately grasp the big picture.

James Hrynyshyn adds:

Three allegedly distinguished academics — Edward J. Wegman of George Mason University, David W. Scott of Rice University and Yasmin H. Said of Johns Hopkins University — have taken it upon themselves to to attack not just paleoclimatologist Michael Mann, whose work was largely vindicated by the National Academies of Science just the other week, but the tendency of climate scientists to rely on peer review…

But this sort of disdain for the scientific community is entirely consistent with the lack of respect for science that typifies the Republican and Bush approaches to public policy. I suggest we should be very concerned when any elected official with any significant degree of power supports the not so subtle message that scientists by their very nature, can’t be trusted.

i-e23656cf66b1806a87b0a1ca8843f545-mckitricknetwork.pngThe hijinks never end with Congressman Barton. David Appell reports:

The hockey stick hearings, held by Congressmen dripping fossil fuel money from their fat, fleshy jowls, will be viewable here, on Wednesday the 19th at 10:00 am EDT. They say the guest list is still to be determined.

I think I may have the social network graph that will be used for the guest list right here.

Comments

  1. #1 Jasmine
    July 17, 2006

    Why… just yesterday I was trying to make this point as a comment on a post at another site regarding the Wegman “report” which, in my opinion, is merely a thinly veiled ad homimen attack on the author of an eight-year-old LETTER that has no bearing on public policy.

    To my endless amusement, I kept getting deleted from there as fast as I could type (tee-hee).

    How funny to stumble across this blog (and your previous post with its comments) today! (Just as I grew bored and left… someone made reference to “deltoid” and, at the time, I had no idea what they were talking about)

    TCO: Could it be “Tau turbulence??!!”

  2. #2 Stephen Berg
    July 17, 2006

    Re: “Why… just yesterday I was trying to make this point as a comment on a post at another site regarding the Wegman “report” which, in my opinion, is merely a thinly veiled ad homimen attack on the author of an eight-year-old LETTER that has no bearing on public policy.”

    Now, would that site be ClimateAudit?

  3. #3 Jasmine
    July 17, 2006

    I honestly can’t remember. That might have been the name of the site. Reading a previous post here certainly suggests that it was. I really was just poking around the web a bit … out of curiousity on the House Energy subcommittee.

  4. #4 Miss J
    July 17, 2006

    why yes it was… I just went back to check and sure enough… I’ve been banned. Apparantly someone belongs to a knitting blog that doesn’t discuss energy policy… and so it’s inappropriate to discuss energy policy in the comment section of that blog…despite the fact that the post is about a report to the Energy subcommittee. Too weird for words.

  5. #5 Lee
    July 17, 2006

    MissJ – Shall we start a club? John Hunter would be the charter menmber.

    Steve invited me back as of Monday, and I managed one polite-but-firm response to a disparaging post offered my way in my absense – my next (substantive) post was filtered, and my first post removed. I am currently blocked again. apparently it is okay for the dissenters to abuse “hyperwarmers”, but not for me to respond or to offer substance.

  6. #6 Miss J
    July 17, 2006

    I’m still catching up on some background reading over the purpose of the blog that I got caught at:

    ” a blog that is specifically about M&M’s criticisms of MBH’s papers on AGW is spending its time on M&M’s criticisms of MBH’s papers on AGW”

    omigosh!
    … I had *no* idea what a comedy this one was! I did double over when my comment was returned tonight (I was merely giggling last night when I had to suddenly start typing in little hexadecimal numbers…)

    I have no problem being banned from such a narrowly-focused blog. I do have an interest in getting involved in areas with more substance.

  7. #7 hank
    July 17, 2006

    Ah, history … I noted this on Chris’s page too.

    http://www.sigmaxi.org/meetings/archive/forum.2000.millikan.shtml
    ——————–
    “In Betrayers of the Truth, Broad and Wade want to make the point that scientists cheat. Chapter 2, Deceit in History starts out with a list of culprits: Claudius Ptolemy, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, John Dalton, Gregor Mendel and Robert Millikan. At the very least, Millikan is in good company. Of Millikan they say he “…extensively misrepresented his work in order to make his experimental results seem more convincing than was in fact the case.”

    “I would argue that this statement is profoundly incorrect. Incidentally, although I have no time to make the case today, the accusations against most of the other scientists on the list are equally spurious.

    “For the statement by Broad and Wade to make sense, Millikan’s principal experimental result would have to be that there exists a smallest unit of electric charge. We would have to imagine that the existence of electrons, and by implication the existence of atoms, was an issue of burning controversy in 1913….”
    ….
    ——————-

  8. #8 MarkR
    July 17, 2006

    I really dislike people who say they are tired of the truth.

    1 They used a non temperature proxy, the Bristlecones.

    2 They overweighted it by several hundred times.

    3 They calibrated the data wrongly to a short period rising trend, and mine for data that shows a rising trend in the 20th Century.

    4 They ignored standard statistical tests, that showed the data had no “skill”.

    5 They republished based on similar data many times, with related authorship, and call them all independent.

    6 They refuse to freely release their data and methods to third parties to test replication.

    7 Mann writes his own indecipherable fortran program to do the job, when standard statistical software is available.

    8 They assumed a linear relationship between tree rings and temperature, when it is well known that too hot or too cold conditions inhibit tree growth.

    9 They didn’t compare tree rings to local grid cell temperatures, but instead compared trees to global average temperatures as if a tree in California somehow knows what is going on globally.

    These are not “small errors/mistakes”.

    In all repects their research is fatally flawed, and wrong.

  9. #9 Lee
    July 17, 2006

    MarkR – one more time:

    JB, the comments you are responding too also reflect a somewhat common meme about what the NAS report said – and that meme is wrong. Please allow me to jump in with a bit of further discussin of the kinds of claims that you responded to here.

    The NAS report’s summary split the analysis into two kinds of evidence. The multiproxy reports, from Mann et al and its follow-ons, were limited by the NAS report to less than they originally claimed – the NAS committee ended up saying that the quantitative results of those analyses were solid going back 400 years, with decreasing utility because of increasing uuncertainty going further back to 900AD, and effectively unusable before 900 AD. Whel they acknowledged some statistical problems with those analyses, they also said that the primary reasons for the uncertainty were sparsity and uneven geographic distribution of proxy records as one goes further backin time. They DID limit the Mann et al global quantitative claims, but that was only one part of their report.

    In the same summary, in adjacent paragraphs, they also pointed to many lines of additional evidence that independently suport the conclusion that something anomalous was going on in late 20th century climate, on at least a millenial time frame. This includes quantitative evidence from high latitude and tropical ice cores (dealt with independently because of differing uncertainties), global glacier ice balance and retreat, observations of glacial melt in places where we have evidence that it hasnt happened in many thousands of years, evidence of rooted sub-glacier plants being uncovered for the first time in many thousands of years, and so on. These lines of evidence were covered in their own chapters in the report.

    The report then says that the combined quantitative and qualitative data from this additional evidence supports the quantitative claim from the Mann and follow-on multiproxy studies that temps in the late 20th century were globally anomalous on millenial time scales. They specifically said that the quantitative multiproxy claims were plausibleeven if too uncertain in thero won context, and they did this in the context of all this additional suporting data showing something anomalous happening in the late 20th century.

    MacIntyre/Wegman/etc HAVE shown some data source and statistical problems with various of the multiproxy studies – and are claimign they apply to later studies but have not done a good job of extending thair analyses to all the other later reports, so that part of the cliam is IMO suspect.

    But, (to get back to where I started this post) the NAS limitation and Wegman partial statistical criticism are being presented as if they cut the legs out from any claims further back than 400 years, and by some ‘sceptics’ as fi they cut off any claims for anthropogenic causes for climate change. This is being done in many cases by behaving as if the Mann et all work was the only evidence that existed, or at least including ONLY mentins of that work in their analysis, and that leads to implications that are simply false.

    BTW, this was the point I was making, and being attacked for, when I was banned from Climate Audit.

    The fact that the precise quantitative global results from the multiproxy studies have more uncertainty than previously claimed does NOT mean the millenial evidence for late 20th century cimate anomalies is not strong, even if the suporting data does not allow precise quantitative calculation of the global temps during those millenial time frames.

    Posted by: Lee | July 16, 2006 02:52 PM

  10. #10 MarkR
    July 17, 2006

    Lee

    1 Do you accept that Mann et al was wrong in any aspect?

    2 Please point to one other specific, incontrovertible proof (excluding Mann et al and derivative papers), that the 20th century warming was unprecedented in the last thousand years.

    PS No one has ever been banned from Climateaudit for making a point.

  11. #11 MarkR
    July 17, 2006

    Lee

    “partial statistical criticism”

    Wegman is complete statistical destruction for Mann et al.

  12. #12 Lee
    July 17, 2006

    MarkA, thanks for realizing that your question was already answered in my post.

    Wegman did not go on to examine the impact of the errors they identify on the overall MBH98/99 reconstructions. Wegman identified serious errors in a specific data series used in the reconstruction, but stopped right at the most important step: the reconstruction. Later reconstructions use different methods; Wegmans criticisms don’t apply to those. I specifically said ‘Mann and their follow-ons’ and specifically pointed to those later papers. And my cental point, of course, is that even if all the dendro reconstructions get flushed altogether, the stronger claims I see about having demolished the evidential basis for AGW are pure unfounded hyperbole.

    I get tired of responding to people who knee-jerk challenges to me without bothering to read what I’ve already written.

  13. #13 MarkR
    July 18, 2006

    Lee

    You’d get a lot less tired if you just simply answered the two questions I posted above.

  14. #14 Dano
    July 18, 2006

    They used a non temperature proxy, the Bristlecones.

    MarkR, would you like to try to argue “your” point on a dendro listserv, with non-Googlers who do this for a living?

    Let me know & I’ll log you in.

    Best,

    D

  15. #15 Lee
    July 18, 2006

    Mark, I answered q.1 in my post.

    2. i refer you to the NAS reporrt – there is a LTO of supporting qualitative data, including northern hemisphere high latitude ice cores from canada showing anomalous warming compared to TWO millenia, there is southern hemisphere high latitude collapse of long-lived ice s helves, ther is a millenial-scale anomalous combined temp/precip CLIMATE signature in the tropics, there is observed sruvace melting in tropical ice cap that is unique in a time frame of many thousands of years, there is evidence of retreat fo glacial fronts to positns nunique in many thousands ofeyears. None of thes alone are incontrovertible – taken together they create a pretty good picture of globally anomalous events, expecially in the tropics where lower innate variability adds weight to the analysis.

    The only people who get banned or routinely censored from CA for ANY reason are the peopel who chalenge the ideas there. JohnA routinely goads people and then misuses his moderatin power when I/they respond. My firs tpost when I returend tonight was a poltie but forceful response to an insult left in my absense. My post was removed, the insult to which I responded remained. That kind of behavior by JohnA is pervasive and continuous.

  16. #16 TN
    July 18, 2006

    Does anyone here think CA banning/censorship policies is the same or worse than at RC?

  17. #17 MarkR
    July 18, 2006

    Hi Dano

    Re Bristlecones

    I don’t need to argue it, I cited published papers.
    I’ll leave the arguing to you.

  18. #18 MarkR
    July 18, 2006

    Hi Mark,R (July 18, 2006 12:25 AM)

    Notice the sneaky ,,,, in the name.

    You see it’s not MarkR, but someone playing pretend.
    Whoever you are, (and you obviously won’t be brave enough to reveal your true name), it’s probably past your bedtime, so off you go.

    | July 18, 2006 12:25 AM

  19. #19 MarkR
    July 18, 2006

    Hi TN

    If people new how censored the RealClimate site was they would be shocked.

    I challenge anyone.

    Post something which is opposed to their point of view and see what happens.

  20. #20 MarkR
    July 18, 2006

    Lee

    Question 1 is a kind of yes or no answer.

    Question 2 requires the citing of actual papers.

    Just trying to help.
    See this needn’t be tiring. Just read the question, and then answer it.

  21. #21 Hank Roberts
    July 18, 2006

    You ask for: “specific, incontrovertible proof”

    Tell us something you believe that you know by “specific, incontrovertible proof” please?

    Any one example will do, of what you consider “incontrovertible proof” that satisfies you, about anything.

  22. #22 Stephen Berg
    July 18, 2006

    Re: “2 Please point to one other specific, incontrovertible proof (excluding Mann et al and derivative papers), that the 20th century warming was unprecedented in the last thousand years.”

    MarkR, I ask you, please identify any peer-reviewed papers which show that the warmth in the latter half of the 20th Century was NOT unprecedented over the last thousand years. Can you do this for me?

  23. #23 Stephen Berg
    July 18, 2006

    Re: “Does anyone here think CA banning/censorship policies is the same or worse than at RC?”

    and:

    “If people new how censored the RealClimate site was they would be shocked.

    I challenge anyone.

    Post something which is opposed to their point of view and see what happens.”

    Complete BS. About the only things that are blocked on RC are discussions which are completely off topic and ad-hominum attacks. NOTHING ELSE!

  24. #24 Stephen Berg
    July 18, 2006

    Re: ‘You ask for: “specific, incontrovertible proof”‘

    Hank, MarkR seems not to think that there can be “specific, incontrovertible proof”, even in the case of the force of gravity.

  25. #25 MarkR
    July 18, 2006

    “Tell us something you believe that you know by “specific, incontrovertible proof” please? ”

    You’re the believer, surely you have proof?

  26. #26 MarkR
    July 18, 2006

    Hi Stephen

    RealClimate is about as free from censorship as PRAVDA.

  27. #27 Glen Raphael
    July 18, 2006

    Stephen: MarkR is right. RC treats their comment area much more like a “letters to the editor” page than a traditional blog comment section. They decide on a case-by-case basis which comments to allow and whether to edit them. Some comments are posted as is, some are posted with inline responses, some are partially censored, and a great many are entirely censored.

    You will make the cut if you agree with their views or if you disagree in a way they find interesting, novel, and easy to refute with a quick in-line comment. Otherwise, the odds are strongly against you.

    It is *possible* to express disagreement with a posting on RC in a way that passes muster, but you have to be lucky and catch them in the right mood. I only manage it about a third of the time.

  28. #28 Kristjan Wager
    July 18, 2006

    Censorship is staterun in nature, I hardly think RealClimate is run by any state.

    And yes, RealClimate have a strict commenting policy, but it is evenly applied – any comment that is political in nature, or off-topic in any other way, gets deleted.

  29. #29 James
    July 18, 2006

    “And yes, RealClimate have a strict commenting policy, but it is evenly applied – any comment that is political in nature, or off-topic in any other way, gets deleted.”

    You have to be kidding.

  30. #30 Paul Crowley
    July 18, 2006

    “You’re the believer, surely you have proof?”

    So, it’s not just assertions about climate change that you don’t like – you believe that it’s wrong to ever assert anything at all?

    Please don’t avoid the question. If you believe that some things require “specific, incontrovertable proof” then please give an example where an assertion about the world has such proof.

  31. #31 Jeff Harvey
    July 18, 2006

    People,

    You are wasting your breath with MarkR, a man who relies for much of his information, if not interpretation, on corporate-funded web sites THAT WON’T CHANGE THEIR OPINION NO MATTER HOW MUCH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE COMES IN. They have an agenda to defend, and they will continue to twist, mangle, distort and abuse science until we are sifting through the ashes. They’ll also do what MarkR is honing: the abiliy to concentrate on pedantics. Forget the other 99.99999999999999999999999999% of empirical evidence in support of the hypothesis of AGW; distract the attention of the public and policy makers on one eeny-weeny point and blow it out of all proportion. Lee, Dano, Stephen et al. have done a brilliant job in quashing every one of MarkR’s points, and he yet he drags himself off of the mat for more. Ya gotta hand it to him. Kind of reminds me of the boxer Randall Cobb when he fought Larry Holmes many years ago. Holmes was battering Cobb senseless, yet somehow Cobb, beaten to a pulp, stayed on his feet. Howard Cosell was, in his inimitable way, begging the referee to step in to stop the ‘debacle’, but Cobb’s bloodied, mangled face was still getting hammered in the 15th round.

    Onto another point, Aberdeen recoreded its highest ever recorded temperature for any month yesterday – 29 C. July records are set to be broken all over western Europe today or tomorrow. The first ten days in May and July were the warmest on record in De Bilt, Netherlands, and we are into our second fficial ‘heatwave’ of the month; bear in mind that between 1911 and 1989 there were 27 such heatwaves recorded in De Bilt; since 1990 there have been 12 (including the two this year). Tomorrow in London they are expecting temperatures to approach 100 F (38 C). Note how many more record ‘heat’ temperatures are being broken compared with record lows. In northwestern Europe, its clear that the climate is becoming more and more like southeastern Europe. Sure, Hans Erren is going to argue that the current clear regional warming trend is a ‘natural’ process (but bear in mind that most of the sceptical lobby were arguing only 10-15 years ago that climate change itself was a ‘doomsday myth’). This sordid lot have moved on. In a few years they will, as Pat Michaels is beginning to even now, admit that the primary culprit is Homo sapiens, but their next strategy will be (and already is) that its too late to do anything so we will just have to ‘adapt’. But by then its going to be too late. The latest coverage of the massive and unprecedented drought bedeviling the Brazilian Amazon by the Hadley Centre should be sobering. The ecological and environmental consequences of a mass die-back of the Amazon forest are too stark to even contemplate.

  32. #32 Pinko Punko
    July 18, 2006

    Here’s what gets nailed on RC- comments that spout crap which that they have already answered somewhere in their columinous archives. Yes, they don’t allow any old chumpwad to belly up to the bar comment wise, because when somebody asks a bunch of antogonistic questions re:some stupid cut and paste website, they don’t let it cloud the debate. MarkR, prove that you understand what you are even saying, then they might float your comment. Or even better, comment on topic.

  33. #33 Glen Raphael
    July 18, 2006

    Here’s one pattern I’ve noticed on RealClimate:

    Gavin (or whoever) will dismiss a critical point with a perfunctory inline comment that “we already dealt with that issue *here*” linking back to some earlier RC posting (on which comments are now closed). Sympathetic readers see this and are satisfied, but skeptics follow the link to discover that, in their opinion, the issue was therein *discussed* or at least touched on but not convincingly *dealt with*. A few points were piled up in favor of the RC position but little blood was drawn and there’s still something to be said for the skeptical position.

    So in response to Gavin’s note the skeptic tries to point out that no, actually this point has *not* yet been sufficiently dealt with.

    The skeptic’s comment is ruled off-topic (because it refers to a prior “already dealt with” issue more than the issue directly at hand) and silently deleted.

  34. #34 Tim Lambert
    July 18, 2006

    Yes, but skeptics have this tendency never to give up the point no matter how completley their arguments have been dealt with. Did you know that they are still going on about an eight year old paper despite a NRC investigation [basically vindicating it](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/nas_report_on_hockey_stick_rel.php)?

  35. #35 Jeff Harvey
    July 18, 2006

    Tim, the reason the sceptics won’t let go of the hockey stick is that its a bit like their ‘Waterloo’. Or a cliff to which they are hanging by their fingertips. If they let go, they’ll plunge to the rocks below. So they are’nt about to let go. Nope, these people are gonna stick to this little study as if their lives depend on it. As their denial is vanquished by the empirical data, as it is and will continue to be, all they are going to have left is a charred and burned ‘hockey stick’ as a legacy.

    How many times must it be said that the denial lobby by and large couldn’t give a hoot about the ‘science’. Science is only a useful tool insofar as it can be twisted to support an agenda. Astroturf lobbying organistations and their web sites like ‘CO 2′ and ‘GES’ will continue to go through the empirical literature to find studies to distort to bolster their argument (reflecting that of their polluting corporate sponsers) that ecological systems are linear and that the more CO 2 humanity belches into the atmosphere, the better off we’ll all be. Its b* of course, but they have a job to perform (mangling science) and they will continue to do it with gusto.

  36. #36 Carl Christensen
    July 18, 2006

    I’ve had some (IMHO) tame criticisms blocked on RC, but have had absolute flames go through on CA. That said, CA has pretty much become the “Fox viewers who stroke McIntyre’s ego ad infinitum” site, whereas RC still has a lot of good stuff (if you stay away from attacks on their “cause celebres” such as Mann).

  37. #37 Carl Christensen
    July 18, 2006

    whoops, forgot to add my point to the above — the problem with the whole “science blogging” paradigm is that it tends to get into these “binary” camps, i.e. you’re either RC or CA, where the truth is probably out there (not necessarily in the middle), but probably off at some odd angle between the two (e.g. Hans van Storch et al has good & sensible things to say and neither side can really co-opt them).

  38. #38 MarkR
    July 18, 2006

    I notice no-one even tried simple answers to a couple of simple questions I posted above (July 17, 2006 11:23 PM). Just a load of venting and obfuscation.

    Speaks for itself really.

  39. #39 Geoff
    July 18, 2006

    Hi Steven Berg (18 July, 1:24 AM),

    You might be interested to have a look at a recent paper entitled “The origin of the European “Medieval Warm Period” (in a peer-reviewed journal). The abstract starts as follows: “Using a combination of proxy records and results of a three dimensional climate model, we show that European summer temperatures roughly a millennium ago were comparable to those of the late 20th century. Those two relatively mild periods are separated by a rather cold era, supporting the existence of a summer “Medieval Warm Period” in Europe”. The whole article is available http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/cp/cpd/2/285/cpd-2-285.htm here.

  40. #40 Jon Mann
    July 18, 2006

    It seems to me that there are a few questions.
    1) Who was more close to right – McIntyre, Mann, or is it a draw? This may not be as *important* a question as “what proportion of global warming is caused by human activity” or “what is the cost/benefit of programs designed to limit global warming,” but it’s understandably interesting.

    2) How much global warming should we expect over the next several years, how much would it cost to do something about it, and what good would doing something about it do? Those are the more important questions, sure, but declaring a winner in the McIntyre/Mann debate is still fun.

    3) If we conclude that McIntrye is more close to right than Mann, then why didn’t peer review catch the problem, and what does that say about our confidence in the other GW analyses? This question is more important than #1, and it’s not a stupid question at all.

    It seems to me that there’s more derision coming out of the bloggers on both sides than is helpful. Instead of saying “The hockey stick bores me,” it would be helpful to us lay readers for some of the climate guys to explain:

    1) Here’s where McIntyre was right, and why
    2) Here’s where Mann was right, and why
    3) Here’s where no one can tell which one is right, and why
    4) Here’s what the climate science community did about the McIntyre/Mann debate, and why, and
    5) Here’s why the hockey stick isn’t all that important.

  41. #41 JP
    July 18, 2006

    Geoff

    I believe Mr Berg was referring to a different geographic scale. He was also replying to MarkR, an exercise that can be frustrating. The paper that you link to is concerned with Europe only and it would be unwise to extrapolate those findings to broader regions. The paper really is not news in the sense of its major finding; the existance of a MWP in Europe has been appreciated for decades. What is of interest to me is the modelling approach taken and the points regarding the forcings believed to be responsible for the relatively mild summers of the MWP in Europe. They also make it clear in their conclusion how they expect the European climate to change in the coming decades; changes that will make European temperatures much warmer. Of course some will discount this paper because one of authors is Mann.

  42. #42 Hank Roberts
    July 18, 2006

    > MarkR | July 18, 2006 12:47 AM

    You ask for: “specific, incontrovertible proof”

    Tell us something you believe that you know by “specific, incontrovertible proof” please?

    Any one example will do, of what you consider “incontrovertible proof” that satisfies you, about anything.

    One example — of such specific, incontrovertible proof.

    Just one. On any point whatsoever that you believe is true on the basis of specific, incontrovertible proof.

    Eh? Some proof what you keep asking for exists anywhere in the universe of your experience.

    Or are you saying you want something new in the world, to satisfy you?

  43. #43 John Cross
    July 18, 2006

    Geoff:

    Interesting paper. I see that Mann was a co-author.

  44. #44 Jeff Harvey
    July 18, 2006

    MarkR,

    You don’t want answers. You want 100% proof of AGW that will never be forthcoming, in order to do a complete reverse and say that the problem is a mirage. On another post I said that one of the sly ploys of the anti-environmental lobby is to demand 100% incontrovertible evidence that humans are forcing the climate. I have noticed in exchanges with several libertarian bloggers that without this 100% evidence they more-or-less argue that environmental problems – such as acid rain, high extinction rates, AGW – do not exist. As a fellow scientist who works on acid rain told me, debating the sceptics is like “Trying to win a pissing match with a skunk”. To get the kinds of answers you seek to fully understand the dynamics of immensely complex non-linear systems would require many billions of dollars – never to be funded. This is the rub.

    One piece of good news in Nature last week was that RC is ranked in the top five of science blog sites. Of course, CA didn’t appear in the ranking (small wonder).

    Jon,

    Don’t fall into the contrarians trap of putting all of the AGW eggs into the hockey stick basket. The denialists are on the run and they know it. Bear in mnd that AGW was postulated some ten years before the Mann et al. paper was published and that many volumes have been written in the peer-reviewed literature before and since providing masses of other evidence for AGW. The IPCC report alone is the most peer-reviewed document in scientific history – 12 rounds of internal and 3 rounds of external peer-review. Just about every national academy of science on Earth has endorsed the IPCC findings or even claimed that they don’t go far enough.

    As for Medievel Warm Period, this is meaningless. The current warming – which is unprecedented globally in more than a millenium and perhaps many thousands of years – is occurring against a background in which humans have altered and simplified ecosystems across the biosphere in a myriad of ways, and thus our per capita and cumulative impact is many thousands of times higher than it was centuries ago, when we were just an emerging player on the planetary scene. AGW is therefore but one more stress on systems that have been stressed a myriad of other ways.

  45. #45 Dano
    July 18, 2006

    I don’t need to argue it, I cited published papers. I’ll leave the arguing to you.

    Who cares.

    You don’t understand what you are arguing. That is: “your” arguments don’t jibe with what people who do this for a living say.

    So, I rephrase:

    Are you afraid of arguing “your” point with people who actually know what they are talking about?

    Best,

    D

  46. #46 Dano
    July 18, 2006

    If I may disagree with Carl slightly:

    That said, CA has pretty much become the “Fox viewers who stroke McIntyre’s ego ad infinitum” [site]

    should, IMHO, be rephrased to:

    CA has pretty much become the “wankers who stroke their totem ad infinitum” [site].

    Best,

    D

  47. #47 MarkR
    July 18, 2006

    Hi Dano

    You say: “You don’t understand what you are arguing. That is: “your” arguments don’t jibe with what people who do this for a living say.”

    I think there will be a lot of people who USED TO do this for a living. When the funding stops, the jobs are gone.

  48. #48 MarkR
    July 18, 2006

    Hi Geoff

    Interesting article you refer to above.

    “the uncertainties are too large to state that this period is the warmest of the past millennium in Europe in winter.”
    http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/cp/cpd/2/285/cpd-2-285.htm

    Mann is one of the co authors. Is this the first sign of him back pedalling to save his skin?

  49. #49 Kevin Donoghue
    July 18, 2006

    But MarkR, do you have “specific, incontrovertible proof” that Mann is one of the co-authors, or indeed that he has a skin?

  50. #50 MarkR
    July 18, 2006

    Mann got environmental “religion” as Berserkely, then set out to warp the science to feed his need. He, in the classic fashion of heroic Berserkely radicals, build a small army of devoted followers. The social network diagrams tell all. RC is the expression of the cult on the web.

    Posted by Steve Sadlov at climateaudit

  51. #51 Stephen Berg
    July 18, 2006

    Geoff, thanks for the link.

    One thing I’ve noticed from the paper was that after the mid-20th Century, winter temperatures are warmer than at the height of the MWP (around the year 1000) if you take an average of the reconstructions. Summer temperatures are not quite, but almost as warm today as they were in the year 1000.

    Re: “Mann is one of the co authors. Is this the first sign of him back pedalling to save his skin?”

    MarkR, get a life! This in no way takes away from the hockey stick reconstruction. And for the love of Pete, STOP WHINING ABOUT THE BRISTLECONES, “SKILL”, AND REs OF ZERO! THEY MAKE NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL TO THE WHOLE RECONSTRUCTION!

  52. #52 MarkR
    July 18, 2006

    Hi Kevin

    Mann is about to get “skinned” by the Congressional Committee. Tune in tomorrow.

  53. #53 Stephen Berg
    July 18, 2006

    Re: “Mann is about to get “skinned” by the Congressional Committee.”

    Which translates as:

    “Mann is about to get ‘skinned’ by those who know nothing about climate science.”

  54. #54 MarkR
    July 18, 2006

    Hi Stephen

    You say: “STOP WHINING ABOUT THE BRISTLECONES, “SKILL”, AND REs OF ZERO! THEY MAKE NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL TO THE WHOLE RECONSTRUCTION!”

    I did used to think that you were genuinely looking for the answer, but now I see that you just don’t have a clue.

  55. #55 JP
    July 18, 2006

    Quoting MarkR

    “I did used to think”

    Without a doubt.

  56. #56 David H
    July 18, 2006

    Jon,

    The first paper from your namesake perhaps got through because the journal had no idea where it was going and then, as now, peer review does mean verification. Wegman goes into considerable detail as to why other papers subsequently got through and as to why it has taken so long for the flaws to be accepted. Forgetting climate change this is probably a good day for science.

  57. #57 David H
    July 18, 2006

    Oops! Should say does NOT mean verification.

  58. #58 Carl Christensen
    July 18, 2006

    the interesting “social network diagram” would be Wegman & Scott & their ties to Republican nutjobs like Barton, and their US Army contracts, etc. Wegman was one of Reagan’s “Star Wars” buddies, so that tells you where these guys are coming from.

  59. #59 Dano
    July 18, 2006

    I think there will be a lot of people who USED TO do this for a living. When the funding stops, the jobs are gone.

    Shorter MarkR:

    [handwaves] I’m afraid to take my FUD to the dendro listserv.

    IOW, you are full of sh*t hooey.

    Best,

    D

  60. #60 mtb
    July 18, 2006

    Just an observation. Have a look at the number of ad homs in the above posts by pro-AGW posters, compared with the number of ad homs in posts by sceptics.

    And what does it mean when those pro-AGW posters who tell us that they are interested in robust science resort to ad homs?

  61. #61 Dano
    July 18, 2006

    what does it mean when those pro-AGW posters who tell us that they are interested in robust science resort to ad homs?

    Perhaps:

    1. They are human and frustrated at the FUD purveyed by/thickheadedness of astroturfers.

    2. They don’t presume the denialists/astroturfers have any intention of debating “robust science” and so have fun with denialists/astroturfers.

    3. Some folk may not know the meaning/proper use of ad hom.

    Just a thought.

    Best,

    D

  62. #62 bob koepp
    July 18, 2006

    I see the level of discussion concerning climate change is as dismal on science blogs as on more overtly political fora. Little effort is expended on dissecting the “received view” into its component hypotheses and assessing the warrant of these components individually. Much effort is expended on maligning the integrity, both moral and intellectual, of those on “the other side.”

    Truth in advertising: I believe that global mean temperatures have risen significantly in recent decades. I believe that human activities have caused dramatic increases in atmospheric CO2. I am unpersuaded that atmospheric CO2 is the main driver of observed temperature changes. I don’t believe that current climate models and simulations provide reliable predictions about long-term trends. Leaving science for politics, I think there are plenty of good reasons to reduce our use of hydrocarbons that have nothing to do with climate change. I don’t think climate change is even close to being the most urgent environmental problem we confront.

  63. #63 Dano
    July 18, 2006

    Little effort is expended on dissecting the “received view” into its component hypotheses and assessing the warrant of these components individually.

    If the denialists/contrascientists actually had testable component hypotheses with resultant scholarly papers, then you’d have no beef.

    Hence the exhibit of human behaviors you decry.

    Best,

    D

  64. #64 bob koepp
    July 18, 2006

    One doesn’t need to put forward an alternative hypothesis to have sound reasons for not embracing (which isn’t the same as denying) those already on offer. The burden of proof rests on those who make positive claims. They may become frustrated at not being able to persuade others to their views, but that’s not much of an excuse for lapsing into incivility and substituting insult for argument.

  65. #65 Hans Erren
    July 18, 2006

    Dano, it’s all about this, innit?

  66. #66 Dano
    July 18, 2006

    One doesn’t need to put forward an alternative hypothesis to have sound reasons for not embracing (which isn’t the same as denying) those already on offer.

    You do if you want (as you claim) to have a scientific discourse.

    Else we are in church/synagogue/mosque/etc.

    Best,

    D

  67. #67 Dano
    July 18, 2006

    Dano, it’s all about this, innit?

    If you are referring to, Hans, the process by which the denialists/contrascientists formulate their (albeit still non-existent) testable alternative hypotheses, then yes.

    Best,

    D

  68. #68 bob koepp
    July 18, 2006

    No, Dano, scientific discourse is critical as well as constructive. Indeed, students of scientific methods tend to view criticism as more important than constructivism for distinguishing science from what transpires in church/synagogue/mosque/etc. One can’t evade the burden of proof I mentioned earlier simply by noting that skeptics have no positive theory of their own.

  69. #69 Dano
    July 18, 2006

    One can’t evade the burden of proof I mentioned earlier simply by noting that skeptics have no positive theory of their own.

    You present your argument as a lack of a scientific discussion where the denialists’ component hypotheses are not assessed, rather ad homs are flung about.

    When I point out there are no component hypotheses, you state they are not needed.

    I’m not sure where to go from here, unless I point out shifting rationale.

    Alternativeluy, of course, you could be implying above that the “received view” is one the scientists have, in which case your premise is false and the conclusions don’t follow.

    Best,

    D

  70. #70 Steve
    July 18, 2006

    Anyone read economist Alan Wood’s opinion column in the Australia today? According to him the whole IPCC are now a bunch of liars and nothing in their upcoming report can be trusted soley because of the Wegman and Mason report on Mann. Make perfect sense, doesn’t it? Hopefully people who are better writers than I are firing off a letter to the editor today.

  71. #71 bob koepp
    July 18, 2006

    My “argument” is simply that one can raise legitimate criticisms of an hypothesis without having to propose an alternative hypothesis. Typically this is done by questioning the quality of evidence, or the soundness of inferential moves, neither of which requires the posit of an alternative hypothesis. The history of science is replete with examples.

    A mere sampling of the kind of “component hypotheses” I think could be fruitfully (and civilly) discussed is suggested in my Truth in advertising disclaimer.

    So just what is my false premise? And what is the conclusion that doesn’t follow?

  72. #72 Horst Graben
    July 18, 2006

    Bob Koepp has said exactly what I have been thinking. Why am I skeptical of AGW? Like most morons, when I first started cleaning up the environment over 20-years ago, I, too thought I was doing the Lords own work protecting the knuckle-draggers from evil corporate polluters poisoning our water supply for all time. It turns out that the water supply is not remotely threatened by industrial pollution. The big fish in that arena have yet to be hooked, let alone landed and fried. Out of a job, you say?? No, not by a longshot. Groundwater and soil cleanup marches on with a hodge-podge of government agents and their willing accomplices in the “environmental remediation” industry. Not too much of a surprise that big oil goes along with it because it eliminated independants and Mom & Pop gas stations all in the name of Gaia. Thats a two-fer. MTBE makes a hat-trick. I bet ADM took a shit when the Sierra Club endorsed MTBE to clean the air. (OT: any guesses how much of current US fresh water supply is needed to replace 50% of gasoline with biofuel?)

    Now, man-made global warming hits the radar. My immediate response is to try and figure out who is trying to pick my pocket. Oh, Yeah, it’s the UN and the Kyoto protocol trying to shove a Hockey Stick up my ass. Whoa, don’t be a cynic. This shit sounds bad and it’s all my fault. Gotta get me a Prius. Ride my bike to the cruelty-free organic store to fill my hemp bags with bulgar and beets. This is a problem, I know it! I’ve measured CO2 myself and could see the increase in baseline over the years. Fuck! In the back of my mind, a little voice reminded me of my own messianic experience saving the world from nothing. Wait a second. The Hockey stick is bogus. No way, it was peer reviewed. Solid science. Come to find out, it’s based on the only shade trees near Summer Field Camp. You know the ones, the old fuckers with names like Bob Hope and a boatload of other old guys. That’s right, those trees we would gather under in mid-afternoon to eat nectarines and blow a J. Having actually lived in that part of the world for a couple years demonstrates that the only proxy that place was suitable for was hell, or maybe Los Angeles.

    Hey, before you book me Dano, I just wanted to say that even though I’m skeptical, John A and Mark R are MUCH bigger c-words than you could ever hope to be. Of course, most folks who play joust over AGW are by definition pencil-neck no-count weenies.

    In any event IMO it’s much more important to get off of towel-wrapper oil, stop over pumping the ogallala and do a better job of treating sewerage before carbon sequestration. If you warmers want to re-order that priority list, maybe you should rely less on Al Gore and that funny guy who wrote Seinfeld’s wife. Remember John Lennon’s advise:

    But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
    You ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow

    Tim, thanks for the site, it’s great. I also like your political blog (http://timblair.net/). You Aussies are awsome. Go to War with you anytime!

  73. #73 MarkR
    July 18, 2006

    Hi Horst

    Take more water with it.
    Climate skeptics need to be sober.
    Obviously.

  74. #74 Observer
    July 18, 2006

    You can find links to a PDF download of the NAS report on the Mann papers and other climate links on ElementList.com here:
    http://www.elementlist.com/lnx/link.php?id=2367

  75. #75 concerned of berkely
    July 19, 2006

    Steve, re Alan Wood’s column. You may or may not agree with Alan Wood’s expression of the problem. However, in a way that doesn’t matter.

    What has happened is that the pro-AGW crowd have lost a LOT of credibility with the problems now emerging about the poor quality of at least some of their work.

    If I were a working climate scientist, I would be having a tough discussion with Mr Mann, and insisting that he begin to comply with normal scientific practice. Otherwise I would distance myself from him.

    Credibility is all-important. And that, rather than the Hockey Stick, is what has been destroyed. I think that those of us genuinely concerned about the AGW issues have a legitimate grumble about how Mr Mann has singlehandedly done so much damage.

    I’m afraid that Mr Mann’s work is altogether too similar to Stephen Schneider’s declared position that (to paraphrase) that the end justifies the means. I’m sorry. It doesn’t.

  76. #76 Pinko Punko
    July 19, 2006

    I’m supposed to take someoen who uses the phrase Berserkely seriously?

    Bob Koepp, I need to know the specific reasons why you believe that CO2 and GW are not related before I can consider your skepticism scientific.

  77. #77 bob koepp
    July 19, 2006

    PP, I noted earlier that not embracing a hypothesis isn’t the same as denying it. I have not claimed that atmospheric CO2 and GW are not related. I have said that I’m unpersuaded that atmospheric CO2 is the main driver of observed temperature changes. I trust that you appreciate the differences. As to why I am unpersuaded, it’s largely due to the fact that there are climate scientists who present reasonable (albeit, non-compelling) arguments against the claim in question. And before we go there, I don’t view these climate scientists as cranks, nor as toadies of the petrochemical bad guys.

  78. #78 KFL
    July 19, 2006

    Hi “concerned of berkely”

    In the most recent posting you wrote:

    >I’m afraid that Mr Mann’s work is altogether too similar >to Stephen Schneider’s declared position that (to >paraphrase) that the end justifies the means. I’m sorry. >It doesn’t.

    The Stepehen Schneiders quotation is a based on several selective quotations and manipulations. This well documented.

    In spite of this several third Party organisations and you continues to refer to this.

    What he said and wrote can befound on his homepage or by seaching on Google. One example of misquotiation can be found on John Delay’s homepage.

    I will suggest to you to investigate what he wrote and said and to bring a correction on Deltoid. Then we can start the discussion.

  79. #79 Jeff Harvey
    July 19, 2006

    Bob Koepp writes, “And before we go there, I don’t view these climate scientists as cranks, nor as toadies of the petrochemical bad guys”.

    This, in spite of the fact that many of the most prominent sceptics have been paid handsomely by think tanks and their corporate sponsers who have a vested intwerest in denial. This in spite of the fact that many of the most prominent sceptics openly associate with the same organizations that have a vested interest in denial.

    Yes, I think we SHOULD go there. Either these sceptics are exceedingly stupid, naive, or both. On the other hand, lawyers work for those who pay them, irrespective of the whegther their clients are guilty or not. Why should it be any different with a few scientists on the academic fringe?

  80. #80 bob koepp
    July 19, 2006

    “Either these sceptics are exceedingly stupid, naive, or both.”

    And so, we’re off to the races — no need to address the actual agruments of exceedingly stupid and/or naive scientists. On the other hand, short of demonstrating that their arguments are very, very seriously flawed, what possible grounds could one have for dismissing them as exceedingly stupid and/or naive?

  81. #81 concerned of berkely
    July 19, 2006

    I am aware of the full quote, at least as presented at (with a detailed explanation) http://home.att.net/~rpuchalsky/sci_env/sch_quote.html.

    “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context
    translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need [Scientists should consider stretching the truth] to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

    Please explain to me how this should not be paraphrased as “the end justifies the means”.

  82. #82 KFL
    July 19, 2006

    The quotation is correct but you are missing one important point:

    >The full quote follows, where I have italicized what portions
    > of it Simon quoted and bracketed what I did not say but he attributed
    > to me in the APS News article:

    Please read the ful text om:

    http://home.att.net/~rpuchalsky/sci_env/sch_quote.html

    I disagrre with the way you have read Stepehn Schneider.

  83. #83 JP
    July 19, 2006

    We have six postings from Bob Koepp bemoaning the incivility of the discourse and yet we have yet to see a single point from Bob Koepp on why the science is wrong. It is difficult to discuss the science when the participants will not raise the science.

  84. #84 bob koepp
    July 19, 2006

    JP – Have I said the science is wrong? If so, where? Do people on this blog know the difference between “x believes not-P” and “x does not believe P”? It’s beginning to look like they don’t.

    I repeat, the burden of proof rests on those who make positive claims. If you want to “raise the science” in a persuasive way, have at it. I will do my best to be critical.

  85. #85 Hank Roberts
    July 19, 2006

    Bob, are you positive it’s safe to burn fossil fuel at the current rate, unprecedented not only in human history but in geologic time?

  86. #86 mndean
    July 19, 2006

    JP,
    Most of what I see from denialists are at the same level as what you are seeing from Bob Koepp. They will harp on a point (incivility) or small detail (britlecone pines, spectra saturation, the latest nitpick ad infinitum), provide little or no science to back their anti-AGW assertions, and claim victory or use their points to smear the scientists doing the work. It really is all so tedious. I wish they’d raise substantive issues, but I’ve long since concluded that they really don’t care about the science, they look upon AGW as a political issue. I shudder to think what would have happened if this sort of “debate” had happened when we were dealing with the ozone hole and CFC’s.

  87. #87 bob koepp
    July 19, 2006

    Hank Roberts – No. In fact, I’ve said that I think there are plenty of good reasons to reduce our use of hydrocarbons that have nothing to do with climate change. Although it’s not germaine to the present topic, I actually advocate much more dramatic changes in how we relate to our environment than rationing fossil fuels. Start with the minimization (if not outright elimination) of dirt farming. Proceed to dismantling human developments on coasts and inland waterways, and re-establishing green corridors. And that’s just for starters.

    mndean – Please reflect on the simple logical point contained in my previous post, and then (re)consider your suggestion that I’ve made some “anti-AGW assertions.” Also, which scientists have I smeared?

  88. #88 Ian Forrester
    July 19, 2006

    Bob Koepp wrote “I have said that I’m unpersuaded that atmospheric CO2 is the main driver of observed temperature changes”.

    So the science which states that carbon dioxide absorbs infra red radiation is not true? What makes you have that assertion?

    The science is accurate and is reflected in the fact that the climate models e.g. Hansen’s, have predicted the actual global temperatures for the past few years. Note, Bob, being able to make predictions based on a hypothesis is one of the cornerstones of the scientific method. WAG’s and unreasonable denial is not part of the scientific method.

  89. #89 bob koepp
    July 19, 2006

    Well, now even I’ve become bored. It’s beyond me that anybody could think my being unpersuaded that CO2 is the main driver of warming somehow requires me to deny that CO2 absorbs infra red radiation. And this person presumes to lecture me about the role of prediction in testing hypotheses. Sheesh…

  90. #90 frank cross
    July 19, 2006

    There’s a serious issue here that the climate people are not addressing. The social network stuff was a silly sidebar, but climate folks have to deal with the fact that Wegman is a major statistics guru and he claims that Mann and others have the statistics wrong in calculating the path of temperature.

    I read Wegman’s report and the debate is way over my head. But this is one serious challenge that the climate folks have to address. I want to hear the response on the statistical methods issue and I’m not hearing it.

  91. #91 John Cross
    July 19, 2006

    Frank: I listened to part of the hearings today. There were a number of issues covered. The one that just about everyone agreed with (I say just about because Barton seemed to have a problem with it) is that whether MBH is right or wrong means nothing to the current theories of global wamring and the current conclusions reached.

    Read the NAS report, I think it presents a better whole picture than the Wegman report. By the way, Wegman was really grilled in the hearings, at times I almost felt sorry for him.

    John

  92. #92 hank
    July 19, 2006

    Wegman also said “carbon dioxide is heavier than air” and that he doesn’t know where carbon dioxide is found in the atmospheric profile.

  93. #93 garhane
    July 19, 2006

    What is the point of going to Climate Audit at all? The title itself shows that it is conceived in arrogance (who is entitled to perform audits on science? Does not the name show a total ignorance of what the science process is all about?) and is not concerned with building science but tearing it down. The two authors produced a 20 page paper of which over 17 pages were devoted to attacking MBH over a series of petty mistakes such as will often be found in academic writing, which they managed to get published in an admittedly partisan journal. Since then all they have produced is a short note on a minor statistical curiosity and a raft of offensive and often woefully ignorant claims ( a number of which were produced by McKitrick who was then taken down by Lambert). Their original paper became unavailable on their site where it was replaced with a new and improved version, a brand new way of science for sure. The comments in their web page, when I took a look a year or so back, were mostly from toadies and denialist riff raf.

  94. #94 nanny_govt_sucks
    July 19, 2006

    The one that just about everyone agreed with (I say just about because Barton seemed to have a problem with it) is that whether MBH is right or wrong means nothing to the current theories of global wamring and the current conclusions reached.

    It would seem that Esper, Moberg, Wilson, Luterbacher, and others would disagree with you:

    Climate: Past and future changes
    Esper, et. al.
    http://www.wsl.ch/staff/jan.esper/publications/QSR_Esper_2005.pdf

    “So, what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger (Esper et al., 2002; Pollack and Smerdon, 2004; Moberg et al., 2005) or smaller (Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1999) temperature amplitude?
    We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future predicted scenarios.”

  95. #95 MarkR
    July 19, 2006

    Hi Nanny State

    The warmers have got themselves completely out of their depth.

    Ever more outlandish speculation, and “suggestion”, to retrieve themselves from the untenable position that Mann et al put them in.

  96. #96 Ian Forrester
    July 19, 2006

    Interesting that the data in the Esper et al. paper stops at 1979. It begs the question “did they stop the curve there so it wouldn’t show a hockey stick?”

  97. #97 MarkR
    July 19, 2006

    Hi Ian

    A lot of the tree ring proxy papers stop early, because few people are releasing any more raw tree ring data.

    That is because, it turns out that while temperatures have risen lately, tree ring proxy data doesn’t reflect that, they artfully call it the “divergence problem”, thus calling into general question the use of tree rings as proxies.

    See, the warmers only want to use tree rings while it supports their case. When the tree rings don’t, the warmers “move on” to the next dodgy statistic.

  98. #98 hank
    July 19, 2006

    “divergence problem” — Google finds that at climate argument and right politics sites, and in one posting on RC mentioning Lubos. Can you come up with a published journal article citation?

  99. #99 John Cross
    July 19, 2006

    NGS: Well, first, it is not me who disagrees with Esper but rather your intrepertation of Esper that disagrees with the NAS and Wegman.

    Second note what Esper says “thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions”. Would you care to put an estimate on this? If not we can see what else Esper says. He noted the difference between reconstructions can be 0.5C. This means the natural variations can be 0.5C more. So this means that at the most you could subtract 0.5C off the IPCC predictions but how much depends on what the forcings are. We don;t know these in the future so probability estimates are already used – i.e. not a single value.

    Third the way the scenarios are developed, this was already taken into account. They use all the reconstructions to develop their estimates. That is why the estimate is so large 1.5 to 5.9 IIRC.

    So, no it really doesn’t change things. We are still headed towards warming and the IPCC estimate is still valid.

    Of course you realize that Moberg and Esper use tree rings in their work don’t you? Just thought you would like to know.

    Best
    John

  100. #100 Dano
    July 19, 2006

    That is because, it turns out that while temperatures have risen lately, tree ring proxy data doesn’t reflect that, they artfully call it the “divergence problem”, thus calling into general question the use of tree rings as proxies.

    Hi MarkR:

    would you like to take “your” factless argument to a dendro listserv to try to defend your rube-created FUD?

    That is: do you have the courage of “your” convictions to defend them to folk who do this for a living, as opposed to those who purvey FUD?

    Let me know and we’ll sign you in and watch.

    Note to others: when popping popcorn for the show, I prefer light butter, no salt. Thank you.

    Best,

    D

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.