I wrote earlier how some Global Warming Skeptics likened themselves to Creationists. Over at the Panda's Thumb Richard Hoppe has more:
Regular readers of the Thumb will recall that in February, the Ohio State Board of Education removed the "critical analysis of evolution" standard, benchmark, and lesson plan from the state's science standards. The matter was referred to the Achievement Committee of the Board, with instructions to consider whether a replacement should be inserted, and if so, what it should be. That was a hammer blow to the creationists on the board and to the Disco Institute.
Now, consistent with the creationist tradition of repackaging old trash, we learn that the creationists on the Achievement Committee of the Ohio State BOE are pushing yet another load of of the same odoriferous garbage, this time extending it to include global warming as well as evolution. This is the Disco Institute's replacement for its failed "teach the controversy about evolution" tactic, broadening it to include still more pseudoscience.
Tara Smith also has some comments.
The whole thing is truly disturbing. It's like the "Christian" far right is trying to take us back to the Middle Ages. They haven't figured out that the bible can't be a book of science since it was written before the existence of the scientific method.
But then it's clear that they don't even understand that science is a methodology and not a set of conclusions arrived at through tendentious reasoning and selective evidence gathering/suppression.
so since you discovered that climate skeptics are not paid by big oil, they are now creationists.
cheap trick.
Hans -
Some, not all, AGW skeptics are paid by oil and coal interests. Some, not all, AGW skeptics are fundamentalists or ID proponents. I think it would be interesting, no, actually critical, to find out what people's AGW attitudes and concerns are. Because the only way to get enough political will to decarbonize is to know what people think, what their concerns and fears are.
It's a big job.
"so since you discovered that climate skeptics are not paid by big oil"?
"ExxonMobil has pumped more than $8 million into more than 40 think tanks; media outlets; and consumer, religious, and even civil rights groups that preach skepticism about the oncoming climate catastrophe. Herewith, a representative overview. "
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html
$ 8 million?
The total gross income of Greenpeace World Wide in 2004 was 158.5 million euro.
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/annua…
Hans: I don't follow your post. Are you saying that Greenpeace puts 158.5 million euros into global warming advocacy? That would be the appropriate analogy for the 8 million.
So since you discovered climate skeptics are paid by big oil, you start talking about Greenpeace.
Cheap trick.
"The total gross income of Greenpeace World Wide in 2004 was 158.5 million euro"
I haven't checked, but I have a hunch the total gross income of Exxon/Mobil might be more than that.
Total lobbying expenditures for oil and gas companies, 2005:
$46,449,582
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/indusclient.asp?code=E01
Total soft money expenditures by oil and gas companies, 2002:
$10,052,563
http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney/softindus.asp?ind=E
Total Oil and Gas Industry PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates 2006:
$3,404,022
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/sector.asp?txt=E01&cycle=2006
Environmental 527 committees (tax-exempt organizations that engage in political activities, largely "pro-Environment" far as I can see), for 2006:
Income: $2,048,357 Expenditures: $941,219
http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtes.asp?level=I&cycle=2006
If you have two different answers and one is paid for and the other isn't, which one is the correct answer?
If you have two different answers and one is given by a religeous person the other isn't, which one is the correct answer?
If you have two different answers and one is backed up by all scientific evidence and the other isn't, which one is the correct answer?
Which one is the creationist and which the evolutionist, the first like Jeff Harvey who believes evolution ended a long time ago, so the outcome of global warming will be total extinction of all species, and there will be no survival of the fittest, or the second, those of us who do not believe that rubbish?
Hans,
You are making yourself look silly... again... and again... and again... How much of this self-riducle can you continue to propound?
The real question is this: How infuential is the money of the corproate lobby in affecting government policy as compared with environmental NGO's? John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, in "Trust Us, We're Experts", compared money invested for lobbying on Congress from NGO's and corporations. In 1998, ALL NGO's - this would cover a huge range of advocacy groups - spent 74.2 million dollars lobbing members of Congress. Environmental groups, of which there are many, contributed 4.7 million dollars to this total. The same year, corporations gave more than 2 billion dollars for lobbying members of Congress, with 129.2 million coming from Agri-biotech companies and 58 million dollars from the oil lobby. And this was just for lobbying members of Congress on bills, regulations etc. - it excludes all of the 'soft' money donated for election campaigns and the like.
So, Hans, who REALLY influences government decisions? How long will you continue your embarrassing charade of underplaying the influence of transnational cororations on governmental processes and in undermining science? Greenpeace is a drop of water in a very large ocean, compared to the capital controlled by the most powerful vested interests.
Tim,
Stop talking utter, utter rubbish. Read my post in another thread to Per. If you want to debate population and evolutionary ecology with me, do so, but stop talking crap. Nothing pisses me off more than someone who does not understand these processes, cherry-picks a few comments from someone who does, and then twists this into an argument that comes straight out of grade school. Its clear you have never read a peer-reviewed paper on this subject in your life, so why humiliate yourself even further?
What you are saying is that there are no limits to the ability of a species or populations to adapt to anthropogenic global change. Is that correct? Its asinine, but this seems to be what you are implying. Of course, if this was true we could reduce species to relic populations with limited genetic variability and still expect them to thrive. But of course there are limits in the ability of species to adapt to certain challenges - constraints - they experience in nature. If there weren't, there would never have been an extinction event in history. But the current event is preceded by five other great extinctions in the geological record. Thanks to Homo sapiens, we are well into the sixth great extinction event. Of that there is absolutely no controversy amongst statured scientists with expertise in the field. Tim Curtin has no expertise in this area so of course his comments mean nix.
Humans are simplifying nature (ecosystems and biomes) more rapidly than at any time in 65 million years. We know that there will be ecological consequences to these changes, and that many species are in population freefall at present. As populations decline, they lose the genetic variability that is important - essential in many species - to enable them to adapt to the changes. So its a two-edged sword. Human activities (habitat simplification, pollution, climate change, the biological homogenisation of the biosphere) reduce species abundance, which reduces their inherent genetic variability that is an important pre-requisite to adapting to chnages in the environment. Let's be clear about this - in landscapes that have already been paved, ploughed, dammed, dredged, slashed and burned, logged, drained, mined, and simplified in other ways, there will be many losers. To suggest that nature will always adapt to these assaults is insanity personified.
Examples are everywhere, even for laymen like Tim Curtin who know nothing about ecology. The pandemic decline in amphibian populations is one sign; the massive decline of migratory songbirds is another. Even ubiquitous species are in trouble, like the House Sparrow, which has declined by more than 50% in Europe since the 1970's. When common generalist species like this begin a rapid population decline, it is time to be very concerned. Humans are not any more exempt from nature's laws than other organisms. We know that 10-40% of well-studied species (plants and vertebrates) are threatened with extinction. This is an appallig statistic. And we know who is to blame for it - US.
Tim C,
So if all species don't go extinct, we don't need to worry about it? By that standard, there seem to be lots of things that you spend time worrying about needlessly (like terrorism).
$ 8 million in four years in 40 think tanks, for which the majority climate is not their dominant subject. On a total profit of Exxon of 10 billion in 2005?
Please.
"survival of the fittest"
Survival of the fittest is not necessarily a good thing, when your species has the ability to decimate itself and the inability to refrain from doing so.
"$ 8 million in four years in 40 think tanks, for which the majority climate is not their dominant subject. On a total profit of Exxon of 10 billion in 2005?"
This just in: in a shocking new expose, it has been revealed that both the president and the vice-president of the US have significant ties to the oil industry. At this time, our reporters are still attempting to discern any ties the government may have to environmental organizations; it is believed a junior analyst in the post office once donated $10 to Ducks Unlimited.
Z,
Tim Curtin doesn't remotely know what 'survival of the fittest' means or of the term 'fitness' as it applies to a genotype. That's why I unloaded on him - he makes a flippant remark about evolution and extinction that is pure and utter tripe and expects a rational response.
I'd like to know where on Earth I said that 'global warming witll result in he extinction of all species' or that 'evolution ended a long time ago'. If TC understood even the most basic aspects of evolutionary ecology, he'd at least understand what 'fitness' means.
As for Hans, all I can do is sigh. He won't answer my post because he can't. He'll stick to pedantics as usual.
Jeff: everything you have ever written proves you are a creationist, since you have never given any credit for most species' ability to adapt and to survive. Think the floods of 1953 in Holland.
I do think Gresham's Law applies to blogging repartee.
Re: "Jeff: everything you have ever written proves you are a creationist, since you have never given any credit for most species' ability to adapt and to survive. Think the floods of 1953 in Holland."
Tim C, we are not like most species. We are just one of millions, even billions.
As for human adaptation, see the following story:
http://www.scidev.net/News/index.cfm?fuseaction=readNews&itemid=2625&la…
"Climate change impact 'will be worse than predicted'
Mike Shanahan
30 January 2006
Source: SciDev.Net
Scientists have warned in a report released today (30 January) that the effects of climate change could be far worse than already predicted, and that developing countries face the biggest threats.
In the introduction to the report, UK prime minister Tony Blair said it is now clear that human activities are "causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable".
The report, published by the British government, brings together research on climate change presented at an international conference held at the UK Meteorological Office in February 2005.
It warns that developing countries could face reduced crop yields, increased desertification, more water shortages, and a possible increase in malaria in Africa.
..."
Tim C, the developing world does not have the technology or the knowledge required for such a drastic and sudden change. We in the developed world can prepare fpr such a catastrophe to some degree. The Third World would face mass starvation, further disease spread, and increased vulnerability to disasters and would have little means to withstand this probable scenario.
Tim C, you stubbornly continue to overestimate our ability to adapt. We are not an indestructible force on this planet.
Tim Curtin, you clearly don't understand the concept of evolution.
Yes, life on Earth will presumably continue, but a mass exstinction of species is quite likely, perhaps including the species known as homo sapiens.
Mass exstinction has happened before, and will likely happen again (some would claim that it is currently happening), even without global warming, however, global warming is very likely to speed up the process.
Stephen: your quotes of Tony WMD Blair saying it is now clear that human activities are "causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable", and that "developing countries could face reduced crop yields, increased desertification, more water shortages, and a possible increase in malaria in Africa" are ludicrous.
The said WMD Blair also assured us that GW would be worse for us than terrorism; I prefer my own chances under GW than riding trains in London, Madrid, and Bombay. Even IPCC has had to drop that malaria claim. In fact crop yields are rising everywhere except black Africa north of the Limpopo; there is no evidence for increased desertification anywhere; as for rainfall, part of the GHG process leads to increased precipitation. For rainfall trends in southern Africa see Will Alexander's outstanding submission to the Stern Review, at:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economic…
Hans,
"$ 8 million? The total gross income of Greenpeace World Wide in 2004 was 158.5 million euro."
"$ 8 million in four years in 40 think tanks, for which the majority climate is not their dominant subject. On a total profit of Exxon of 10 billion in 2005? Please."
What exactly is your point here? Greenpeace is a non-profit, Exxon Mobil is a corporation. There's a difference. Greenpeace's 158 million euro (roughly $200 million U.S. give or take) was year 2004 gross income from grants and donations, not including what they had to spend to raise those funds. The corresponding figure (U.S. dollars) for Exxon Mobil was $291 billion Hans, not $ 8 million (Exxon Mobil Summary Annual Report - 2005, with 2004 figures).
The $ 8 million ($8.6 million actually) was Exxon Mobil's environmental policy donations to Far-Right think tanks from 2000-2003 (Mother Jones, May/June 2005). The proper comparisons are Year 2004 environmental policy expenditures against Year 2004 Gross Annual Income. The figures are below (assuming 1.27 dollars per euro conversion);
Gross Annual Income (2004)
Exxon Mobil: $291 billion - (Exxon Mobil Summary Annual Report, 2004)
Greenpeace: $205.7 million (162 euro) - (Greenpeace Annual Report - 2005, Year 2004 figures).
Environmental Contributions/Expenditures (2004)
Exxon Mobil: $6.9 million (Exxon Mobil Public Information & Policy Giving Report, 2004).
Greenpeace: $109.9 million (environmental campaign expenditures only - Greenpeace Annual Report - 2005, Year 2004 figures).
Greenpeace's surplus for 2004 was $7.8 million, or 3.8 percent of their gross income (Greenpeace Annual Report - 2005, Year 2004 figures). Exxon Mobil's corresponding profit for the year was $25.3 billion (Exxon Mobil Summary Annual Report, 2004, or 8.7 percent). During 2004 Greenpeace's net worth (liabilities and fund balance) grew by 5 percent (Greenpeace Annual Report - 2005, Year 2004 figures). Exxon Mobil's total year-end assets grew 12 percent, and their net market value grew 21.8 percent (Exxon Mobil Summary Annual Report, 2004). In other words, Greenpeace spent over half of their gross income on environmental campaigns and grew in net worth by less than one fourth of what Exxon Mobil did that year on a percentage basis. For comparison, Exxon Mobil spent a whopping 0.13 percent of their 2004 profit, not gross, on actual environmental programs, mainly land and animal conservation (Exxon Mobil Worldwide Contributions & Investments, Environment, 2004), but more than twice that amount to undermine large scale environmental progress on pollution, clean air and water, and more. And we haven't even gotten yet to what they spent on lobbying against environmental progress (easily into the tens of millions).
So spare us the BS about "rich" environmentalists and those poor, well-meaning oil companies, if you please...
Or are you trying to argue that Exxon Mobil isn't doing anything wrong because they're only giving a tiny portion of their income to harmful causes? If so, this implies that money we spend on destructive things is excusable if we're only spending a tiy portion of our budgets. A corresponding portion of my income would be around $40 or $50. That's enough for me to buy my daughter a gigolo for the night or a hit of street cocaine. By that reasoning, I could morally dismiss doing either of those things as her father.
With all due respect Hans, you're going to have to do better than this. All the best.
Tim Curtin,
Unless you bother to read my posts, you aren't really worth bothering about in a debate. You clearly do not understand basic concepts in evolutionary biology, and have little or no understanding of how much phenotypic plasticity can be stretched under a suite of challenges (= constraints) before a species begins a population freefall towards extinction. Further, you don't appear to realize that individuals, populations and communities interact in a vast mosaic with other species, individuals and populations. Many species are utterly dependent for their survival on specific resources, for example, such as a single food plant or plants with similar secondary chemistry. Biologist Peter Raven once remarked that the loss of a species of tropical plant is proably associated with at least 30 other extinctions of consumer species associated with that plant. Very appropriate.
I never said that 'all species will become extinct because of global warming'. I take great offense when you make this stuff up to suit your purpose. It doesn't surprise me though - the anti-environmental lobby is pretty skilled at misquoting scientists in order to distort what they say or to deligitimize their empirical arguments. Like it or not, we are well into the sixth grea extintion event in the planet's history, and the first caused largely by the actions of one of its evolved inhabitants. Sure, some generalist species will adapt to the current anthropogenic onslaught, but these will be the 'weedy' types that can adapt to many changing circumstances. Most importantly, we have little or no idea how much humanity can simplify nature before critical ecosystem services are impeded. This is the rub; there is no doubt that nature, even in a simplified form will persist after Homo sapiens has extinguished itself along with many other contemporary species, and that in five to ten muillion years biomes acrss the planet will have returned to a similar ecological richness with which they were when Homo sapiens began to cultivate plants, some 8-10 thousand years ago. However, there is little doubt that our species is cutting off the metaphorical branch on whioch we are sitting, while praying that the tree will fall while the branch remains suspended in mid air. Your kind of childish denial and making broad sweeping generalisations about complex systems is one of the sad symptoms of our overconsumptive society.
Jeff: you don't read what you write:
"I never said that 'all species will become extinct because of global warming'." and then you say just that: "Like it or not, we are well into the sixth great extinction event in the planet's history, and the first caused largely by the actions of one of its evolved inhabitants. Sure, some generalist species will adapt to the current anthropogenic onslaught, but these will be the 'weedy' types that can adapt to many changing circumstances...This is the rub; there is no doubt that nature, even in a simplified form will persist after Homo sapiens has extinguished itself along with many other contemporary species."
So we shall indeed all soon be extinct apart from the weedy types like ... What do you propose we should do to stave off this extinction?
Jeff: everything you have ever written proves you are a creationist, since you have never given any credit for most species' ability to adapt and to survive.
Wow, someone should tell the dinosaurs.
Yes Jeff, lobbying is a big industry in the US. What's new?
No, the skeptics are not paid by the oil industry to say what they are saying. They may receive some funds because of what their opinion is.
Pleease check the works of the skeptics on their scientific merit, not on who funds them partially. Perhaps you do not understand the science, so that you have to lower yourself to smear.
"No, the skeptics are not paid by the oil industry to say what they are saying. They may receive some funds because of what their opinion is."
And, of course, for emitting it from their oral cavity in an audible form.
The human race does not need to become extinct to lose the infrastructure of modern civilization. Think the current state of Iraq, multiplied manyfold. Of any of the hundreds of bad postapocalyptic wasteland SF movies which emerged after Mad Max. Our civilization is increasingly dependent on more and more complex and often fragile processes.
The fact that some people enjoy a certain breakfast cereal, and are willing to say so, does not mean that an advertisement for said breakfast cereal is not an advertisement. If a gourmet is paid to stand up and offer specifically "I like such-and-such a breakfast cereal," as an expert opinion, the result is an advert.
The remark "They may receive some funds because of their opinion" is the giveaway. What if people started funding cube-squarers?
I draw attention to the fact that Hans has succeeded at diverting attention from the subject of the post.
Pleease check the works of the skeptics on their scientific merit, not on who funds them partially. Perhaps you do not understand the science, so that you have to lower yourself to smear.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Whew!
Hoo-boy!
Hans' best comedy yet.
Thanks, Hans. Yer a hoot, son.
Best,
D
Re: "What do you propose we should do to stave off this extinction?"
1. Drive a fuel-efficient vehicle.
2. End deforestation, especially in Amazonia.
3. Stop urban sprawl.
4. Penalise the Large Final Emitters enough that it will hurt their bottom line.
5. Make public transit as cheap as possible by raising taxes on gas/petrol so that driving is unaffordable as an everyday activity and using this tax revenue to fund transit.
6. Put a moratorium on fossil fuel exploration. DO NOT DRILL IN THE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE!
7. Ground airplanes overnight whenever possible.
etc.
To generalize Stephen Berg's response to "What do you propose we should do . . ."
Conserve. Consume less, smaller, fewer, later, more slowly. And, don't forget to enjoy it more.
Let me make myself clear.
The most common logical fallacy on this blog is the http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html
should read:
The most common logical fallacy on this blog is the guilt by association fallacy
As far as I know the only large scientific body to officially question anthropogenic climate change in recent years is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Obviously no association to the oil industry there!
'
Please let's have a discusion about science.
Yes, let's discuss how much climate science the score or so of usual suspects has done in the last, oh, twenty years. Do we need two hands to count the papers (oh, Lord, what appendage to use if I have to count to 21??)?
o Let's discuss the myriad of competing hypotheses the contrascientists have produced and tested.
o Let's discuss the empirical evidence the contrascientists have collected to back their claims.
o Let's discuss the competing models the contrascientists have developed to back their claims.
o Let's discuss all the ways in which the contrascientists and denialists (confusionists) cherry-pick the science.
o Let's discuss all the ways in which the contrascientists and denialists (confusionists) atomistically quibble over marginalia in the science to astroturfically spread their FUD.
Bah. We've done all that.
Let's laugh at the hapless denialists here and their myrmidonlike** argumentation instead.
Best,
D
** thanks for the fun new word, Ian G!
"No, the skeptics are not paid by the oil industry to say what they are saying. They may receive some funds because of what their opinion is."
Bull
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/05/cost-of-astroturf.html
Agree Dano,
Let's discuss cooling aerosols, let's discuss water vapor feedback. Let's discuss the effect of the hockeystick on CO2 climate sensitivity and solar climate sensitivity. Let's discuss assumptions in economic projections. Let's discuss assumptions in oceanic CO2 uptake. Let's discuss the effects of land use change on climate.
to name a few.
Hans, I recently saw discussions of each of those very topics over at
www.realclimate.org
It's confusing and murky, but worthwhile reading.
Hans,
Dano, as usual, is correct. many of your argumenhts are very hard to take seriously.
You talk about water vapor feedback, the hockeystick on CO2 climate sensitivity and solar climate sensitivity; about assumptions in economic projections; about assumptions in oceanic CO2 uptake; about effects of land use change on climate.
Scientists have been discussing these things for years. Where the hell have you been? And based on these discussions and on the published evidence there is a pretty strong scientific consensus that AGW is real and underway. For their part, many of the denialists are just trying to muddy the waters by focusing on pedantics. What the denial fringe wants is 100% unequivocol proof. We will never get this kind of evidence because science is rarely absolute, and data in environmental science is often 'messy'. Yet the denial lobby is effectively saying that, without this 100% unequivocol evidence, the problem doesn't exist. This strategy has been their clarion call. I have seen it dredged up to deny just about every area of environmental science that crosses over into the public policy arena: the consequences of climate change, acid rain, biodiversity loss, wetland drainage, pollution, and loss of habitat. I have personally faced this kind of argument amongst libertarians and others on the far end of the political right. To reiterate, its like trying to win a pissing match with a skunk.
Hans, like it or not, there are groups and individuals out there who are bolstering a pre-determined worldview and political agenda by distorting science. If many of the 'scientists' in the denial lobby had any common sense, and wanted their views to be taken seriously by the mainstream, they would avoid the think tanks and lobbying groups like the plague. It should not be at all controversial that these organizations and the corporations who fund them could not give a hoot about the soundness of the 'science' but are promoting policies that enhance their profit making capacity. In doing so, they have managed to recruit a few - the operative word being a few - scientists to their cause. Even fewer are prominent in their research fields.
Let's discuss cooling aerosols, let's discuss water vapor feedback...[l]et's discuss the effects of land use change on climate.
No, let's not Hans. Let's not change the subject.
See, those topics you gave are already being widely discussed.
My bullets in the above comment are not widely discussed, in my view. This is a problem, so let's discuss those bullet topics instead.
=====
I want to discuss the fact that the denialists/contrascientists/astroturf FUDders/confusionistas have nothing of their own to back their claims, and so they dissemble, prevaricate, obfuscate, mendacicize, hand-wave, quibble, and do what you did (change the subject) to FUDdy up the waters.
So, let's start with one topic: let's discuss the dearth of competing hypotheses the contrascientists have produced and tested. This would be discussing "the science" (as the astroturfers are recently wont to say). See, producing a hypothesis and testing it would be "doing science".
I'd start with discussing the r^2 values of a particular paper, but shucky darns, there aren't any papers to discuss (there's no science done by contrascientists)!
Instead, the alternative to producing work seems to be to start a blog to quibble over and prevaricate on every last marginal detail of someone else's work, ignore the body of subsequent research, have some confused commenters reach conclusions based on invalid premises, pretend this is received wisdom, and then spread the constructed FUD narrative far and wide.
Now that may be some folks' idea of science, but not mine.
Best,
D
PS: sure would like to have [s] tag!
Dano, you're awesome!
OK, you now can use the s tag. Go wild.
ommmm medictitaticzation ommmm
deja vu, dano
bye
Thank you Much grass, Tim.
Best,
D
"Let's discuss the myriad of competing hypotheses the contrascientists have produced and tested. "
A most excellent plan. Certainly a good point to begin is comparing some of the models relied on by the IPCC with some models proposed by skeptics. Now all we need to begin is some models proposed by skeptics.
(sounds of crickets and bumblebees.......)
z,
"Certainly a good point to begin is comparing some of the models relied on by the IPCC with some models proposed by skeptics. Now all we need to begin is some models proposed by skeptics."
As a matter of fact, I discuss two such examples of skeptic model use at length here. Specifically, I discuss how Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, and David Douglass butchered multiple climate models to "prove" that the troposphere hasn't warmed since the 70's, and also McKittrick and Michaels' goofy climate/economic model with the infamous degree/radian screwup. Enjoy!
Jff Hrv sd: "Lk t r nt, w r wll nt th sxth grt xtntn (sc) vnt n th plnt's hstr" Nt nl s Jff nn-vltnst, nd thrfr lgcll crtnst, h cnnt cnt (lt ln spll), s w hv lrd hd xtnctns, mst f whch wr csd b xtrm cld. Frnkl fnd Lmbrg mr rlbl src.
So has anyone, anywhere, ever, managed to produce an even vaguely credible atmospheric model that doesn't predict rising temperatures as a result of rising carbon dioxide levels?
Ian: has anyone produced a model that has been tested against credible temperature data and that meets normal correlation significance criteria? De Laat and Pielke snr show that the temperature data normally used are suspect.
Brillant Dano, brilliant.
Here is how Hans thinks science should proceed with respect to AGW (my apologies to Rome).
Background: Rome is smoldering. Many hundreds or even thousands of peer-reviewed studies produce evidence suggesting that the local human population is to blame. These are backed by the senior scientific bodies (e.g. National Academies of Science) in every country on Earth. International conferences are convened which draw the same conclusions. However, a small coterie of scientists argues that 'more research is needed'. A number of wealthy corporations which may enjoy reduced profits if regulations are implemented that may prevent a bigger fire invest Along with the think tanks and lobbying groups they generously fund, they argue that the whole 'fire thing' is a doomsday myth, and that the world is in fine hands if we leave to them.
This is followed by a protracted period of discussion, more discussion, blah, blah, blah, discussion, debates, more discussion, more blah, blah, blah, many more discussions, on top of discussions, blah, debates, discussions, and then: more disscussions, debates, and even more discussions, lots of blah blah blah, discussions, debates, and finally, after years of relative inactivity to deal with the problem in spite of piles of mounting evidence: more discussions debates, and many more discussions, further bah blah blah.
The smoldering in Rome turns into a few small fires. They are increasing in scope. Little is done to mitigate them. The denialists begin to acknowledge that the fires are indeed real, but natural. No need to worry about them, even as they threaten to spiral out of control.
This is followed by a protracted period of discussion, more discussion, blah, blah, blah, discussion, debates, more discussion, more blah, blah, blah, many more discussions, on top of discussions, blah, debates, discussions, and then: more disscussions, debates, and even more discussions, lots of blah blah blah, discussions, debates, and finally, after years of relative inactivity to deal with the problem in spite of piles of mounting evidence: more discussions debates, and many more discussions, further bah blah blah.
The city is now burning and the fire is out of control. Many people in the city are fleeing but the fire is spreading quickly. It is becoming a calamity.
This is followed by a protracted period of discussion, more discussion, blah, blah, blah, discussion, debates, more discussion, more blah, blah, blah, many more discussions, on top of discussions, blah, debates, discussions, and then: more disscussions, debates, and even more discussions, lots of blah blah blah, discussions, debates, and finally, after years of relative inactivity to deal with the problem in spite of piles of even more mounting evidence: more discussions debates, and many more discussions, furtther bah blah blah.
Yup, Hans, I gotta hand it to you. This is what you want and this is what you seem to be getting. Keep fiddling while Rome burns. By the time we have that 100% proof we - at least those of us still alive - will be sifting through the ashes.
Jeff: how many of the last 6 extinctions were caused by global warming?
No need to go back to Rome for an object example
"The Canadian government had been warned by scientists and
environmentalists that the cod stocks were overexploited and that their fleets were employing destructive fishing practices. They refused to significantly reduce quotas citing the loss of jobs as too great a concern. The cost of their short term outlook and refusal to acknowledge ecological limits was devastating.
...
Conditions soon change, however, and yields start to decline. Then, when the results of additional scientific research and improved knowledge necessitate calls for reductions in the allowable catch, industry appeals to government for help or special consideration, because, by this point, substantial investments and jobs are at risk.
The typical response by government at this point is to delay a decision, pending the results of more research. Government procrastinates, arguing that no substantive data is available upon which to base a decision to reduce fishing effort, and without conclusive information the status quo is maintained. The scientific process required to acquire, analyse and respond to such information can take several years. Government often agrees to commit even more subsidies to bolster troubled investors, which only masks the real problem - the need for (often dramatic) cutbacks.
...
The Canadian Atlantic fisheries collapse illustrates how government support for the expansionist motivations of private investors in fisheries often results in society at large being long term losers. The profits from capital intensive, hi-tech, industrial scale fisheries are privatised by investors during the boom years, while the costs of such irrational economic behaviour are socialised for years after the crash. In Canada's case a two- billion dollar recovery bill may only be a part of the total long term costs. The human costs to individuals and desperate communities now deprived of meaningful and sustainable
employment is staggering. The trauma suffered by some 40,000 workers and their families in Newfoundland cannot be measured in dollars and cents."
-Greenpeace Case study: Canada's Northern Cod Collapse
Jeff:
If I can also add that there will be a small group who claim that warmth is better than cold so in fact the fire will be good for Rome and another group who claims that Romans shouldn't worry since they can adapt to living in fire!
Dano:
I have come to the conclusion that in fact your approach is correct and I am wrong! I would now like to enroll in the Dano School of Posting! However before I spend my money I would like to see the r2 of your graduates vs the number of posts they make, oh - and a bunch of other fluff and stuff metrics as well.
Regards,
John
P.S. Tim - thanks for the [s]!
Tim,
The last six what? I suppose you mean the previous 'big five' extinction episodes, the last occurring at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, 65 million years ago.
Of course our understanding of those events is fragmentary. Its likely, however, that previous mass extinctions have been driven by some form of dramatic short-term climate change as a result of the impact of large meteorites, planetoids etc, whose impacts produced immense amounts of ar-borne particulates that led to a sudden, catastrophic fall in temperature (bear in mind that by sudden we might still be referring to hundreds if not thousands of years for these processes to unravel). Because the Earth was dominated in these times by ectothermic organisms, that require external heat to maximize metabolic activity, its likely that a sudden cooling had serious physiological consequences. However, because we have to rely on the fossil record, our understanding of past extinction events and the factors that precipitated them is very limited.
I want to make one important point here, that you seem to always side-step. There are a number of synergized factors that are driving the current extinction spasm. The most serious are habitat loss and competition from (exotic)invasive species in non-native ecosystems. Climate change is just another stress that will (and is) pushing populations and species over the edge. In fact, climate change is likely to exacerbate other problems, because it is going to lead to the unraveling of food webs and the necessary re-arrangement of communities and ecosystems. As I have said a million times earlier, individuals and species are not isolated entities but interact over variable spatio-temporal scales with other individuals and species in an array of immensely complex interactions that constitute functioning food webs. There is no doubt that humans have already greatly simplified ecosystems across the biosphere, perhaps more than in many millions of years, through processes I have described here and in earlier posts. Climate change is just another additional stress to which individuals, communities and ecosystems must adapt.
We know that animal and plant populations are responding to climate change, but considering that ecosystems across the planet have been greatly fragmented by human activities already (e.g. by urbanisation and agricultural conversion), many species which previously could move through natural corridors are now blocked by various expanses of human-dominated ecosystems. This patchy landscape that we have created provides barriers to dipsersal and the colonsation of new suitable habitats. If the climate changes too rapidly, then there is little doubt that many species will not be able to adjust their distributions to compensate, and will decline towards extinction.
And to reiterate, 10-40% of well-studied species (those for which we have significant demographic data sets) are already threatened with extinction. Extrapolate this across the millions of species and billions of genetically distinct populations for which we have little or no data, and its clear that the situation is very serious indeed.
Thank you Steven B.
Jeff,
once again you academics elite green nanny statists fail to grasp the possibilities for entrepreneurship arising from the flames! How many marshmallow roasters will realize their dreams in this scenario? Why, Rome's GDP will skyrocket with all the new taxation you liberals love! And, um, the aerosols and ashfall will lead to global cooling.
Tsk.
John C,
I'd be happy to enroll you, but I'm unable to provide metrics as we are adjuncts of the Halliburton School of Unaccountability at American Gov't U. Please make any data requests to our Congress, Washington DC (pssssst: just don't call on the phone or use the Internets to request).
Best,
D
The wheels just came off
The Wall Street Journal editorial:
Hockey Stick Hokum
July 14, 2006; Page A12
It is routine these days to read in newspapers or hear -- almost anywhere the subject of climate change comes up -- that the 1990s were the "warmest decade in a millennium" and that 1998 was the warmest year in the last 1,000.
This assertion has become so accepted that it is often recited without qualification, and even without giving a source for the "fact." But a report soon to be released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee by three independent statisticians underlines yet again just how shaky this "consensus" view is, and how recent its vintage.
The claim originates from a 1999 paper by paleoclimatologist Michael Mann. Prior to Mr. Mann's work, the accepted view, as embodied in the U.N.'s 1990 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was that the world had undergone a warming period in the Middle Ages, followed by a mid-millennium cold spell and a subsequent warming period -- the current one. That consensus, as shown in the first of the two IPCC-provided graphs nearby, held that the Medieval warm period was considerably warmer than the present day.
Mr. Mann's 1999 paper eliminated the Medieval warm period from the history books, with the result being the bottom graph you see here. It's a man-made global-warming evangelist's dream, with a nice, steady temperature oscillation that persists for centuries followed by a dramatic climb over the past century. In 2001, the IPCC replaced the first graph with the second in its third report on climate change, and since then it has cropped up all over the place. Al Gore uses it in his movie.
The trouble is that there's no reason to believe that Mr. Mann, or his "hockey stick" graph of global temperature changes, is right. Questions were raised about Mr. Mann's paper almost as soon as it was published. In 2003, two Canadians, Ross McKitrick and Steven McIntyre, published an article in a peer-reviewed journal showing that Mr. Mann's methodology could produce hockey sticks from even random, trendless data.
The report commissioned by the House Energy Committee, due to be released today, backs up and reinforces that conclusion. The three researchers -- Edward J. Wegman of George Mason University, David W. Scott of Rice University and Yasmin H. Said of Johns Hopkins University -- are not climatologists; they're statisticians. Their task was to look at Mr. Mann's methods from a statistical perspective and assess their validity. Their conclusion is that Mr. Mann's papers are plagued by basic statistical errors that call his conclusions into doubt. Further, Professor Wegman's report upholds the finding of Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick that Mr. Mann's methodology is biased toward producing "hockey stick" shaped graphs.
Mr. Wegman and his co-authors are careful to point out that doubts about temperatures in the early part of the millennium do not call into question more-recent temperature increases. But as you can see looking at these two charts, it's all about context. In the first, the present falls easily within a range of natural historical variation. The bottom chart looks alarming and discontinuous with the past, which is why global-warming alarmists have adopted it so eagerly.
In addition to debunking the hockey stick, Mr. Wegman goes a step further in his report, attempting to answer why Mr. Mann's mistakes were not exposed by his fellow climatologists. Instead, it fell to two outsiders, Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick, to uncover the errors.
Mr. Wegman brings to bear a technique called social-network analysis to examine the community of climate researchers. His conclusion is that the coterie of most frequently published climatologists is so insular and close-knit that no effective independent review of the work of Mr. Mann is likely. "As analyzed in our social network," Mr. Wegman writes, "there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis." He continues: "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."
In other words, climate research often more closely resembles a mutual-admiration society than a competitive and open-minded search for scientific knowledge. And Mr. Wegman's social-network graphs suggest that Mr. Mann himself -- and his hockey stick -- is at the center of that network.
Mr. Wegman's report was initially requested by the House Energy Committee because some lawmakers were concerned that major decisions about our economy could be made on the basis of the dubious research embodied in the hockey stick. Some of the more partisan scientists and journalists howled that this was an attempt at intimidation. But as Mr. Wegman's paper shows, Congress was right to worry; his conclusions make "consensus" look more like group-think. And the dismissive reaction of the climate-research establishment to the McIntyre-McKitrick critique of the hockey stick confirms that impression.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/07142006_1990.htm
Wegman report factsheet
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_fact_sheet.pdf
Wegman report climate change assessment
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusion 1.
The politicization of academic scholarly work leads to confusing public
debates. Scholarly papers published in peer reviewed journals are considered the archival
record of research. There is usually no requirement to archive supplemental material such
as code and data. Consequently, the supplementary material for academic work is often
poorly documented and archived and is not sufficiently robust to withstand intense public
debate. In the present example there was too much reliance on peer review, which
seemed not to be sufficiently independent.
Recommendation 1.
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.
Conclusion 2.
Sharing of research materials, data, and results is haphazard and often
grudgingly done. We were especially struck by Dr. Mann's insistence that the code he
developed was his intellectual property and that he could legally hold it personally
without disclosing it to peers. When code and data are not shared and methodology is not
fully disclosed, peers do not have the ability to replicate the work and thus independent
verification is impossible.
Recommendation 2.
We believe that federally funded research agencies should develop
a more comprehensive and concise policy on disclosure. All of us writing this report have
been federally funded. Our experience with funding agencies has been that they do not in
general articulate clear guidelines to the investigators as to what must be disclosed.
Federally funded work including code should be made available to other researchers upon
reasonable request, especially if the intellectual property has no commercial value. Some
consideration should be granted to data collectors to have exclusive use of their data for
one or two years, prior to publication. But data collected under federal support should be
made publicly available. (As federal agencies such as NASA do routinely.)
Conclusion 3.
As statisticians, we were struck by the isolation of communities such as
the paleoclimate community that rely heavily on statistical methods, yet do not seem to
be interacting with the mainstream statistical community. The public policy implications
of this debate are financially staggering and yet apparently no independent statistical
expertise was sought or used.
Recommendation 3.
With clinical trials for drugs and devices to be approved for human
use by the FDA, review and consultation with statisticians is expected. Indeed, it is
standard practice to include statisticians in the application-for-approval process. We
judge this to be a good policy when public health and also when substantial amounts of
monies are involved, for example, when there are major policy decisions to be made
based on statistical assessments. In such cases, evaluation by statisticians should be standard practice. This evaluation phase should be a mandatory part of all grant
applications and funded accordingly.
Conclusion 4.
While the paleoclimate reconstruction has gathered much publicity
because it reinforces a policy agenda, it does not provide insight and understanding of the
physical mechanisms of climate change except to the extent that tree ring, ice cores and
such give physical evidence such as the prevalence of green-house gases. What is needed
is deeper understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change.
Recommendation 4.
Emphasis should be placed on the Federal funding of research
related to fundamental understanding of the mechanisms of climate change. Funding
should focus on interdisciplinary teams and avoid narrowly focused discipline research.
Mark R,
o This is just a rewrite of the latest FUD broadcast, you know, like the one found in the Nat'l Post the other day (which was a couple of items below the mention on CA today - did you miss it, or was the twitterpation too much to bear?).
o The conclusions follow from incorrect premises.
o We'll see whether this latest red herring attempt will sway decision-makers. Who cares about the public debate - it's the decision-makers who decide here whether action gets taken, not whether amateurs can debate scientific findings.
I like it. I like it a lot. Loud ululating.
Best,
D
Hi Dano
You can stop pretending now. From the report:
"Mann et al., misused certain statistical methods in their studies, which inappropriately produce hockey stick shapes in the temperature history. Wegman's analysis concludes that Mann's work cannot support claim that the1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium.
Report: "Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 analysis. As mentioned earlier in our background section, tree ring proxies are typically calibrated to remove low frequency variations.
The cycle of Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that was widely recognized in 1990 has disappeared from the MBH98/99 analyses, thus making possible the hottest decade/hottest year claim.
However, the methodology of MBH98/99 suppresses this low frequency information. The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable."
PS All the people involved in this global warming cabal will be lucky to keep their jobs.
Once the funding is gone, the job is gone.
Hope you've got something else lined up!
Best (as in, it's for the best)
MarkR
Mark R ululates:
PS All the people involved in this global warming cabal will be lucky to keep their jobs.
(BTW, you didn't cut-paste from the fact sheet properly - there are no para breaks in what you pasted)
The fact sheet (and the rubes who uncritically trumpet it) merely strokes itself over the totem and...hmmm...what did I say above...oh, yes:
and now the twitterpaters are....hmmm...what did I say above...oh, yes:
Huh. Like I predicted it. 'Ceptin' I didn't, because I just read the operations template.
Why don't you take some time and read the report. There are interesting nuggets in there that disagree with your tout.
But we digress. You have FUD to spread, and waste your time here with me. Go forth, lad, and spread the word! Godspeed to you! Go git 'em! Git 'er done! Eeeerrrrahhhh!
Best,
D
Hi Dano
Start rearranging your c.v.
Especially take out the bits that refer to Mann-Rutherford-Jones-Osborn-Briffa-Bradley-Hughes.
PS The best is yet to come.
The above mentioned cabal in front of the House Sub Committee taking the 5th Amendment route. July 19th. Don't miss it.
Mark: That's it? All the committee can do is to say that there is anthropogenic global warming but we don't know about the past which we admit is essentially irrelevant anyway?
I don't know what hearings are coming up but I would love to be there and ask Dr. Wegman what the R2 of his social-network graph is!
Best (as in is this the best they can do)
John
Hi John
NOWHERE in the report do they say there is anthropogenic global warming.
They do say that all Mann et al and related papers that removed the Medieval Warm Period are WRONG.
Start rearranging your c.v.
Funny.
The guy who started the formal large-scale AGW denialist campaign, Frank Luntz, has since repudiated it.
I guess not everyone got the memo.
NOWHERE in the report do they say there is anthropogenic global warming.
Smarter bots please.
Like I said above, why don't you try reading the report before you comment on it.
Best,
D
Re: "NOWHERE in the report do they say there is anthropogenic global warming."
Therefore, the report is fatally flawed, as the vast majority of climate scientists, a consensus in fact, agree that global warming is happening and that it is primarily the result of human activities.
Re: "They do say that all Mann et al and related papers that removed the Medieval Warm Period are WRONG."
Mann et al. DO NOT remove the MWP. Anyone who says that does not deserve any attention whatsoever. The "Hockey Stick" does feature a warmer period up until about 1300 A.D. The last few decades, however, have been warmer than the MWP.
MarkR, you and your "contrarian buddies" get this funny idea in your heads that if studies show that the MWP is cooler than today, then the MWP did not exist. This is not a competition. Grow up and think a little.
Re "Thus, there is significant evidence that recent anthropogenic activities are contributing to the recent warming. [pg 72]"
Can't you even cheat properly.
The words you quote are the Committee summarising what Manns position is, not what the Committee say.
Re: "The words you quote are the Committee summarising what Manns position is, not what the Committee say."
So, MarkR, does this answer my next question about who you trust with regards to climatology? A Congressional Committee or statisticians with no background in the climate sciences rather than one of the world's most esteemed climate scientists? If so, this throws your judgment into question.
The words you quote are the Committee summarising what Manns position is, not what the Committee say.
Yes.
You'll note that they say:
In a real sense the paleoclimate results of MBH98/99 are essentially irrelevant to the consensus on climate change. [pg 66]
They concluded that.
The consensus, which they summarized so people can understand it, is:
there is significant evidence that recent anthropogenic activities are contributing to the recent warming. [pg 72].
The Committee has no expertise in the matter beyond summarizing others' work. So they can't say anything other than what others say.
Ah, well.
I like it.
Bots got squat, must gavotte.
Best,
D
Sorry Dano
Your "consensus" has passed on!
This "consensus" is no more!
It has ceased to be!
It's expired and gone to meet it's maker!
It's a stiff! Bereft of life, It rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the perch it'd be pushing up the daisies!
It's metabolic processes are now 'istory!
It's off the twig!
It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off it's mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!
THIS IS AN EX-CONSENSUS!!
Shorter MarkR: "It's just a flesh wound!"
Hi Stephen
I don't doubt that you are well meaning, but the "Hockey Stick" is built on statistics. That is why it is good that several, leading (outstanding), independent statisticians put Mann et al through the ringer.
And guess what. Mann et al's methodology is completely destroyed by the investigation. Thanks also (mainly) to outstandingly good, original work by, Steven McIntyre, and Ross McKitrick.
Mann himself admits he's not a statistician, (and it shows), but he and his cohorts never sought help from expert, qualified statisticians who were available at his own university.
Want to know the reason.
Mann et al never wanted a true statistical picture. They only want to show that the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than the present period, (best of all they hoped they could make it disappear altogether). That way they could claim unprecedented man made warming.
You, and all of us should be ever so thankful that the billions of dollars that were going to be mis-spent on needless AGW policies, can now be spent on the general betterment of humankind.
MarkR, you're sounding like the former Iraqi Information Minister. You know, the guy who said that the Ba'athist forces were fending off the Americans up to the last day of Saddam's regime. Time to stop brainwashing yourself.
Re: "And guess what. Mann et al's methodology is completely destroyed by the investigation. Thanks also (mainly) to outstandingly good, original work by, Steven McIntyre, and Ross McKitrick."
Ummm. No it isn't. The MBH study passed the peer-review process, while M&M's couldn't. Doesn't this tell you something? (I.e. that the MBH study is solid in its foundation and that any errors do not distort its true picture, while the M&M study couldn't cut the mustard.)
Hi Stephen
"The MBH study passed the peer-review process."
Hah, hah, hah.
Peer review in this case meaning Mann got his mates to review it.
Hi Tim
The Black Knight sketch. One of my favourites.
MarkR, you obviously do not know about or understand the scientific process. Therefore, you are unqualified to comment on the accuracy of the MBH study.
Ummm....
If past climate reconstruction was a relevant question, there'd be research from other groups than MBH (MM isn't research, it's deconstruction - sometimes helpful, but not research), so we wouldn't just rely on MM or MBH (like, y'know dude, science isn't politics carried out by other means, but these cats, like, do their own thing, ya dig).
Google Scholar - interesting tool. MBH has 495 cites in the scientific literature. Some of them:
Jürg Luterbacher, Daniel Dietrich, Elena Xoplaki, Martin Grosjean, Heinz Wanner
Multiproxy reconstructions of monthly and seasonal surface temperature fields for Europe back to 1500 show that the late 20th- and early 21st-century European climate is very likely (>95% confidence level) warmer than that of any time during the past 500 years.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/303/5663/1499?etoc
How Warm Was the Medieval Warm Period?
Thomas J. Crowley, Thomas S. Lowery
A frequent conclusion based on study of individual records from the so-called Medieval Warm Period (â¼1000-1300 A.D.) is that the present warmth of the 20 th century is not unusual and therefore cannot be taken as an indication of forced climate change from greenhouse gas emissions. This conclusion is not supported by published composites of Northern Hemisphere climate change, but the conclusions of such syntheses are often either ignored or challenged. In this paper, we revisit the controversy by incorporating additional time series not used in earlier hemispheric compilations. Another difference is that the present reconstruction uses records that are only 900-1000 years long, thereby, avoiding the potential problem of uncertainties introduced by using different numbers of records at different times. Despite clear evidence for Medieval warmth greater than present in some individual records, the new hemispheric composite supports the principal conclusion of earlier hemispheric reconstructions and, furthermore, indicates that maximum Medieval warmth was restricted to two-three 20-30 year intervals, with composite values during these times being only comparable to the mid-20 th century warm time interval.
http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=0044-7447&vol…
How about
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:0usOUJozmKwJ:www.cg…+
The Mann et al. (1998) Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction over 1400-1980 is examined in light of recent criticisms concerning the nature and processing of
included climate proxy data....Altogether new reconstructions over 1400-1980 are developed in both the indirect and direct analyses, which demonstrate that the Mann et al. reconstruction is robust
against the proxy-based criticisms addressed.
I know, this is only a subset, but there does seem to be some evidence out there. And wouldn't it be interesting if there was other evidence, from, I don't know, temperature records, changes in plant distributions, snowmass/frost records, etc. There is? Cool.
From the Wegman report
"As mentioned before, Michael Mann is his own group since he is a co-author with each of the other 42. The cliques are very clear in this layout. In addition to the Mann-Rutherford-Jones-Osborn-Briffa-Bradley-Hughes clique there are several others that are readily apparent. They are Rind-Shindell-Schmidt-Miller, Cook-D'Arrigo-Jacoby-Wilson, Folland-Vellinga-Allan-Knight, Stahle-Shugart-Therrell-Druckenbrod-Cleveland, Sangoyomi-Moon-Lall-Abarbanel, and Clement-Zebiak-Cane."
Don't you get it.
These reports are all linked to Mann, he is the common denominator to all the sub-groups.
The reports all do a dodgy rehash of the same dodgy proxies, and the same dodgy method. They were all self reviewed by the same dodgy cliques.
Both the method and the proxies have both been shown to be false by a truly independent Wegman report:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/07/wegman_report_on_hockey_stick.p…
two itty points.
a) If the MBH paper had never been published, or if all the statistics were fatally flawed, what difference wouldthat make for the status of conclusions about global climate change? NOT A RODENTIAL INCREMENT. Both for reconstruction data and the current situation, the evidence is too strong and consistent, based on too many streams of evidence. Sorry, MarkR.
b) Sometimes, these groups coming out of social network analysis have another name; research groups. If I did one on myself, I'd find I was in 3 or 4 separate groups. Holy conspiracy, Batman. More to the point: how does that matter to the field? How do the groups in climatology compare to the groups in another subdiscipline, say ferrous metallurgy, clinical neuropsychology, invertebrate physiology? Should the most collaborative researchers in such fields be given restraining orders, because they will not be given fair peer reviews? Neat idea (and fits with the Alice in Wonderland viewpoint)
Hi Stewart
1 If you discount all the Hockey Team results, as you should, what does that leave?
2 Do you get your mates to review your work?
MarkR:
Go back to the references from my earlier post - you get that the past several decades has been the hottest for at least 400 years (or longer using borehole data), the medieval warm period was neither as consistent or as warm as has been represented, and this shows up across continents. Go ahead, check - like I said, Google Scholar is a handy tool.
Do I get my mates to review my work? Before I send it in, or when I revise, absolutely; they keep me from embarrassing myself even more often than I do. As peer reviewers? I don't know, and I expect not. You see, it's anonymous.... In fact, the papers I submit or review have the author's names removed, so the reviewers don't know the authors. In a small community, reviewers of my work are likely to be known of by me (and vice-versa), but any decent editor will avoid a recent collaborator as a reviewer. Do you remember Mann's response to those same points? Seems eerily similar, and excruciatingly obvious to anyone in the scientific community.
Might be handy to move this part of the discussion to another topic - like social network analysis, etc.
1 "any decent editor will avoid a recent collaborator as a reviewer". Sadly that didn't happen with the Hockey Stick.
2 See "We continually search the emerging scientific literature for evidence that the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period were truly significant global events. This summary reports what we have learned over the past few years about the Little Ice Age in China.
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/l/summaries/lia…
MarkR,
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/milltemp/fig1.gif
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/press/2005-12-WMO.pdf
The last document doesn't even have MBH as authors in its reference list, but it does include an article by skeptics Roy Spencer and John Christy. However, the same results are displayed. Therefore, whether the hockey stick or not, the results are the same.
Hi Stephen
The last paper you mention is about sea temperatures and only goes back to 1860 something.
The first graph likewise 1860's onwards.
The second graph is just a rehash of the Hockey Team data.
It's hardly any evidence that any 20th century warming is unprecedented.
Re: "The second graph is just a rehash of the Hockey Team data."
MarkR, the hockey stick is the best we have out there, and that is confirmed by the IPCC. What have M&M or other hockey stick critics proposed? NOTHING! They criticise MBH without doing anything constructive themselves!
Are these contrarians actually interested in furthering scientific knowledge and being constructive or are they really just satisfied being destructive?
Hi Stephen
"the hockey stick is the best we have out there"
Sadly it is wrong. It's wasted everyones time and money.
The good news is that everyone can now start working on gaining real insight into climate change.
Re: "Sadly it is wrong. It's wasted everyones time and money. The good news is that everyone can now start working on gaining real insight into climate change."
Now, what the heck do you mean by this?
Mark R,
Why oh why do you cite garbage spewed out by the web site C-Oh-two which is a lobbying group for western fuels? Those twits aim to distort science to bolster a pre-determined worldview and a political agenda. In 2003 they twisted the findings of a study published in Nature by a colleague at the NIOO where I work; I spoke with a student last week whose supervisor at Davis was also pissed off that his published data were being selectively interpreted by the same astroturf group. For heaven's sake, read the original studies and stop relying on these morons for your daily dollop of disinformation. They don't perform experiments or publish in the scientific literature, they just twist the work of other scientists to support their agenda that the more C0 2 we put into the atmosphere, the better. Which is exactly what their sponsers want in order to bloat their profits even more.
As an aside, read Dano's posts. The blasted hockey stick is but one small piece of evidence for AGW. It is about the only one, however, that the denialists are using these days. Its alomst as if these clowns think they can win the scientific arguments over AGW, which they lost a decade ago. But of course they aren't interested in a scientific victory, knowing they can never win it. Ther sole hope is to force the debate to stick around a single issue, thus paralyzing any meaningful attempt to deal with the problem. Read Joel Balkin's outstanding book, "The Corporation", and you'll see exactly why.
Historically, the denialists have consistently been painting the picture that the current line of evidence that they are disputing is the one on which the AGW theory rests. For example, before they were disputing the hockey stick, they were pointing out how the satellite data seemed to show little or no warming. Now that they have lost that argument and noone is seriously denying that the satellite record is showing significant warming, more or less in line with the surface record, they have moved on to the proxy reconstructions.
However, the fact is that AGW theory rests on multiple lines of evidence. In order to overthrow this theory, it would be necessary to show that most of these lines are incorrect...not simply that one is. And, the denialists haven't even done that. At best, they may have shown that there was more variability in the past climate than Mann's reconstructions suggest, so that perhaps the reconstructions of Esper et al. or Mobourg et al. that show more variability, but still don't show a Medieval Warm Period as warm as the late 20th century instrumental record, are more accurate. But even if further study contradicts these many other studies and shows that there was a time in the Medieval Warm Period when the global climate was warmer than it was today, that still wouldn't contradict the wealth of other evidence that the current warming being produced is mainly anthropogenic.
Hi Jeff
What part of the Chinese studies do you think is factually incorrect?
Hi Joel
What "evidence", apart from the Hockey Stick shows that late 20th Century temperatures are the highest for a millenium?
MarkR: Here is a graph showing various temperature reconstructions for the last millenium, including the ones by Esper et al. and Moborg et al. that I mentioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
But, as I also noted, whether or not it is demonstrated that temperatures are now higher than they were during the MWP is interesting but rather beside the point in understanding the causes of the current warming.
As for your question for Jeff, while not trying to answer for him, it seems to me that temperature records from one part of the world do little to settle the question since the main conclusion that Mann et al. reached is that there was warmth in many parts of the world during the Medieval Warm Period but that the peak warmth in different regions tended to be asynchronous and thus the global warmth over the entire globe (or at least northern hemisphere where the data is not sparse) was not that pronounced during that period.
Hi Joel
You say, 'the peak warmth in different regions tended to be asynchronous and thus the global warmth over the entire globe (or at least northern hemisphere where the data is not sparse) was not that pronounced during that period'
Mann is wrong about this.
He has to say it because he has to find a way round the historical, and proxy records in Europe, that show a MWP.
But he ignore loads of other studies that do show a worldwide MWP.
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/s/summaries/sol…
You see, if there was a worldwide MWP, Mann wouldn't be able to claim unprecedented temperatures, or change, and therefore wouldn't be able to assert that it was man made.
Mann is wrong about this. [links to see-oh-too for evidence]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
We have, now, something brief and cogent to point to for an example for MarkR's credibility.
Linking to see-oh-too = rube.
All done now! Yer a joke, boah.
Best,
D