Again, none of this disproves the notion of AGW. But it does certainly reduce the need to siphon trillions of dollars (it used to be billions) in order to “save the planet”.
Still waiting for tano to explain how the Midieval Warm Period never happened, according to Meltdown-mann’s research.
Gene in Pennsylvaniasays
I always wondered why liberals didn’t stop using A/C, toilet paper, start walking instead of driving. They knew all along global warming climate change was a lie.
If the idea of global warming is collapsing, what major scientists have made an about-face?
Reading the Guardian article cited:
Alan Thorpe, chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council, the biggest funder of climate science in the UK, said: “We should only be dealing with peer-reviewed literature. We open ourselves up to trouble if we start getting into hearsay and grey literature. We have enough research that has been peer-reviewed to provide evidence for climate change, so it is concerning that the IPCC has strayed from that.”
Professor Bob Watson, who chaired the IPCC before Dr Pachauri and is now chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, insisted that despite the errors there was little doubt that human-induced climate change was a reality.
“It is concerning that these mistakes have appeared in the IPCC report, but there is no doubt the earth’s climate is changing and the only way we can explain those changes is primarily human activity,” he said.
From NASA’s website: “Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800’s. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth’s surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.”
“A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun’s energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.”
Gene in Pennsylvaniasays
Youexpect the same scientists who have been fudging data, taking govenments millions to “study” global warming to now fessup and say it is “all a fraud, here’s your money back?”
Only fools would expect that.
Mark W awsays
uh scientists from all over the world, in every country, coming up with pretty much the same conclusions. How many scientists are we talking about here? How many different countries? Seriously, how many different countries are on board with this?
How many scientists, universities, how many doctoral students and students working on their masters degree are reviewing this daily? If someone could prove really prove that this was a hoax, this guy would be famous and RICH overnight. He or she would be on every TV and radio show in the country , would write books and articles and become a world hero, “Yeah! the world is NOT warming!!!” He could get a job anywhere for any price.
This person would be the toast of the town. So where is this guy? The data is out there.
All we get are little drips and drabs that something may have been exaggerated or not sufficiently studied.
British Climate Research Unit (CRU) chief Phil Jones to Penn State climatologist Michael Mann, of Hockey Stick infamy: “Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report and Briffa’s suspect tree-ring data]. Keith will do likewise.”
Jones to Mann: “If they [Canadian researchers Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre] ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.” Jones subsequently “lost” all the original, raw temperature that had been entrusted to the CRU’s care.
(These actions appear intended to avoid Freedom of Information inquiries. Jones had previously told a researcher, “Why should I make the data available, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” Drs. J&M, that’s the scientific method – to ensure that research and experiments are honest, accurate and replicable. Deleting files and data also raises serious ethical, scientific and legal issues.)
Jones: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth, lead author of two IPCC reports] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” (Thereby excluding non-alarmist peer-reviewed papers and skewing the IPCC process.)
Jones: “I’ve just completed Mike [Mann’s] trick of adding in the real temps to each series, to hide the decline [in average global temperatures].…” (Maintain a warming trend, despite contrary evidence.)
Climate scientist Tom Wigley to Mann: “If you think [Yale Professor and Geophysical Research Letters editor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.” (The American Geophysical Union has likewise gotten into the censorship, intimidation, climate alarm and money train business.)
So let’s see; delete the data for review, manipulate what you send, block the peer-review process, and force anyone who disagrees with you out.
7: Great. When they release their data for everyone to pick through, as REAL science is conducted, then we can talk. Until then, AGW remains the same overhyped BS it gives every appearance of being. Oh btw, this includes NASA which has yet to provide everything too.
um, Mark W, hate to tell you this, but that’s what scientists and bloggers are doing little by little, bit by bit, proving this is a hoax.
Don’t know though that there are as many millions to be made in this as there are in the hoax itself.
John in Dublin CAsays
My cousin in Reston Virgina just finished clearing 31 inches of global warming from her driveway in a place the RFK Jr said 15 months ago was never going to see snow and cold again. And this is the second time this year. Frankly, Mark W. when people like you and Al Gore start living like you really believe your garbage then I might begin to consider it.
Where’s Tano on this subject? Maybe she hasn’t read the news on this scandal since 2007.
Mark W awsays
And that is my point, the “little by little” which, by the way is not being disproved, just questioned. You seem to think that all these countries in the world believe in man-made climate change because of a few facts here and there. The skeptics you cite are quibbling with a little bit of this and a little bit of that. Scientists looking at staggering amounts of data. Do you understand that? This is not a thermometer reading or two in a couple of cities.
By the way, how many emails were hacked? 10? 50? 1000? 10,000? Have you ever seen transcript of the all the emails? Does it exist? What was the response to these emails? What did the people finally decide to do? What makes you sure that the emails were not edited?
So let’s say this is a scam. Let us pretend that all these scientists are making this up to get grants. So, what is going to happen to them when one of your guys PROVES that they are wrong? They will be disgraced, right? They will lose important positions and respect. All their work, their life work, could be called in question. Are there THAT many scientists willing to risk losing so much for a grant or two when they know their fraud will be discovered soon?
As I said before, the scientist who can take all the accumulated data and prove that this is hoax, will be a STAR! He or she will make more money than he ever dreamed of by exposing this world–wide deception. He will be like an Einstein and the world will be at his feet. And he will be vindicated!
Mark, the transcript of the e-mails exists. And the response to the e-mails is that Phil Jones considered suicide while Penn State is investigating Michael Mann.
And little by little that data is being shown to have been doctored. So, you read the skeptics. Maybe global warming is not being disproved, but gradually, it’s being shown that the supposed proving was based on bad data.
Which leads to the question–do you have to disprove something which can’t be proved?
you can read the whole thing at the above address rather than tiny sound bites.
RA-10 Inquiry Report: Case of Dr. Michael E. Mann February 3, 2010
2.
Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?
3.
Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar?
4.
Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities?
On November 29, 2009, Dr. Pell and Dr. Foley met with Dr. Mann to let him know personally that he was accused of research misconduct and that an inquiry under RA-10 would take place. On November 30, 2010, a letter was delivered by Dr. Pell to Dr. Mann to notify him formally of these allegations and Dr. Pell’s decision to conduct an inquiry under RA-10.
From November 30 to December 14, 2009, staff in the Office for Research Protections culled through approximately 1075 of the emails that were purloined from a server at the University of East Anglia. Emails were reviewed if they were sent by Dr. Mann, were sent to Dr. Mann, were copied to Dr. Mann, or discussed Dr. Mann (but were neither addressed nor copied to him). In summary, the following were found:
•
206 emails that contained a message/text from Dr. Mann somewhere in the chain;
•
92 emails that were received by Dr. Mann, but in which he did not write/participate in the discussion; and
•
79 that dealt with Dr. Mann, his work or publications; he neither authored nor was he copied on any of these.
From among these 377 emails, the inquiry committee focused on 47 emails that were deemed relevant. On December 17, 2009, the inquiry committee (Pell, Scaroni, Yekel), Dr. Brune and Dr. Foley met to review the emails, discuss the RA-10 inquiry process and go over what their respective activities would be. It was agreed that these individuals would meet again in early January and that they would use the time until that meeting to review the relevant information, including the above mentioned e-mails, journal articles, OP-ED columns, newspaper and magazine articles, the National Academy of Sciences report entitled “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years,” ISBN: 0-309-66144-7 and various blogs on the internet.
On January 4, 2010, Dr. Foley, in his capacity as the new Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School, became the convener of the inquiry committee as Dr. Pell had left the University to become the Under-Secretary of Science for the Smithsonian Institution. On January 8, 2010, Dr. Foley convened the inquiry committee to discuss their present thinking on the evidence presented in the emails and other publically available materials. At this meeting, it was decided that each committee member would send Dr. Foley specific questions that would be added to the four formal allegations and that would be used by the committee during the interview of Dr. Mann. These were compiled into one document. It was also decided that duringRA-10 Inquiry Report: Case of Dr. Michael E. Mann February 3, 2010
the upcoming interview of Dr. Mann, Dr. Foley would ask each of the initial questions with follow up questions coming from the other committee members, and he would moderate the interview.
On January 12, 2010, the inquiry committee (Foley, Yekel, Scaroni) and Dr. Brune met with Dr. Mann to interview him. Dr. Mann was asked to address the four allegations leveled against him and to provide answers to the fifteen additional questions that the committee had compiled. In an interview lasting nearly two hours, Dr. Mann addressed each of the questions and follow up questions. A recording was made of the meeting, and this recording was transcribed. The committee members asked occasional follow-up questions. Throughout the interview, Dr. Mann answered each question carefully:
•
He explained the content and meaning of the emails about which we inquired;
•
He explained that he had never falsified any data, nor had he had ever manipulated data to serve a given predetermined outcome;
•
He explained that he never used inappropriate influence in reviewing papers by other scientists who disagreed with the conclusions of his science;
•
He explained that he never deleted emails at the behest of any other scientist, specifically including Dr. Phil Jones, and that he never withheld data with the intention of obstructing science; and
•
He explained that he never engaged in activities or behaviors that were inconsistent with accepted academic practices.
On January 15, 2010, and on behalf of the inquiry committee, Dr. Foley conveyed via email an additional request of Dr. Mann, who was asked to produce all emails related to the fourth IPCC report (“AR4”), the same emails that Dr. Phil Jones had suggested that he delete.
On January 18, 2010, Dr. Mann provided a zip-archive of these emails and an explanation of their content. In addition, Dr. Mann provided a ten page supplemental written response to the matters discussed during his interview.
On January 22, 2010, the inquiry committee and Dr. Brune met again to review the evidence, including but not limited to Dr. Mann’s answers to the committee’s questions, both in the interview and in his subsequent submissions. All were impressed by Dr. Mann’s composure and his forthright responses to all of the queries that were asked of him. At this point, Dr. Foley reviewed the relevant points of his conversation with Dr. Gerald North, a professor at Texas A&M University and the first author of the NAS’ 2006 report on Dr. Mann’s research on paleoclimatology. Dr. Foley also relayed the sentiment and view of Dr. Donald Kennedy of Stanford University and the former editor of Science Magazine about the controversy currently swirling around Dr. Mann and some of his colleagues. Both were very supportive of Dr. Mann and of the credibility of his science. Once Dr. Brune had given his opinions and suggestions for next steps of the process, he was dismissed from further discussion as his role per policy RA-10 was that of providing consultation to the rest of the members; his role was not that of making a decision at the inquiry phase.
RA-10 Inquiry Report: Case of Dr. Michael E. Mann February 3, 2010
5 | P a g e
On January 26, 2010, Dr. Foley convened the inquiry committee along with University counsel, Mr. Wendell Courtney, Esq. in case issues of procedure arose.
After a careful review of all written material, and information obtained from the purloined emails, the interview of Dr. Mann, the supplemental materials provided by Dr. Mann and all the information from other sources, the committee found as follows with respect to each allegation:
Allegation 1: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data?
Finding 1. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data. While a perception has been created in the weeks after the CRU emails were made public that Dr. Mann has engaged in the suppression or falsification of data, there is no credible evidence that he ever did so, and certainly not while at Penn State. In fact to the contrary, in instances that have been focused upon by some as indicating falsification of data, for example in the use of a “trick” to manipulate the data, this is explained as a discussion among Dr. Jones and others including Dr. Mann about how best to put together a graph for a World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report. They were not falsifying data; they were trying to construct an understandable graph for those who were not experts in the field. The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field.
Decision 1. As there is no substance to this allegation, there is no basis for further examination of this allegation in the context of an investigation in the second phase of RA-10.
Allegation 2: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?
Finding 2. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data related to AR4, as suggested by Dr. Phil Jones. Dr. Mann has stated that he did not delete emails in response to Dr. Jones’ request. Further, Dr. Mann produced upon request a full archive of his emails in and around the time of the preparation of AR4. The archive contained e-mails related to AR4.
1 The word trick as used in this email has stirred some suspicion. However, trick is often used in context to describe a mathematical insight that solves the problem. For example, see in a classic text on quantum mechanics by David Parks: “The foregoing explanation of the velocity paradox involves no new assumptions; the basic trick, the representation of a modulated wave as the superposition of two (or more) unmodulated ones, has already been used to explain interference phenomena…” pg. 21, Introduction to Quantum Theory, David Parks, Third Edition, Dover 1992.
RA-10 Inquiry Report: Case of Dr. Michael E. Mann February 3, 2010
6 | P a g e
Decision 2. As there is no substance to this allegation, there is no basis for further examination of this allegation in the context of an investigation in the second phase of RA-10.
Allegation 3: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar?
Finding 3. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to him in his capacity as an academic scholar. In media reports and blogs about Dr. Mann and other paleoclimatologists, those who are named in the CRU email files are purported to have been engaged in conspiratorial discussions indicative of a misuse of privileged or confidential information. Although it is not clear where the exact accusation lies in this with respect to Dr. Mann, it is inferred that the emails prove the case. Those who have formed this view feel that, in their capacity as reviewers, Dr. Mann and his colleagues had early access to manuscripts from other authors with whom they disagreed, and that they could somehow act on those to reject them for publication. Actually, when one does due diligence on this matter, and asks about what papers were involved, one finds that enormous confusion has been caused by interpretations of the emails and their content. In some cases, the discussion and related debate centered on papers that were about to emerge which members of the purported conspiracy had written, but which were simply under embargo. In other cases, the discussion and related debate centered on papers that have emerged in otherwise notable scientific journals, which they deemed to have been published with a lower standard of scholarly and scientific scrutiny. The committee found no research misconduct in this. Science often involves different groups who have very different points of view, arguing for the intellectual dominance of their viewpoint, so that that viewpoint becomes the canonical one. We point to Kuhn2 as an authority on how science is done, before it is accepted as “settled.”
Decision 3. As there is no substance to this allegation, there is no basis for further examination of this allegation in the context of an investigation in the second phase of RA-10.
Allegation 4. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities?
Finding 4. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee could not make a definitive finding whether there exists any evidence to substantiate that Dr. Mann did engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for
2 Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962
RA-10 Inquiry Report: Case of Dr. Michael E. Mann February 3, 2010
proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities. It is the case that there has been a public outcry from some quarters that Dr. Mann and his colleagues did deviate from what some observers claim to be standard academic practice. All disciplines and scientific fields work within broad bounds of “accepted scientific” practice that apply to all researchers. However, within different disciplines of science there are additional elements of accepted practice that may be specific to those disciplines and therefore are different from those of other disciplines and fields. For example, accepted practices in a field of pure mathematics, such as number theory, may differ markedly from those in a field such as socio-biology. This is axiomatic. That said, the committee could not make a definitive finding on this allegation for reasons that follow.
Policy RA-10 speaks not just of research misconduct but also of research conduct and is explicit regarding the responsibility that we have as scientists to maintain the public trust. The preamble is as follows:
“Public trust in the integrity and ethical behavior of scholars is essential if research and other scholarly activities are to play their proper role in the University and in society. The maintenance of high ethical standards is a central and critical responsibility of faculty and administrators of academic institutions. Policy AD-47 sets forth statements of general standards of professional ethics within the academic community.”
Furthermore, the preamble speaks to the high ethical expectations that Penn State has for its faculty and administrators. These expectations are embodied in another document, Policy AD-47 General Standards of Professional Ethics. The purpose of AD-47 is stated as follows:
“To set forth statements of general standards of professional ethics to serve as a reminder of the variety of obligations assumed by all members of the academic community.”
The full document is publically available (see http://guru.psu.edu/policies/ad47.html). Here we will simply excerpt those parts of AD-47 that are most relevant to our finding and from which our decision on the allegation flowed.
I.
Professors, guided by a deep conviction of the worth and dignity of the advancement of knowledge, recognize the special responsibilities placed upon them. Their primary responsibility to their respective subjects is to seek and to state the truth as they see it. To this end, they devote their energies to developing and improving their scholarly competence. They accept the obligation to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge. They practice intellectual honesty. Although they may follow subsidiary interests, these interests must never seriously hamper or compromise their freedom of inquiry.
III.
As researchers/scholars, professors recognize that their goal is to discover, develop, and communicate new understanding. This goal is rarely achieved without making use of knowledge gained from others. Researchers must always
7 | P a g e
RA-10 Inquiry Report: Case of Dr. Michael E. Mann February 3, 2010
exercise gracious and appropriate recognition of published work in the literature, conversations with colleagues, and the efforts of students who work under the researchers’ guidance. They must be scrupulous in presentation of their own data; it must be verifiable as a result of the highest standards in data gathering techniques. They must be extremely careful in the use of data reported by others, especially if used in the formation of broad comparative or contradictory hypotheses, since they may not know of any compromising circumstances in such data gathering. They must be comprehensive in consideration of work with human subjects; they must have thoroughly researched all procedures, must have informed individuals involved of all aspects of their cooperation, and must report all responses accurately, both positive and negative results. As open-minded researchers, when evaluating the work of others, they must recognize the responsibility to allow publication of theories or experiments that may contradict their own findings, as only by free inquiry and dissemination of all facts will the fruits of the labor of the whole community be allowed to mature.
IV.
As colleagues, professors have obligations that derive from common membership in the community of scholars. They respect and defend the free inquiry of their associates. In the exchange of criticism and ideas they show due respect for the opinions of others. They acknowledge their academic debts and strive to be objective in their professional judgment of colleagues. They accept their share of faculty responsibilities for the governance of their institution.
VI.
As members of the community, professors have the rights and obligations of all citizens. They measure the urgency of these obligations in the light of their responsibilities to their respective subjects, to their students, to their profession, and to their institution. When they speak or act as private persons they avoid creating the impression that they speak or act for their respective colleges or the University. As citizens engaged in a profession that depends upon freedom for its health and integrity, professors have a particular obligation to promote conditions of free inquiry and to further public understanding of academic freedom.
It is clear to those who have followed the media and blogs over the last two months that there are two distinct and deeply polarized points of view that have emerged on this matter. One side views the emails as evidence of a clear cut violation of the public trust and seeks severe penalties for Dr. Mann and his colleagues. The other side sees these as nothing more than the private discussions of scientists engaged in a hotly debated topic of enormous social impact.
We are aware that some may seek to use the debate over Dr. Mann’s research conduct and that of his colleagues as a proxy for the larger and more substantive debate over the science of anthropogenic global warming and its societal (political and economic) ramifications. We have kept the two debates separate by only considering Dr. Mann’s conduct.
8 | P a g e
RA-10 Inquiry Report: Case of Dr. Michael E. Mann February 3, 2010
The allegation inquires about whether Dr. Mann seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities. In 2006, similar questions were asked about Dr. Mann and these questions motivated the National Academy of Sciences to undertake an in depth investigation of his research. The committee that wrote the report on surface temperature reconstructions found that Dr. Mann’s science did fall well within the bounds of accepted practice. What has changed since that time is that private emails have come to our attention and that of the public at large, and these give us a glimpse into the behind the scenes workings of Dr. Mann and many of his colleagues in the conduct of their science.
Decision 4. Given that information emerged in the form of the emails purloined from CRU in November 2009, which have raised questions in the public’s mind about Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research activity, given that this may be undermining confidence in his findings as a scientist, and given that it may be undermining public trust in science in general and climate science specifically, the inquiry committee believes an investigatory committee of faculty peers from diverse fields should be constituted under RA-10 to further consider this allegation.
In sum, the overriding sentiment of this committee, which is composed of University administrators, is that allegation #4 revolves around the question of accepted faculty conduct surrounding scientific discourse and thus merits a review by a committee of faculty scientists. Only with such a review will the academic community and other interested parties likely feel that Penn State has discharged it responsibility on this matter.
An investigatory committee of faculty members with impeccable credentials will consider this matter and present its findings and recommendations to Dr. Henry C. Foley within 120 days of being charged. The committee will consist of the following five faculty members:
1.
Dr. Mary Jane Irwin, Evan Pugh Professor, Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering;
2.
Dr. Alan Walker, Evan Pugh Professor, Department of Anthropology and Department of Biology;
3.
Dr. A. Welford Castleman, Evan Pugh Professor, Department of Chemistry and Department of Physic;
4.
Dr. Nina G. Jablonski, Head, Department of Anthropology; and
5.
Dr. Sarah M. Assmann, Waller Professor, Department of Biology.
Ms. Candice Yekel, as Director of the Office for Research Protections and as the University’s Research Integrity Officer, will provide administrative support and assistance to the committee.
The investigatory committee’s charge will be to consider what are the bounds of accepted practice in this instance and whether or not Dr. Mann did indeed engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the
9 | P a g e
RA-10 Inquiry Report: Case of Dr. Michael E. Mann February 3, 2010
10 | P a g e
academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities.
In accordance with policy RA-10, Dr. Mann will receive a printed copy of this inquiry report, and he will be welcome to provide written comment on this report for the record if he wishes.
Mark, just follow the discussions on conservative blogs–and you’ll see all the discrediting going on You can check their credentials and links and scrutinize their arguments.
But, like the myth of the great American novel, don’t think it’s just gonna be one man who brings this edifice down. Like the effect of time on a jury-rigged building, little pushes here and there will slowly bring it down.
Mark W awsays
to John in Dublin CA. who is the RFK?
first of all, this is not called Virginia Warming.
so…what are the temperatures at the two poles now? what were they ten year ago , what were they 100 years ago. Is the ice melting? What about Switzerland, do you know where that is? What is happening in the sub-Saharan desserts? How about Borneo? and is the climate stable in South America? What about those deadly heat waves in Europe a few years ago? and the American south-west, how is that doing? What about Greenland? What is happening in the middle east? How about the far east? What about California? Any weird stuff going on over there?
Have you heard about the water wars that are already starting in the US? What about Egypt and Libya? Have you noticed that we sure seem to be having a lot of hurricanes? How many bad ones were there ten years ago, 50 years ago? 200 years ago? Do you know? it is more complicated than Reston Virginia. Really it is . But, just for fun, do you know the average temperature of Reston over the last couple hundred years? How much snow do they usually get? Will this snow last or will it melt very fast?
Ottersays
Mark W aw~ I am getting ready for work right now (6:09 am) and haven’t the time to accurately answer your questions, which you will find are NOT the answers you think they are. However I do have a question, which tano seems to be avoiding:
The Midieval Warm Period was warmer than today. Yet michael mann’s hockey stick temperature chart- prominently featured in several IPCC reports, and VERY different from the chart in the first IPCC report- does not show it, nor does it show the Little Ice Age, which was several degrees colder than today.
Could you explain why this is?
While you are doing that, I will work on your questions.
Keep in mind that water takes a LOT longer to warm than land, and that the warmer differential of ocean temps in the last thirty years is due to shifting water currents that circulate warm water pockets to the surface, vs the ocean being warmed by increased air temps.
Mark W awsays
No. I am not going to explain anything. Why? Because my background in that field is very limited. My background in many fields is limited.
When I want answers to medical question, I go to a doctor. If the problem is very important I go to a specialist, not my next door neighbors or people who have never gone to medical school. And if the majority of world specialists thought one thing, and a few others thought something else about a condition I or a loved one had, I would give a lot of weight to the conclusions of the majority.
If five very good mechanics told me that there was something dangerously wrong with my car, and one told me not to worry about it, I’d go with the five mechanics and I wouldn’t ask my next door neighbor.
If a number of inspectors told me that there was a dangerous structural problem in my home that needed to be addressed immediately, and one told me it was fine. I would take the advice of the majority very seriously.
If a number of tree specialists came to my home and each concluded separately that my beautiful oak trees were infected with a disease that would kill them all unless they were treated, and a couple other guys told me not to worry. I would give more weight to the majority.
If the weather report says that a hurricane is coming, I am not going to surf the internet until I find a site that says that there won’t be a hurricane, just so that I can go fishing.
In every one of these cases, the qualifications of the experts, and the number of them in independent agreement, coupled with the severity of the potential consequences would almost always sway me to believe them.
It is not necessary for me to have studied medicine, car mechanics or be an arborist in order to make an intelligent decision.
Now, I see that you write as if you are a climatologist. What is your background in the field?
The 4th IPCC report was produced by 620 authors from 40 countries. It states:
• “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”
• “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Footnote 6 on page 3 of the summary indicate very likely and likely mean “the assessed likelihood, using expert judgment”, are over 90% and 66% respectively.
And who agrees with the report?
Various scientific bodies have issued official statements praising the IPCC and endorsing their findings.
• Joint science academies’ statement-2001
• Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• European Geosciences Union
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US)
• National Research Council (US)
• Network of African Science Academies
• Royal Meteorological Society
• Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
The most authoritative assessment of climate change in the near future is provided by the Inter-Governmental Panel for Climate Change
With regard to the hockey stick controversy, it has been investigated:
Given that each of the criticisms of MBH98 raised by MM (McIntyre and McKitrick)are demonstrably false, one might well be led to wonder how MM, using the MBH98 method and their putative ‘corrected’ version of the MBH98 proxy dataset, were able to obtain a reconstruction so at odds with the MBH98 reconstruction and virtually all existing reconstructions (in particular, in its apparent indication of anomalous 15th century warmth). Rather than ‘correcting’ the MBH98 proxy data set, we demonstrate that the reconstruction of MM resulted, instead, from their selective censoring of key indicators from the MBH98 proxy dataset. Indeed, we are able to reproduce the MM reconstruction of anomalous 15th century warmth when the entire ITRDB North American data set (and the ‘Queen Anne’ series) are censored from the proxy network (Figure 4). These data (in fact, 70% of all of the proxy data used by MBH98 prior to AD 1600) were unjustifiably censored from the MBH98 dataset by McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) in their original analysis (see Jones and Mann, 2004, and Rutherford et al, 2004 for a discussion). MM in their more recent rejected submission to Nature, instead filtered out the ‘hockey stick’ pattern of low-frequency variability in the North American ITRDB data through the incorrect PCA truncation described above, which censors this pattern by retaining too few Principal Components series in the data. As discussed above, the MBH98 reconstruction and the variants of the reconstruction (i.e., Figures 2 and 3) that address the various spurious criticisms raised by MM, each pass statistical verification. In stark contrast, our reproduction of the MM reconstruction demonstrates that their reconstruction dramatically fails statistical verification (see Figure 5) with an RE score ( -0.76) that is statistically indistinguishable from the results expected for a purely random estimate (as a reminder, RE<0 exhibits no skill, and RE= -1 is the average value expected for a purely random estimate). In short, the supposed ‘correction’ of MBH98 by MM is seen to represent little more than a statistically meaningless, botched application of the MBH98 procedure that relies upon censoring key indicators from the MHB98 proxy data set.
The_Livewiresays
So let me get this straight. Mark W’s answer to the arguement “The IPCC is flawed and full of holes you could drive a pack of polar bears through.” is to cite the IPCC as proof the IPCC is valid?
Ottersays
Nice of you to quote the frauds who helped hide the decline, to explain the missing MWP.
Too bad for your side: the MWP Happened. So did the Roman Warm Period. So did the Climate Optimum. So did the Little Ice Age.
And so is this Natural cycle of global warming, and the cooling phase we are now entering.
Given that each of the criticisms of MBH98 raised by MM (McIntyre and McKitrick)are demonstrably false,
Really? It would have been nice to have provided the source of that assertion, which is Michael Mann @ RealClimate – not exactly a neutral observer in this debate. The fact that you’ve just copied and paste this suggests that you’ve spent little time actually looking into this issue and are just parroting the party line. You might want to read the Wegman Report for a little more clarity. It reads:
* MBH98 and MBH99 were found to be “somewhat obscure and incomplete” and the criticisms by McIntyre and McKitrick were found to be “valid and compelling.”
* The report claimed that the MBH method creates a hockey-stick shape even when supplied with random input data (Figure 4.4), and argues that the MBH method uses weather station data from 1902 to 1995 as a basis for calibrating other input data. “It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the MBH paper. The net effect of the decentering is to preferentially choose the so-called hockey stick shapes.” (Section 4)
* The report found that MBH method creates a PC1 statistic dominated by bristlecone and foxtail pine tree ring series (closely related species). However there is evidence in the literature, that the use of the bristlecone pine series as a temperature proxy may not be valid (suppressing “warm period” in the hockey stick handle); and that bristlecones do exhibit CO2-fertilized growth over the last 150 years (enhancing warming in the hockey stick blade).
* It is noted that there is no evidence that Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.
* A social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction is described of at least 43 authors with direct ties to Mann by virtue of having coauthored papers with him. The findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. Dr. Wegman stated this was a “hypothesis”, and “should be taken with a grain of salt.”[45]
* Many of the same proxies are reused in most of the “independent studies” so these “cannot really claim to be independent verifications.”[46]
* It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though its members rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to interact with the statistical community. Additionally, the Wegman team judged that the sharing of research materials, data, and results was done haphazardly and begrudgingly.
* Overall, the committee believes that Mann’s assessments, that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium, cannot be supported by his analysis.
Yes, I got that summary from Wiki (I’m pressed for time) but it gives a good list of the problems with MBH.
Here is a BIG problem. Sure more pro-AGW peer reviewed papers are published than non. But that’s going to happen when you apply undue influence on the peer review process in order to maintain your dominant position in the scientific community. Here is Mann, concerned that JRL is publishing a paper that goes against the dogma. Here is the result – the editor who “allowed” the paper to go through is ousted. I provide more detail Here.
Let’s say you think NASA is making this up, and let’s say you are right. WOW, now THAT’S something to worry about, isn’t it? NASA was, once upon a time, considered to be one of the jewels in the crown of American science. They put a man on the moon. We were #1! If they are lying, then we should be ashamed of them, shouldn’t we? Eventually the will be exposed. If they, or other prominent scientists are lying for a few bucks of grant money, then that means many of our great American scientists are frauds.
Everyone is in agreement that the future of America is directly related to our progress in the fields of science. If so many of our prestigious scientists are either lying or are stupid (which is what they would have to be if this is a hoax) then this is much more serious than global warming. It means that our standing in the international scientific community will plummet. America will no longer be the leader but the loser. Is that what you believe?
And if this science is false, who will prove it false? Will it be a great Chinese organization, or will it come from India? Perhaps it will be French scientists. Will it be he Germans? Won’t America look ridiculous? Don’t you think the Chinese scientists would LOVE to prove the Americans wrong? They would be heroes in their country. What about the French? Wouldn’t they like to gloat about this to the international community: “Prominent Americans scientists proven wrong by the French Academy of Science.” After all they tried to tell us there were no WWDs in Iraq but we wouldn’t listen.
So, who do you want to come out with the definitive research proving that global warming is a myth? What country are you rooting for to make the definitive report?
Everyone is in agreement that the future of America is directly related to our progress in the fields of science.
Followed by:
So, who do you want to come out with the definitive research proving that global warming is a myth? What country are you rooting for to make the definitive report?
So let’s see; Mark and his fellow AGW cultists are insisting that we must cover up scientific failures and make results look right for the glory of the State.
I have two words for that: “Trofim Lysenko”.
The_Livewiresays
Shorter Mark: Our scientists have been lying for grant money and to curtail our economy. *sniff* For the first time, I am proud of my country.
Mark W awsays
Cult???
I guess you have never met real scientists, have you? In order to become “somebody” in their world, one has to do or find something different. The big positions, the big grants, the big fame, the Big Awards are not given to the people who parrot the works of others. The fame and glory (albeit sometimes relative) goes to the person who discovers something new. The rivalry and pettiness among them cannot be underestimated.
There is no power advantage to blindly agreeing with everyone else. Quite the contrary. “Publish or perish” in the academic world. And it better be good because all eyes are on you. Someone can become famous for proving you wrong.
Contrast this with the way some political parties operate. When a group votes and speaks in lockstep, rather than as individuals, the party gains powers, but the individuals in the party are castrated. They are like eunuchs in the harem protecting the wives of the sultan. They may look and act ferocious, they perform a great service, they live in the Palace, but they are kept around because of what they can’t do! Every time the party silences dissent, I hear the snip-snip of the scissors. The party does not want men with brains and balls, they want foot soldiers who never contradict. Those who contradict will (and do!) lose the support of the party. Actually, that sounds rather cult-like, doesn’t it?
The world of science is not a cult, or one big happy family; it is a world of thousand of rival kingdoms and fiefdoms and tyrants and egos fighting for position. In the world of science, the man or woman who never contradicts or challeges will disappear into obscurity. That person will lose his grants, lose his position, lose his prestige and, in the case of a major university position, never get tenure.
Doe you realize that the person who can disprove global warming with most certainly get a Noble Prize? The little “David” who can knock down the Goliath of what you think is a cult will be Rambo, Einstein and George Clooney wrapped in one! So far Goliath has gotten his toes scratched and a few bruises that are barely noticeable.
Be careful what you wish for. Many prestigious American scientists and scientific organizations will come tumbling down like a house of cards if this is a hoax, right? If this is a hoax, the lies, the deceits, the manipulation of data, the funding…all of this will eventually come to light. If this hoax is exposed by a group from another country, what will the international headlines say about us? If the hoax is exposed by an American, then the world will say that America has SAVED THE DAY!!! My point is that we should pray that little David is American.
BTW: as far as Trofim Lysenko is concerned, North Dallas Thirty has missed my point completely (perhaps he got too excited watching the game?) This is a global issue, not local. It was possible to control the press in the USSR, it is not possible to control the international press or to control the sharing of information in the international world of science. It just isn’t.
There is no power advantage to blindly agreeing with everyone else. Quite the contrary. “Publish or perish” in the academic world. And it better be good because all eyes are on you. Someone can become famous for proving you wrong.
So, why go to all the trouble to hide the decline, use “tricks” to bolster your ideas, and obfuscate the code and methodologies that you’ve built your scientific consensus on? I’ve been following this debate intently since 1992, and unlike some here, I don’t buy the “grand conspiracy” theory. However, what is very likely is that the leaders of the field of climate science let their passions for their work, and their certainty that they are right, cloud their judgment on how to behave in the scientific realm, thus they gave their stamp of approval on exaggerating and lying about the effects of global warming, and are paying the price now for the implementation of that policy.
Note to self – remember to close the blockquotes blockhead!
Mark W awsays
Important papers have to be peer reviewed before they are considered worthy of serious consideration in the scientific community. Then, other scientists look at it and test the calculations and hypothesis. This research has been going on for many years now, there are quibbles about details, but where is the great proof that this is a hoax? It does not exist. How many independent scientists do you need to convince you? 600? 6000? Seriously, what documentation would you need to convince you? You can give the example of one or two papers that may have flaws, but you forget that this science is not based on one or two papers. It is based on countless calculations and methods. Thousands of papers, no? How many papers are in question?
And what scientists are, as you say, “paying the price”? There have been accusations that look, on the surface, that there have been wrongdoings, until it gets seriously investigated (see report above). So who has been chastised or disgraced by the scientific community for falsifying data? What major premise has been overturned?
PS to Livewire: “Lying for grant money”, eh? If you are right, then they will be discovered. If they work for a big university it will be a huge and embarrassing blow to the department and the institution. So what will happen to these liars? The scientist who has been found guilty of falsifying data will be a pariah and will be dismissed or asked to resign. Why would anyone take that risk?
As far as scientists wanting to “curtail the economy” boy, that’s a new one to me! When the economy is bustling more money rolls in for projects. When the economy is down, belts are tightened and grants dry up. Fewer grants mean more competition and more stringent rules for the few dollars around. Why would they want that?
Mark, you do realize that peer review, as practiced today, is a pretty new concept, and has been practiced as such for only about 30 years or so. Einsteins theory of relativity was peer review, but not behind journal walls, but out in the open. It was published, then open to challenge by all comers. There are a few out there who are still working to try and disprove it. The problem with the current system is that the peers, though anonymous, appear to be chosen more on their preferred views of the science being reviewed, than on the concept of being truly critical and dissecting it to find errors. Thus, as this Guardian article that just came out notes, the peer review process devolved into a tribal organism instead of a critical one. It became, in essence, yet another all boys club, but instead of being restrictive in gender, they were restrictive based on scientific orthodoxy. As is demonstrated in the Climategate emails, here, and here, in Climate Science, “peer reviewed” means that the literature is reviewed, but if it doesn’t conform to the political consensus, then it’s rejected, even if it’s right.
Ooops, here is the Guardian article, and one of the links I forgot to add. I need to stop being in such a hurry.
Mark W awsays
I’ll re-read the guardian article later tonight . but what you are saying is that the science that brought us the spaceships and drones, miracles in modern medicine , and electronics, computers, internet and satellites , wireless communication and even the GPS you may be using is rubbish, right?
The man who can disprove global warming will be the most famous man on earth. So where is he? Where is that information? Who are you, personally, placing your bets on? What’s his name? How close has he gotten to breaking this? Where is the guy with the real statistics?
but what you are saying is that the science that brought us the spaceships and drones, miracles in modern medicine , and electronics, computers, internet and satellites , wireless communication and even the GPS you may be using is rubbish, right?
What are you talking about? Where in my previous comment do I ever hint at that. What you are doing is presenting a false dichotomy – if I don’t agree with all of the science or the way it has been conducted, then I am automatically against all science. You have no basis to make that accusation. In fact, if you would kindly read my first comment on this tread, your assertion above looks pretty foolish.
PS. Though I don’t have my degree in the field, I was a geology major in college, specializing in seismology… before calc killed the dream. Just curious, what is your background?
Mark W awsays
Sonisfrog. You sent me to this site about a comment the Andrew Lacis made objecting to wording of an Executive Summary, but not the report, itself,right? He does not say that the FINDINGS and the SCIENCE of the report were wrong. Do you know what an Executive Summary is? It is not the same as the abstract. And if you are going to quote Lacis, isn’t he the guy who wrote this abstract below? He says things like ” the consequence of global warming are clear and impending.”
Geoengineering: Plan B Remedy for Global Warming
Andrew A. Lacis
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Accelerated melting of Greenland ice is a clear indication that consequences of global warming are real and impending. The underlying causes of global warming are well enough understood, but the necessary reduction of greenhouse gases to prevent irreversible climate change is unlikely to happen before the point of no return is reached. To reverse the impending sea level rise, geoengineering countermeasures may be required to counter the current global energy imbalance due to global warming. Of the many proposed remedies, deploying aerosols within the stratosphere offers realistic prospects. Sulfur injections in the lower stratosphere would have the cooling effect of naturally occurring volcanic aerosols. Soot at 40-50 km would be more efficient in cooling the ground surface, but at the cost of heating up the middle atmosphere. Should serious action ever be taken to combat global warming, then all options, including reduction of the greenhouse gases, will need to be fully considered and evaluated for their feasibility, environmental impact, and economic cost. Geoengineering countermeasures are clearly not a cure for the global warming problem, but they may buy time while atmospheric greenhouse gases are brought under control into a sustainable long-term equilibrium.
Mark W awsays
ok I read the Guardian article. here is my favorite paragraph:
The Daily Express ran a long story headlined: “100 reasons why global warming is natural”. It said the list came from a “dossier” issued by the European Foundation, a UK-based right-wing group that campaigns mostly against European integration. But two months on, the dossier has not been published. Most of the hundred reasons were either meaningless or scientific nonsense, according to New Scientist magazine, which gave up after debunking the first 50.
Here is a perfect example of what I have been saying: Guys you say you have a 100 reasons…so ( to quote George W. Bush) ” Bring ’em on!”
On pt 41. Yes I know what the difference between the Executive Summary and the actual report is… duh. Yet, as it turns out the flaws pointed out by Lacis of the summary in question actually reflects the “science” in large parts contained in the AR4. More and more of the contents of that whole chapter are found to be not peer reviewed and authored by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. Insert WWF or whatever extremist environmentalist group that also provided the scaremongering materials.
On your comment #42 – On the Guardian article. Note how you don’t address the meat of the article concerning the state of the peer review process and automatically go to the silly parts. AND I’m not sure that using research from New Scientist, you know, the source that provided the material that has gotten the IPCC into so much hot water is a good idea. NS is not a bad magazine per-se, but has themselves publish a few doozies now and again.
Mark W awsays
The links for the controversies that you have are not that persuasive.
The first “controversy” was brought up by a science FICTION writer, not a scientist. “Egan is a famously reclusive author when it comes to public appearances, he doesn’t attend science fiction conventions, doesn’t sign books and there are no photos available of him on the web. He has bachelor’s degree in mathematics. WIKI
Controversy #2 centered on the COVER of the magazine that scientists found to sensationalist: “Darwin is Wrong”. “The actual STORY stated that specific details of Darwin’s evolution theory had been shown wrong, mainly the shape of phylogenetic trees of interrelated species.” The “controversy” was that real scientists were worried that the COVER of the magazine would fuel the nut cases who don’t believe in evolution but prefer the idea of “intelligent design”.
The science was not called into question (at least according to the link you sent).
The third controversy seems more complex and it appears that New Science has some explaining to do. Hasnian says he was misquoted. Perhaps they will explain in the next issue. But let’s look at how “off” they were. And let’s see if this really changes anything.
In response to the quote, Hasnain says, “I have not made any prediction on date as I am not an astrologer but I did say they were shrinking fast.”
The scientist, Dr. Syed Hasnain, a glacier specialist …..said in an e-mail message that he was “misquoted” about the 2035 estimate in The New Scientist article. He has more recently said that his research suggests that only small glaciers could disappear entirely.
But
“The Himalayan glaciers will not disappear by 2035 — that is an overstatement,” said Dr. Bodo Bookhagen, an assistant professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara who studies the effect of climate change at high altitudes….. “Still, he added: “It is very clear that there is glacier retreat and that it has devastating impact.”
At an international conference last year on Asia’s glaciers, held at the University of California, San Diego, Yao Tandong, a Chinese glaciologist who specializes in the Tibetan Plateau, said, “Studies indicate that by 2030 another 30 percent will disappear; by 2050, 40 percent; and by the end of the century 70 percent.” He added: “Actually we don’t know much about process and impacts of the disappearance. That’s why we need an international effort.”
So how fast is fast? And where are the prominent scientists saying, “No the glaciers are not melting?” Now that would be a good controversy. For instance, “Prominent scientist disagree that glaciers are melting.” But that isn’t in question and that isn’t the controversy. Hasnain says that small glaciers could disappear entirely. That doesn’t really help clarify much because I don’t know what a small glacier is (as opposed to a medium sized one or a big glacier.) So I looked it up.
I guess you don’t believe in the National Geographic either, eh? Because in this 2007 issue here is what they have to say:
“The rapid melt of small glaciers and mountain ice caps will be the main source of sea level rise over the next century, according to a new study.’
The research, led by Mark Meier of the University of Colorado at Boulder, also suggests that sea levels could rise more during the 21st century than had previously been thought.”
“….But it’s a different story for smaller patches of ice. “
“Many of the glaciers are at or close to the melting point,” Meier said. These glaciers, and also ice caps at high latitudes (closer to the Poles), are individually much smaller than the big ice sheets.
“Factoring in the additional, gradual thaw of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, Meier and colleagues estimated that sea levels could rise as much as 22 inches (56 centimeters) by 2100 due to ice melt alone.”
“This forecast is worse than the worst-case forecast in the report issued this year by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which reflects the scientific consensus on global warming.”
The researchers are “right on the mark with their discussion of tidewater glacier instability,” said Richard Williams, a glacier expert with the United States Geological Survey.
Kevin Trenberth, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, says he’s skeptical about the new study’s predictions, in part because some glaciers will disappear completely over the coming century.
“They don’t take that into account properly,” Trenberth said. “But yes, I think sea levels will rise more than IPCC suggests.”
_——————————————————————————————————-
What?? “Will rise MORE than the IPCC suggests?”
So please, where are the studies that say the small or the large glaciers are not melting? This “controversy” is about the date, right? And it has been clarified. The controversy (at least from what you state) is not about the fact that the glaciers are melting and that the see levels are rising because of it.
Come on…get some kick-ass, peer –reviewed scientific studies that disprove some of the important data. Right now, this is swatting flies.
So who are some of the famous folk who believe this is a hoax? Well Senator Inhofe, for one. You know, the guy who “is in favor of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, against adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes, and voted against prohibiting job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Inhofe’s office has said he “does not hire openly gay staffers due to the possibility of a conflict of agenda.” He is the God, guns and Gays, man. I assume you must be gay if you are reading this blog, so even if you are with him about global warming, he would not hire you because you are gay.
He also said “I’m really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we’ve never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship.” (I guess he must be ashamed that Ronald Regan was a divorced man, eh?)
Oh yeah, he also is the guy who, in March 2002, made a speech before the U.S. Senate “that included the explicit suggestion that the 9/11 attacks were a form of divine retribution against the U.S. for failing to defend Israel.” Divine retribution, eh?
And he is the man who,
“In the 2008 election cycle, Senator Inhofe’s largest campaign donors represented the oil and gas ($446,900 in donations),
leadership pacs ($316,720)
and electric utilities ($221,654) industries/categories.
In 2010, his largest donors represented the oil and gas ($429,950) and electric utilities ($206,654).
While he acknowledged that scientists are unable to predict its consequences, Mayor Bloomberg yesterday compared the scourge of global warming to the threat of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Although it is a “long-term” fight, he said, reducing gas emissions may save the life of “everybody” on the planet, the same way that fighting terrorism and its proliferation saves lives in shorter terms.
But on the other hand: “I will clean up the planet,” McCain said. “I will make global warming a priority.” Uh…if it is a hoax, then what is he talking about?
Declaring climate change to be an indisputable threat, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger unveiled a plan to combat global warming by setting goals for reducing California’s emissions of greenhouse gases.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, insisting he is “100 percent committed” to running for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, wooed Silicon Valley’s tech leaders Monday — saying he “definitely” believes in global warming, praising Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for being a “progressive” leader on the environment and calling for immigration policies that welcome “people who make contributions” to America’s economy.
Mike Huckabee:
For one thing, I’m one of the few people who’s actually talked about the fact that as Republicans we have done a lousy job of presenting the case for conservation. We ought to be the leaders, but unfortunately we’ve been the last people speaking out on conservation.
Not only as a Republican, but as a Christian it’s important to me to say to my fellow believers, “Look, if anybody ought to be leading on this issue, it ought to be us.” We can’t justify destroying a planet that doesn’t belong to us, and if we believe that God did create this world for our pleasure and wants us to enjoy it, then all the more reason that we should take care of it
🙂
And here’s the latest…. AfricaGate.
And the hits just keep on coming.
Again, none of this disproves the notion of AGW. But it does certainly reduce the need to siphon trillions of dollars (it used to be billions) in order to “save the planet”.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/RFK-79834057.html
Still waiting for tano to explain how the Midieval Warm Period never happened, according to Meltdown-mann’s research.
I always wondered why liberals didn’t stop using A/C, toilet paper, start walking instead of driving. They knew all along global warming climate change was a lie.
Obama and the Democrats are very worried about unemployment, health care for every American, and global warming.
They won’t rest until the country is on firm footing and employment is heading in the right direction…….well maybe…..
http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/02/05/obama-throws-super-bowl-party-at-the-white-house/
If the idea of global warming is collapsing, what major scientists have made an about-face?
Reading the Guardian article cited:
Alan Thorpe, chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council, the biggest funder of climate science in the UK, said: “We should only be dealing with peer-reviewed literature. We open ourselves up to trouble if we start getting into hearsay and grey literature. We have enough research that has been peer-reviewed to provide evidence for climate change, so it is concerning that the IPCC has strayed from that.”
Professor Bob Watson, who chaired the IPCC before Dr Pachauri and is now chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, insisted that despite the errors there was little doubt that human-induced climate change was a reality.
“It is concerning that these mistakes have appeared in the IPCC report, but there is no doubt the earth’s climate is changing and the only way we can explain those changes is primarily human activity,” he said.
From NASA’s website: “Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800’s. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth’s surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.”
“A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun’s energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.”
Youexpect the same scientists who have been fudging data, taking govenments millions to “study” global warming to now fessup and say it is “all a fraud, here’s your money back?”
Only fools would expect that.
uh scientists from all over the world, in every country, coming up with pretty much the same conclusions. How many scientists are we talking about here? How many different countries? Seriously, how many different countries are on board with this?
How many scientists, universities, how many doctoral students and students working on their masters degree are reviewing this daily? If someone could prove really prove that this was a hoax, this guy would be famous and RICH overnight. He or she would be on every TV and radio show in the country , would write books and articles and become a world hero, “Yeah! the world is NOT warming!!!” He could get a job anywhere for any price.
This person would be the toast of the town. So where is this guy? The data is out there.
All we get are little drips and drabs that something may have been exaggerated or not sufficiently studied.
How many scientists, universities, how many doctoral students and students working on their masters degree are reviewing this daily?
I think this article summarizes the problem with that “logic” nicely.
British Climate Research Unit (CRU) chief Phil Jones to Penn State climatologist Michael Mann, of Hockey Stick infamy: “Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report and Briffa’s suspect tree-ring data]. Keith will do likewise.”
Jones to Mann: “If they [Canadian researchers Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre] ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.” Jones subsequently “lost” all the original, raw temperature that had been entrusted to the CRU’s care.
(These actions appear intended to avoid Freedom of Information inquiries. Jones had previously told a researcher, “Why should I make the data available, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” Drs. J&M, that’s the scientific method – to ensure that research and experiments are honest, accurate and replicable. Deleting files and data also raises serious ethical, scientific and legal issues.)
Jones: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth, lead author of two IPCC reports] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” (Thereby excluding non-alarmist peer-reviewed papers and skewing the IPCC process.)
Jones: “I’ve just completed Mike [Mann’s] trick of adding in the real temps to each series, to hide the decline [in average global temperatures].…” (Maintain a warming trend, despite contrary evidence.)
Climate scientist Tom Wigley to Mann: “If you think [Yale Professor and Geophysical Research Letters editor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.” (The American Geophysical Union has likewise gotten into the censorship, intimidation, climate alarm and money train business.)
So let’s see; delete the data for review, manipulate what you send, block the peer-review process, and force anyone who disagrees with you out.
Now which one of those is “science”, Mark W aw?
7: Great. When they release their data for everyone to pick through, as REAL science is conducted, then we can talk. Until then, AGW remains the same overhyped BS it gives every appearance of being. Oh btw, this includes NASA which has yet to provide everything too.
um, Mark W, hate to tell you this, but that’s what scientists and bloggers are doing little by little, bit by bit, proving this is a hoax.
Don’t know though that there are as many millions to be made in this as there are in the hoax itself.
My cousin in Reston Virgina just finished clearing 31 inches of global warming from her driveway in a place the RFK Jr said 15 months ago was never going to see snow and cold again. And this is the second time this year. Frankly, Mark W. when people like you and Al Gore start living like you really believe your garbage then I might begin to consider it.
Where’s Tano on this subject? Maybe she hasn’t read the news on this scandal since 2007.
And that is my point, the “little by little” which, by the way is not being disproved, just questioned. You seem to think that all these countries in the world believe in man-made climate change because of a few facts here and there. The skeptics you cite are quibbling with a little bit of this and a little bit of that. Scientists looking at staggering amounts of data. Do you understand that? This is not a thermometer reading or two in a couple of cities.
By the way, how many emails were hacked? 10? 50? 1000? 10,000? Have you ever seen transcript of the all the emails? Does it exist? What was the response to these emails? What did the people finally decide to do? What makes you sure that the emails were not edited?
So let’s say this is a scam. Let us pretend that all these scientists are making this up to get grants. So, what is going to happen to them when one of your guys PROVES that they are wrong? They will be disgraced, right? They will lose important positions and respect. All their work, their life work, could be called in question. Are there THAT many scientists willing to risk losing so much for a grant or two when they know their fraud will be discovered soon?
As I said before, the scientist who can take all the accumulated data and prove that this is hoax, will be a STAR! He or she will make more money than he ever dreamed of by exposing this world–wide deception. He will be like an Einstein and the world will be at his feet. And he will be vindicated!
So where is he?
Mark, the transcript of the e-mails exists. And the response to the e-mails is that Phil Jones considered suicide while Penn State is investigating Michael Mann.
And little by little that data is being shown to have been doctored. So, you read the skeptics. Maybe global warming is not being disproved, but gradually, it’s being shown that the supposed proving was based on bad data.
Which leads to the question–do you have to disprove something which can’t be proved?
from http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf?utm_source=headgrabs&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=20100203
you can read the whole thing at the above address rather than tiny sound bites.
RA-10 Inquiry Report: Case of Dr. Michael E. Mann February 3, 2010
2.
Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?
3.
Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar?
4.
Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities?
On November 29, 2009, Dr. Pell and Dr. Foley met with Dr. Mann to let him know personally that he was accused of research misconduct and that an inquiry under RA-10 would take place. On November 30, 2010, a letter was delivered by Dr. Pell to Dr. Mann to notify him formally of these allegations and Dr. Pell’s decision to conduct an inquiry under RA-10.
From November 30 to December 14, 2009, staff in the Office for Research Protections culled through approximately 1075 of the emails that were purloined from a server at the University of East Anglia. Emails were reviewed if they were sent by Dr. Mann, were sent to Dr. Mann, were copied to Dr. Mann, or discussed Dr. Mann (but were neither addressed nor copied to him). In summary, the following were found:
•
206 emails that contained a message/text from Dr. Mann somewhere in the chain;
•
92 emails that were received by Dr. Mann, but in which he did not write/participate in the discussion; and
•
79 that dealt with Dr. Mann, his work or publications; he neither authored nor was he copied on any of these.
From among these 377 emails, the inquiry committee focused on 47 emails that were deemed relevant. On December 17, 2009, the inquiry committee (Pell, Scaroni, Yekel), Dr. Brune and Dr. Foley met to review the emails, discuss the RA-10 inquiry process and go over what their respective activities would be. It was agreed that these individuals would meet again in early January and that they would use the time until that meeting to review the relevant information, including the above mentioned e-mails, journal articles, OP-ED columns, newspaper and magazine articles, the National Academy of Sciences report entitled “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years,” ISBN: 0-309-66144-7 and various blogs on the internet.
On January 4, 2010, Dr. Foley, in his capacity as the new Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School, became the convener of the inquiry committee as Dr. Pell had left the University to become the Under-Secretary of Science for the Smithsonian Institution. On January 8, 2010, Dr. Foley convened the inquiry committee to discuss their present thinking on the evidence presented in the emails and other publically available materials. At this meeting, it was decided that each committee member would send Dr. Foley specific questions that would be added to the four formal allegations and that would be used by the committee during the interview of Dr. Mann. These were compiled into one document. It was also decided that duringRA-10 Inquiry Report: Case of Dr. Michael E. Mann February 3, 2010
the upcoming interview of Dr. Mann, Dr. Foley would ask each of the initial questions with follow up questions coming from the other committee members, and he would moderate the interview.
On January 12, 2010, the inquiry committee (Foley, Yekel, Scaroni) and Dr. Brune met with Dr. Mann to interview him. Dr. Mann was asked to address the four allegations leveled against him and to provide answers to the fifteen additional questions that the committee had compiled. In an interview lasting nearly two hours, Dr. Mann addressed each of the questions and follow up questions. A recording was made of the meeting, and this recording was transcribed. The committee members asked occasional follow-up questions. Throughout the interview, Dr. Mann answered each question carefully:
•
He explained the content and meaning of the emails about which we inquired;
•
He explained that he had never falsified any data, nor had he had ever manipulated data to serve a given predetermined outcome;
•
He explained that he never used inappropriate influence in reviewing papers by other scientists who disagreed with the conclusions of his science;
•
He explained that he never deleted emails at the behest of any other scientist, specifically including Dr. Phil Jones, and that he never withheld data with the intention of obstructing science; and
•
He explained that he never engaged in activities or behaviors that were inconsistent with accepted academic practices.
On January 15, 2010, and on behalf of the inquiry committee, Dr. Foley conveyed via email an additional request of Dr. Mann, who was asked to produce all emails related to the fourth IPCC report (“AR4”), the same emails that Dr. Phil Jones had suggested that he delete.
On January 18, 2010, Dr. Mann provided a zip-archive of these emails and an explanation of their content. In addition, Dr. Mann provided a ten page supplemental written response to the matters discussed during his interview.
On January 22, 2010, the inquiry committee and Dr. Brune met again to review the evidence, including but not limited to Dr. Mann’s answers to the committee’s questions, both in the interview and in his subsequent submissions. All were impressed by Dr. Mann’s composure and his forthright responses to all of the queries that were asked of him. At this point, Dr. Foley reviewed the relevant points of his conversation with Dr. Gerald North, a professor at Texas A&M University and the first author of the NAS’ 2006 report on Dr. Mann’s research on paleoclimatology. Dr. Foley also relayed the sentiment and view of Dr. Donald Kennedy of Stanford University and the former editor of Science Magazine about the controversy currently swirling around Dr. Mann and some of his colleagues. Both were very supportive of Dr. Mann and of the credibility of his science. Once Dr. Brune had given his opinions and suggestions for next steps of the process, he was dismissed from further discussion as his role per policy RA-10 was that of providing consultation to the rest of the members; his role was not that of making a decision at the inquiry phase.
RA-10 Inquiry Report: Case of Dr. Michael E. Mann February 3, 2010
5 | P a g e
On January 26, 2010, Dr. Foley convened the inquiry committee along with University counsel, Mr. Wendell Courtney, Esq. in case issues of procedure arose.
After a careful review of all written material, and information obtained from the purloined emails, the interview of Dr. Mann, the supplemental materials provided by Dr. Mann and all the information from other sources, the committee found as follows with respect to each allegation:
Allegation 1: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data?
Finding 1. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data. While a perception has been created in the weeks after the CRU emails were made public that Dr. Mann has engaged in the suppression or falsification of data, there is no credible evidence that he ever did so, and certainly not while at Penn State. In fact to the contrary, in instances that have been focused upon by some as indicating falsification of data, for example in the use of a “trick” to manipulate the data, this is explained as a discussion among Dr. Jones and others including Dr. Mann about how best to put together a graph for a World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report. They were not falsifying data; they were trying to construct an understandable graph for those who were not experts in the field. The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field.
Decision 1. As there is no substance to this allegation, there is no basis for further examination of this allegation in the context of an investigation in the second phase of RA-10.
Allegation 2: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?
Finding 2. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data related to AR4, as suggested by Dr. Phil Jones. Dr. Mann has stated that he did not delete emails in response to Dr. Jones’ request. Further, Dr. Mann produced upon request a full archive of his emails in and around the time of the preparation of AR4. The archive contained e-mails related to AR4.
1 The word trick as used in this email has stirred some suspicion. However, trick is often used in context to describe a mathematical insight that solves the problem. For example, see in a classic text on quantum mechanics by David Parks: “The foregoing explanation of the velocity paradox involves no new assumptions; the basic trick, the representation of a modulated wave as the superposition of two (or more) unmodulated ones, has already been used to explain interference phenomena…” pg. 21, Introduction to Quantum Theory, David Parks, Third Edition, Dover 1992.
RA-10 Inquiry Report: Case of Dr. Michael E. Mann February 3, 2010
6 | P a g e
Decision 2. As there is no substance to this allegation, there is no basis for further examination of this allegation in the context of an investigation in the second phase of RA-10.
Allegation 3: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar?
Finding 3. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to him in his capacity as an academic scholar. In media reports and blogs about Dr. Mann and other paleoclimatologists, those who are named in the CRU email files are purported to have been engaged in conspiratorial discussions indicative of a misuse of privileged or confidential information. Although it is not clear where the exact accusation lies in this with respect to Dr. Mann, it is inferred that the emails prove the case. Those who have formed this view feel that, in their capacity as reviewers, Dr. Mann and his colleagues had early access to manuscripts from other authors with whom they disagreed, and that they could somehow act on those to reject them for publication. Actually, when one does due diligence on this matter, and asks about what papers were involved, one finds that enormous confusion has been caused by interpretations of the emails and their content. In some cases, the discussion and related debate centered on papers that were about to emerge which members of the purported conspiracy had written, but which were simply under embargo. In other cases, the discussion and related debate centered on papers that have emerged in otherwise notable scientific journals, which they deemed to have been published with a lower standard of scholarly and scientific scrutiny. The committee found no research misconduct in this. Science often involves different groups who have very different points of view, arguing for the intellectual dominance of their viewpoint, so that that viewpoint becomes the canonical one. We point to Kuhn2 as an authority on how science is done, before it is accepted as “settled.”
Decision 3. As there is no substance to this allegation, there is no basis for further examination of this allegation in the context of an investigation in the second phase of RA-10.
Allegation 4. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities?
Finding 4. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee could not make a definitive finding whether there exists any evidence to substantiate that Dr. Mann did engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for
2 Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962
RA-10 Inquiry Report: Case of Dr. Michael E. Mann February 3, 2010
proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities. It is the case that there has been a public outcry from some quarters that Dr. Mann and his colleagues did deviate from what some observers claim to be standard academic practice. All disciplines and scientific fields work within broad bounds of “accepted scientific” practice that apply to all researchers. However, within different disciplines of science there are additional elements of accepted practice that may be specific to those disciplines and therefore are different from those of other disciplines and fields. For example, accepted practices in a field of pure mathematics, such as number theory, may differ markedly from those in a field such as socio-biology. This is axiomatic. That said, the committee could not make a definitive finding on this allegation for reasons that follow.
Policy RA-10 speaks not just of research misconduct but also of research conduct and is explicit regarding the responsibility that we have as scientists to maintain the public trust. The preamble is as follows:
“Public trust in the integrity and ethical behavior of scholars is essential if research and other scholarly activities are to play their proper role in the University and in society. The maintenance of high ethical standards is a central and critical responsibility of faculty and administrators of academic institutions. Policy AD-47 sets forth statements of general standards of professional ethics within the academic community.”
Furthermore, the preamble speaks to the high ethical expectations that Penn State has for its faculty and administrators. These expectations are embodied in another document, Policy AD-47 General Standards of Professional Ethics. The purpose of AD-47 is stated as follows:
“To set forth statements of general standards of professional ethics to serve as a reminder of the variety of obligations assumed by all members of the academic community.”
The full document is publically available (see http://guru.psu.edu/policies/ad47.html). Here we will simply excerpt those parts of AD-47 that are most relevant to our finding and from which our decision on the allegation flowed.
I.
Professors, guided by a deep conviction of the worth and dignity of the advancement of knowledge, recognize the special responsibilities placed upon them. Their primary responsibility to their respective subjects is to seek and to state the truth as they see it. To this end, they devote their energies to developing and improving their scholarly competence. They accept the obligation to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge. They practice intellectual honesty. Although they may follow subsidiary interests, these interests must never seriously hamper or compromise their freedom of inquiry.
III.
As researchers/scholars, professors recognize that their goal is to discover, develop, and communicate new understanding. This goal is rarely achieved without making use of knowledge gained from others. Researchers must always
7 | P a g e
RA-10 Inquiry Report: Case of Dr. Michael E. Mann February 3, 2010
exercise gracious and appropriate recognition of published work in the literature, conversations with colleagues, and the efforts of students who work under the researchers’ guidance. They must be scrupulous in presentation of their own data; it must be verifiable as a result of the highest standards in data gathering techniques. They must be extremely careful in the use of data reported by others, especially if used in the formation of broad comparative or contradictory hypotheses, since they may not know of any compromising circumstances in such data gathering. They must be comprehensive in consideration of work with human subjects; they must have thoroughly researched all procedures, must have informed individuals involved of all aspects of their cooperation, and must report all responses accurately, both positive and negative results. As open-minded researchers, when evaluating the work of others, they must recognize the responsibility to allow publication of theories or experiments that may contradict their own findings, as only by free inquiry and dissemination of all facts will the fruits of the labor of the whole community be allowed to mature.
IV.
As colleagues, professors have obligations that derive from common membership in the community of scholars. They respect and defend the free inquiry of their associates. In the exchange of criticism and ideas they show due respect for the opinions of others. They acknowledge their academic debts and strive to be objective in their professional judgment of colleagues. They accept their share of faculty responsibilities for the governance of their institution.
VI.
As members of the community, professors have the rights and obligations of all citizens. They measure the urgency of these obligations in the light of their responsibilities to their respective subjects, to their students, to their profession, and to their institution. When they speak or act as private persons they avoid creating the impression that they speak or act for their respective colleges or the University. As citizens engaged in a profession that depends upon freedom for its health and integrity, professors have a particular obligation to promote conditions of free inquiry and to further public understanding of academic freedom.
It is clear to those who have followed the media and blogs over the last two months that there are two distinct and deeply polarized points of view that have emerged on this matter. One side views the emails as evidence of a clear cut violation of the public trust and seeks severe penalties for Dr. Mann and his colleagues. The other side sees these as nothing more than the private discussions of scientists engaged in a hotly debated topic of enormous social impact.
We are aware that some may seek to use the debate over Dr. Mann’s research conduct and that of his colleagues as a proxy for the larger and more substantive debate over the science of anthropogenic global warming and its societal (political and economic) ramifications. We have kept the two debates separate by only considering Dr. Mann’s conduct.
8 | P a g e
RA-10 Inquiry Report: Case of Dr. Michael E. Mann February 3, 2010
The allegation inquires about whether Dr. Mann seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities. In 2006, similar questions were asked about Dr. Mann and these questions motivated the National Academy of Sciences to undertake an in depth investigation of his research. The committee that wrote the report on surface temperature reconstructions found that Dr. Mann’s science did fall well within the bounds of accepted practice. What has changed since that time is that private emails have come to our attention and that of the public at large, and these give us a glimpse into the behind the scenes workings of Dr. Mann and many of his colleagues in the conduct of their science.
Decision 4. Given that information emerged in the form of the emails purloined from CRU in November 2009, which have raised questions in the public’s mind about Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research activity, given that this may be undermining confidence in his findings as a scientist, and given that it may be undermining public trust in science in general and climate science specifically, the inquiry committee believes an investigatory committee of faculty peers from diverse fields should be constituted under RA-10 to further consider this allegation.
In sum, the overriding sentiment of this committee, which is composed of University administrators, is that allegation #4 revolves around the question of accepted faculty conduct surrounding scientific discourse and thus merits a review by a committee of faculty scientists. Only with such a review will the academic community and other interested parties likely feel that Penn State has discharged it responsibility on this matter.
An investigatory committee of faculty members with impeccable credentials will consider this matter and present its findings and recommendations to Dr. Henry C. Foley within 120 days of being charged. The committee will consist of the following five faculty members:
1.
Dr. Mary Jane Irwin, Evan Pugh Professor, Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering;
2.
Dr. Alan Walker, Evan Pugh Professor, Department of Anthropology and Department of Biology;
3.
Dr. A. Welford Castleman, Evan Pugh Professor, Department of Chemistry and Department of Physic;
4.
Dr. Nina G. Jablonski, Head, Department of Anthropology; and
5.
Dr. Sarah M. Assmann, Waller Professor, Department of Biology.
Ms. Candice Yekel, as Director of the Office for Research Protections and as the University’s Research Integrity Officer, will provide administrative support and assistance to the committee.
The investigatory committee’s charge will be to consider what are the bounds of accepted practice in this instance and whether or not Dr. Mann did indeed engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the
9 | P a g e
RA-10 Inquiry Report: Case of Dr. Michael E. Mann February 3, 2010
10 | P a g e
academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities.
In accordance with policy RA-10, Dr. Mann will receive a printed copy of this inquiry report, and he will be welcome to provide written comment on this report for the record if he wishes.
Mark, just follow the discussions on conservative blogs–and you’ll see all the discrediting going on You can check their credentials and links and scrutinize their arguments.
But, like the myth of the great American novel, don’t think it’s just gonna be one man who brings this edifice down. Like the effect of time on a jury-rigged building, little pushes here and there will slowly bring it down.
to John in Dublin CA. who is the RFK?
first of all, this is not called Virginia Warming.
so…what are the temperatures at the two poles now? what were they ten year ago , what were they 100 years ago. Is the ice melting? What about Switzerland, do you know where that is? What is happening in the sub-Saharan desserts? How about Borneo? and is the climate stable in South America? What about those deadly heat waves in Europe a few years ago? and the American south-west, how is that doing? What about Greenland? What is happening in the middle east? How about the far east? What about California? Any weird stuff going on over there?
Have you heard about the water wars that are already starting in the US? What about Egypt and Libya? Have you noticed that we sure seem to be having a lot of hurricanes? How many bad ones were there ten years ago, 50 years ago? 200 years ago? Do you know? it is more complicated than Reston Virginia. Really it is . But, just for fun, do you know the average temperature of Reston over the last couple hundred years? How much snow do they usually get? Will this snow last or will it melt very fast?
Mark W aw~ I am getting ready for work right now (6:09 am) and haven’t the time to accurately answer your questions, which you will find are NOT the answers you think they are. However I do have a question, which tano seems to be avoiding:
The Midieval Warm Period was warmer than today. Yet michael mann’s hockey stick temperature chart- prominently featured in several IPCC reports, and VERY different from the chart in the first IPCC report- does not show it, nor does it show the Little Ice Age, which was several degrees colder than today.
Could you explain why this is?
While you are doing that, I will work on your questions.
Here one many missed and it’s also peer reviewed. 50% of the 30 year warming trend can be explained by ocean currents alone.
“Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.”
Keep in mind that water takes a LOT longer to warm than land, and that the warmer differential of ocean temps in the last thirty years is due to shifting water currents that circulate warm water pockets to the surface, vs the ocean being warmed by increased air temps.
No. I am not going to explain anything. Why? Because my background in that field is very limited. My background in many fields is limited.
When I want answers to medical question, I go to a doctor. If the problem is very important I go to a specialist, not my next door neighbors or people who have never gone to medical school. And if the majority of world specialists thought one thing, and a few others thought something else about a condition I or a loved one had, I would give a lot of weight to the conclusions of the majority.
If five very good mechanics told me that there was something dangerously wrong with my car, and one told me not to worry about it, I’d go with the five mechanics and I wouldn’t ask my next door neighbor.
If a number of inspectors told me that there was a dangerous structural problem in my home that needed to be addressed immediately, and one told me it was fine. I would take the advice of the majority very seriously.
If a number of tree specialists came to my home and each concluded separately that my beautiful oak trees were infected with a disease that would kill them all unless they were treated, and a couple other guys told me not to worry. I would give more weight to the majority.
If the weather report says that a hurricane is coming, I am not going to surf the internet until I find a site that says that there won’t be a hurricane, just so that I can go fishing.
In every one of these cases, the qualifications of the experts, and the number of them in independent agreement, coupled with the severity of the potential consequences would almost always sway me to believe them.
It is not necessary for me to have studied medicine, car mechanics or be an arborist in order to make an intelligent decision.
Now, I see that you write as if you are a climatologist. What is your background in the field?
The 4th IPCC report was produced by 620 authors from 40 countries. It states:
• “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”
• “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Footnote 6 on page 3 of the summary indicate very likely and likely mean “the assessed likelihood, using expert judgment”, are over 90% and 66% respectively.
And who agrees with the report?
Various scientific bodies have issued official statements praising the IPCC and endorsing their findings.
• Joint science academies’ statement-2001
• Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• European Geosciences Union
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US)
• National Research Council (US)
• Network of African Science Academies
• Royal Meteorological Society
• Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
The most authoritative assessment of climate change in the near future is provided by the Inter-Governmental Panel for Climate Change
With regard to the hockey stick controversy, it has been investigated:
Given that each of the criticisms of MBH98 raised by MM (McIntyre and McKitrick)are demonstrably false, one might well be led to wonder how MM, using the MBH98 method and their putative ‘corrected’ version of the MBH98 proxy dataset, were able to obtain a reconstruction so at odds with the MBH98 reconstruction and virtually all existing reconstructions (in particular, in its apparent indication of anomalous 15th century warmth). Rather than ‘correcting’ the MBH98 proxy data set, we demonstrate that the reconstruction of MM resulted, instead, from their selective censoring of key indicators from the MBH98 proxy dataset. Indeed, we are able to reproduce the MM reconstruction of anomalous 15th century warmth when the entire ITRDB North American data set (and the ‘Queen Anne’ series) are censored from the proxy network (Figure 4). These data (in fact, 70% of all of the proxy data used by MBH98 prior to AD 1600) were unjustifiably censored from the MBH98 dataset by McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) in their original analysis (see Jones and Mann, 2004, and Rutherford et al, 2004 for a discussion). MM in their more recent rejected submission to Nature, instead filtered out the ‘hockey stick’ pattern of low-frequency variability in the North American ITRDB data through the incorrect PCA truncation described above, which censors this pattern by retaining too few Principal Components series in the data. As discussed above, the MBH98 reconstruction and the variants of the reconstruction (i.e., Figures 2 and 3) that address the various spurious criticisms raised by MM, each pass statistical verification. In stark contrast, our reproduction of the MM reconstruction demonstrates that their reconstruction dramatically fails statistical verification (see Figure 5) with an RE score ( -0.76) that is statistically indistinguishable from the results expected for a purely random estimate (as a reminder, RE<0 exhibits no skill, and RE= -1 is the average value expected for a purely random estimate). In short, the supposed ‘correction’ of MBH98 by MM is seen to represent little more than a statistically meaningless, botched application of the MBH98 procedure that relies upon censoring key indicators from the MHB98 proxy data set.
So let me get this straight. Mark W’s answer to the arguement “The IPCC is flawed and full of holes you could drive a pack of polar bears through.” is to cite the IPCC as proof the IPCC is valid?
Nice of you to quote the frauds who helped hide the decline, to explain the missing MWP.
Too bad for your side: the MWP Happened. So did the Roman Warm Period. So did the Climate Optimum. So did the Little Ice Age.
And so is this Natural cycle of global warming, and the cooling phase we are now entering.
Mark-
All of your global citations of agreed horrors are all based on the original AGW data that has been called into question.
There has been ZERO independent research that doesn’t tie back to the IPCC or the UK group.
Really? It would have been nice to have provided the source of that assertion, which is Michael Mann @ RealClimate – not exactly a neutral observer in this debate. The fact that you’ve just copied and paste this suggests that you’ve spent little time actually looking into this issue and are just parroting the party line. You might want to read the Wegman Report for a little more clarity. It reads:
* MBH98 and MBH99 were found to be “somewhat obscure and incomplete” and the criticisms by McIntyre and McKitrick were found to be “valid and compelling.”
* The report claimed that the MBH method creates a hockey-stick shape even when supplied with random input data (Figure 4.4), and argues that the MBH method uses weather station data from 1902 to 1995 as a basis for calibrating other input data. “It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the MBH paper. The net effect of the decentering is to preferentially choose the so-called hockey stick shapes.” (Section 4)
* The report found that MBH method creates a PC1 statistic dominated by bristlecone and foxtail pine tree ring series (closely related species). However there is evidence in the literature, that the use of the bristlecone pine series as a temperature proxy may not be valid (suppressing “warm period” in the hockey stick handle); and that bristlecones do exhibit CO2-fertilized growth over the last 150 years (enhancing warming in the hockey stick blade).
* It is noted that there is no evidence that Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.
* A social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction is described of at least 43 authors with direct ties to Mann by virtue of having coauthored papers with him. The findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. Dr. Wegman stated this was a “hypothesis”, and “should be taken with a grain of salt.”[45]
* Many of the same proxies are reused in most of the “independent studies” so these “cannot really claim to be independent verifications.”[46]
* It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though its members rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to interact with the statistical community. Additionally, the Wegman team judged that the sharing of research materials, data, and results was done haphazardly and begrudgingly.
* Overall, the committee believes that Mann’s assessments, that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium, cannot be supported by his analysis.
Yes, I got that summary from Wiki (I’m pressed for time) but it gives a good list of the problems with MBH.
Here is a BIG problem. Sure more pro-AGW peer reviewed papers are published than non. But that’s going to happen when you apply undue influence on the peer review process in order to maintain your dominant position in the scientific community. Here is Mann, concerned that JRL is publishing a paper that goes against the dogma. Here is the result – the editor who “allowed” the paper to go through is ousted. I provide more detail Here.
Shorter version.
Mark has no clue what he’s talking about.
As shown here Mark doesn’t have a clue.
There, I have just ‘proved’ Mark doesn’t have a clue the same way he ‘proved’ global warming is valid 🙂
Live… That was pretty good…. I’m stealing it!!! 🙂
Let’s say you think NASA is making this up, and let’s say you are right. WOW, now THAT’S something to worry about, isn’t it? NASA was, once upon a time, considered to be one of the jewels in the crown of American science. They put a man on the moon. We were #1! If they are lying, then we should be ashamed of them, shouldn’t we? Eventually the will be exposed. If they, or other prominent scientists are lying for a few bucks of grant money, then that means many of our great American scientists are frauds.
Everyone is in agreement that the future of America is directly related to our progress in the fields of science. If so many of our prestigious scientists are either lying or are stupid (which is what they would have to be if this is a hoax) then this is much more serious than global warming. It means that our standing in the international scientific community will plummet. America will no longer be the leader but the loser. Is that what you believe?
And if this science is false, who will prove it false? Will it be a great Chinese organization, or will it come from India? Perhaps it will be French scientists. Will it be he Germans? Won’t America look ridiculous? Don’t you think the Chinese scientists would LOVE to prove the Americans wrong? They would be heroes in their country. What about the French? Wouldn’t they like to gloat about this to the international community: “Prominent Americans scientists proven wrong by the French Academy of Science.” After all they tried to tell us there were no WWDs in Iraq but we wouldn’t listen.
So, who do you want to come out with the definitive research proving that global warming is a myth? What country are you rooting for to make the definitive report?
Everyone is in agreement that the future of America is directly related to our progress in the fields of science.
Followed by:
So, who do you want to come out with the definitive research proving that global warming is a myth? What country are you rooting for to make the definitive report?
So let’s see; Mark and his fellow AGW cultists are insisting that we must cover up scientific failures and make results look right for the glory of the State.
I have two words for that: “Trofim Lysenko”.
Shorter Mark: Our scientists have been lying for grant money and to curtail our economy. *sniff* For the first time, I am proud of my country.
Cult???
I guess you have never met real scientists, have you? In order to become “somebody” in their world, one has to do or find something different. The big positions, the big grants, the big fame, the Big Awards are not given to the people who parrot the works of others. The fame and glory (albeit sometimes relative) goes to the person who discovers something new. The rivalry and pettiness among them cannot be underestimated.
There is no power advantage to blindly agreeing with everyone else. Quite the contrary. “Publish or perish” in the academic world. And it better be good because all eyes are on you. Someone can become famous for proving you wrong.
Contrast this with the way some political parties operate. When a group votes and speaks in lockstep, rather than as individuals, the party gains powers, but the individuals in the party are castrated. They are like eunuchs in the harem protecting the wives of the sultan. They may look and act ferocious, they perform a great service, they live in the Palace, but they are kept around because of what they can’t do! Every time the party silences dissent, I hear the snip-snip of the scissors. The party does not want men with brains and balls, they want foot soldiers who never contradict. Those who contradict will (and do!) lose the support of the party. Actually, that sounds rather cult-like, doesn’t it?
The world of science is not a cult, or one big happy family; it is a world of thousand of rival kingdoms and fiefdoms and tyrants and egos fighting for position. In the world of science, the man or woman who never contradicts or challeges will disappear into obscurity. That person will lose his grants, lose his position, lose his prestige and, in the case of a major university position, never get tenure.
Doe you realize that the person who can disprove global warming with most certainly get a Noble Prize? The little “David” who can knock down the Goliath of what you think is a cult will be Rambo, Einstein and George Clooney wrapped in one! So far Goliath has gotten his toes scratched and a few bruises that are barely noticeable.
Be careful what you wish for. Many prestigious American scientists and scientific organizations will come tumbling down like a house of cards if this is a hoax, right? If this is a hoax, the lies, the deceits, the manipulation of data, the funding…all of this will eventually come to light. If this hoax is exposed by a group from another country, what will the international headlines say about us? If the hoax is exposed by an American, then the world will say that America has SAVED THE DAY!!! My point is that we should pray that little David is American.
BTW: as far as Trofim Lysenko is concerned, North Dallas Thirty has missed my point completely (perhaps he got too excited watching the game?) This is a global issue, not local. It was possible to control the press in the USSR, it is not possible to control the international press or to control the sharing of information in the international world of science. It just isn’t.
Note to self – remember to close the blockquotes blockhead!
Important papers have to be peer reviewed before they are considered worthy of serious consideration in the scientific community. Then, other scientists look at it and test the calculations and hypothesis. This research has been going on for many years now, there are quibbles about details, but where is the great proof that this is a hoax? It does not exist. How many independent scientists do you need to convince you? 600? 6000? Seriously, what documentation would you need to convince you? You can give the example of one or two papers that may have flaws, but you forget that this science is not based on one or two papers. It is based on countless calculations and methods. Thousands of papers, no? How many papers are in question?
And what scientists are, as you say, “paying the price”? There have been accusations that look, on the surface, that there have been wrongdoings, until it gets seriously investigated (see report above). So who has been chastised or disgraced by the scientific community for falsifying data? What major premise has been overturned?
PS to Livewire: “Lying for grant money”, eh? If you are right, then they will be discovered. If they work for a big university it will be a huge and embarrassing blow to the department and the institution. So what will happen to these liars? The scientist who has been found guilty of falsifying data will be a pariah and will be dismissed or asked to resign. Why would anyone take that risk?
As far as scientists wanting to “curtail the economy” boy, that’s a new one to me! When the economy is bustling more money rolls in for projects. When the economy is down, belts are tightened and grants dry up. Fewer grants mean more competition and more stringent rules for the few dollars around. Why would they want that?
Mark, you do realize that peer review, as practiced today, is a pretty new concept, and has been practiced as such for only about 30 years or so. Einsteins theory of relativity was peer review, but not behind journal walls, but out in the open. It was published, then open to challenge by all comers. There are a few out there who are still working to try and disprove it. The problem with the current system is that the peers, though anonymous, appear to be chosen more on their preferred views of the science being reviewed, than on the concept of being truly critical and dissecting it to find errors. Thus, as this Guardian article that just came out notes, the peer review process devolved into a tribal organism instead of a critical one. It became, in essence, yet another all boys club, but instead of being restrictive in gender, they were restrictive based on scientific orthodoxy. As is demonstrated in the Climategate emails, here, and here, in Climate Science, “peer reviewed” means that the literature is reviewed, but if it doesn’t conform to the political consensus, then it’s rejected, even if it’s right.
Ooops, here is the Guardian article, and one of the links I forgot to add. I need to stop being in such a hurry.
I’ll re-read the guardian article later tonight . but what you are saying is that the science that brought us the spaceships and drones, miracles in modern medicine , and electronics, computers, internet and satellites , wireless communication and even the GPS you may be using is rubbish, right?
The man who can disprove global warming will be the most famous man on earth. So where is he? Where is that information? Who are you, personally, placing your bets on? What’s his name? How close has he gotten to breaking this? Where is the guy with the real statistics?
What are you talking about? Where in my previous comment do I ever hint at that. What you are doing is presenting a false dichotomy – if I don’t agree with all of the science or the way it has been conducted, then I am automatically against all science. You have no basis to make that accusation. In fact, if you would kindly read my first comment on this tread, your assertion above looks pretty foolish.
PS. Though I don’t have my degree in the field, I was a geology major in college, specializing in seismology… before calc killed the dream. Just curious, what is your background?
Sonisfrog. You sent me to this site about a comment the Andrew Lacis made objecting to wording of an Executive Summary, but not the report, itself,right? He does not say that the FINDINGS and the SCIENCE of the report were wrong. Do you know what an Executive Summary is? It is not the same as the abstract. And if you are going to quote Lacis, isn’t he the guy who wrote this abstract below? He says things like ” the consequence of global warming are clear and impending.”
Geoengineering: Plan B Remedy for Global Warming
Andrew A. Lacis
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Accelerated melting of Greenland ice is a clear indication that consequences of global warming are real and impending. The underlying causes of global warming are well enough understood, but the necessary reduction of greenhouse gases to prevent irreversible climate change is unlikely to happen before the point of no return is reached. To reverse the impending sea level rise, geoengineering countermeasures may be required to counter the current global energy imbalance due to global warming. Of the many proposed remedies, deploying aerosols within the stratosphere offers realistic prospects. Sulfur injections in the lower stratosphere would have the cooling effect of naturally occurring volcanic aerosols. Soot at 40-50 km would be more efficient in cooling the ground surface, but at the cost of heating up the middle atmosphere. Should serious action ever be taken to combat global warming, then all options, including reduction of the greenhouse gases, will need to be fully considered and evaluated for their feasibility, environmental impact, and economic cost. Geoengineering countermeasures are clearly not a cure for the global warming problem, but they may buy time while atmospheric greenhouse gases are brought under control into a sustainable long-term equilibrium.
ok I read the Guardian article. here is my favorite paragraph:
The Daily Express ran a long story headlined: “100 reasons why global warming is natural”. It said the list came from a “dossier” issued by the European Foundation, a UK-based right-wing group that campaigns mostly against European integration. But two months on, the dossier has not been published. Most of the hundred reasons were either meaningless or scientific nonsense, according to New Scientist magazine, which gave up after debunking the first 50.
Here is a perfect example of what I have been saying: Guys you say you have a 100 reasons…so ( to quote George W. Bush) ” Bring ’em on!”
On pt 41. Yes I know what the difference between the Executive Summary and the actual report is… duh. Yet, as it turns out the flaws pointed out by Lacis of the summary in question actually reflects the “science” in large parts contained in the AR4. More and more of the contents of that whole chapter are found to be not peer reviewed and authored by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. Insert WWF or whatever extremist environmentalist group that also provided the scaremongering materials.
On your comment #42 – On the Guardian article. Note how you don’t address the meat of the article concerning the state of the peer review process and automatically go to the silly parts. AND I’m not sure that using research from New Scientist, you know, the source that provided the material that has gotten the IPCC into so much hot water is a good idea. NS is not a bad magazine per-se, but has themselves publish a few doozies now and again.
The links for the controversies that you have are not that persuasive.
The first “controversy” was brought up by a science FICTION writer, not a scientist. “Egan is a famously reclusive author when it comes to public appearances, he doesn’t attend science fiction conventions, doesn’t sign books and there are no photos available of him on the web. He has bachelor’s degree in mathematics. WIKI
Controversy #2 centered on the COVER of the magazine that scientists found to sensationalist: “Darwin is Wrong”. “The actual STORY stated that specific details of Darwin’s evolution theory had been shown wrong, mainly the shape of phylogenetic trees of interrelated species.” The “controversy” was that real scientists were worried that the COVER of the magazine would fuel the nut cases who don’t believe in evolution but prefer the idea of “intelligent design”.
The science was not called into question (at least according to the link you sent).
The third controversy seems more complex and it appears that New Science has some explaining to do. Hasnian says he was misquoted. Perhaps they will explain in the next issue. But let’s look at how “off” they were. And let’s see if this really changes anything.
In response to the quote, Hasnain says, “I have not made any prediction on date as I am not an astrologer but I did say they were shrinking fast.”
The scientist, Dr. Syed Hasnain, a glacier specialist …..said in an e-mail message that he was “misquoted” about the 2035 estimate in The New Scientist article. He has more recently said that his research suggests that only small glaciers could disappear entirely.
But
“The Himalayan glaciers will not disappear by 2035 — that is an overstatement,” said Dr. Bodo Bookhagen, an assistant professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara who studies the effect of climate change at high altitudes….. “Still, he added: “It is very clear that there is glacier retreat and that it has devastating impact.”
At an international conference last year on Asia’s glaciers, held at the University of California, San Diego, Yao Tandong, a Chinese glaciologist who specializes in the Tibetan Plateau, said, “Studies indicate that by 2030 another 30 percent will disappear; by 2050, 40 percent; and by the end of the century 70 percent.” He added: “Actually we don’t know much about process and impacts of the disappearance. That’s why we need an international effort.”
So how fast is fast? And where are the prominent scientists saying, “No the glaciers are not melting?” Now that would be a good controversy. For instance, “Prominent scientist disagree that glaciers are melting.” But that isn’t in question and that isn’t the controversy. Hasnain says that small glaciers could disappear entirely. That doesn’t really help clarify much because I don’t know what a small glacier is (as opposed to a medium sized one or a big glacier.) So I looked it up.
I guess you don’t believe in the National Geographic either, eh? Because in this 2007 issue here is what they have to say:
“The rapid melt of small glaciers and mountain ice caps will be the main source of sea level rise over the next century, according to a new study.’
The research, led by Mark Meier of the University of Colorado at Boulder, also suggests that sea levels could rise more during the 21st century than had previously been thought.”
“….But it’s a different story for smaller patches of ice. “
“Many of the glaciers are at or close to the melting point,” Meier said. These glaciers, and also ice caps at high latitudes (closer to the Poles), are individually much smaller than the big ice sheets.
“Factoring in the additional, gradual thaw of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, Meier and colleagues estimated that sea levels could rise as much as 22 inches (56 centimeters) by 2100 due to ice melt alone.”
“This forecast is worse than the worst-case forecast in the report issued this year by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which reflects the scientific consensus on global warming.”
The researchers are “right on the mark with their discussion of tidewater glacier instability,” said Richard Williams, a glacier expert with the United States Geological Survey.
Kevin Trenberth, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, says he’s skeptical about the new study’s predictions, in part because some glaciers will disappear completely over the coming century.
“They don’t take that into account properly,” Trenberth said. “But yes, I think sea levels will rise more than IPCC suggests.”
_——————————————————————————————————-
What?? “Will rise MORE than the IPCC suggests?”
So please, where are the studies that say the small or the large glaciers are not melting? This “controversy” is about the date, right? And it has been clarified. The controversy (at least from what you state) is not about the fact that the glaciers are melting and that the see levels are rising because of it.
Come on…get some kick-ass, peer –reviewed scientific studies that disprove some of the important data. Right now, this is swatting flies.
So who are some of the famous folk who believe this is a hoax? Well Senator Inhofe, for one. You know, the guy who “is in favor of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, against adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes, and voted against prohibiting job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Inhofe’s office has said he “does not hire openly gay staffers due to the possibility of a conflict of agenda.” He is the God, guns and Gays, man. I assume you must be gay if you are reading this blog, so even if you are with him about global warming, he would not hire you because you are gay.
He also said “I’m really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we’ve never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship.” (I guess he must be ashamed that Ronald Regan was a divorced man, eh?)
Oh yeah, he also is the guy who, in March 2002, made a speech before the U.S. Senate “that included the explicit suggestion that the 9/11 attacks were a form of divine retribution against the U.S. for failing to defend Israel.” Divine retribution, eh?
And he is the man who,
“In the 2008 election cycle, Senator Inhofe’s largest campaign donors represented the oil and gas ($446,900 in donations),
leadership pacs ($316,720)
and electric utilities ($221,654) industries/categories.
In 2010, his largest donors represented the oil and gas ($429,950) and electric utilities ($206,654).
While he acknowledged that scientists are unable to predict its consequences, Mayor Bloomberg yesterday compared the scourge of global warming to the threat of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Although it is a “long-term” fight, he said, reducing gas emissions may save the life of “everybody” on the planet, the same way that fighting terrorism and its proliferation saves lives in shorter terms.
But on the other hand: “I will clean up the planet,” McCain said. “I will make global warming a priority.” Uh…if it is a hoax, then what is he talking about?
Declaring climate change to be an indisputable threat, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger unveiled a plan to combat global warming by setting goals for reducing California’s emissions of greenhouse gases.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, insisting he is “100 percent committed” to running for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, wooed Silicon Valley’s tech leaders Monday — saying he “definitely” believes in global warming, praising Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for being a “progressive” leader on the environment and calling for immigration policies that welcome “people who make contributions” to America’s economy.
Mike Huckabee:
For one thing, I’m one of the few people who’s actually talked about the fact that as Republicans we have done a lousy job of presenting the case for conservation. We ought to be the leaders, but unfortunately we’ve been the last people speaking out on conservation.
Not only as a Republican, but as a Christian it’s important to me to say to my fellow believers, “Look, if anybody ought to be leading on this issue, it ought to be us.” We can’t justify destroying a planet that doesn’t belong to us, and if we believe that God did create this world for our pleasure and wants us to enjoy it, then all the more reason that we should take care of it