Prize for "Kyoto is based on wrong science"
Pedro Sanchez
Dutch science journalism prize for his long, 12-page article showing that
the temperature reconstructions underlying Kyoto are flawed. I found a
lucid description of the story here:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/10/dutch-journalism-award-kyoto-is-junk_06.html
Alastair McDonald
"Pedro Sanchez" <cens...@censored.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.62.05...@feynman.harvard.edu...
Hi Lubos,
What a load of rubbish. Mann's papers published in 1998 and 1999 are not the
"central pillar" of the Kyoto protocol which was drawn up in 1997. How
something which is factually inaccurate on the first page can be given an
award beats me. I am also surprised that someone like yourself who prides
himself in being a scientist should support such stuff since it is
transparently trash!
Cheers, Alastair.
Lloyd Parker
1. Blogs are never scientific references and in fact are usually untrue.
2. The supposed article is a compilation of all the charges against Mann,
which have been refuted in paper after paper (and many times on this
newsgroup). If the author really believes he has written something important,
why is it on a web site and not in a scientific journal?
3. I fail to see how a physicist specializing in string theory is someone who
would have a blog in the first place (that's not how scientists communicate),
or would have a blog on global warming, or why you would cite it.
4. Your reference to a "prize" is in Dutch and so I cannot comment on it.
5. Any scientist who tries to use Mars as a counterargument to global warming
on earth is not much of a scientist.
6. The first google hit for "marcel crok" is sepp. 'Nuff said.
dbo...@mindspring.com
2. OK
3. Why cant physicists have blogs? Besides, nobody expects blogs to
be scientific references, they are essentially one sided conversations.
5. Why?
6. ?
w...@bas.ac.uk
>"Pedro Sanchez" <cens...@censored.edu> wrote in message
>news:Pine.LNX.4.62.05...@feynman.harvard.edu...
>> Dutch journalist Marcel Crok has won 10,000 euro as the winner of the
>> Dutch science journalism prize for his long, 12-page article showing that
>> the temperature reconstructions underlying Kyoto are flawed. I found a
>> lucid description of the story here:
>>
>http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/10/dutch-journalism-award-kyoto-is-junk_06.html
>Hi Lubos,
Roger! You have penetrated Lubo's cunning disguise and thinly-veiled
attempt get more traffic for his pet blog.
>What a load of rubbish.
Agreed. The article isn't journalism - at last not in the old sense -
its just regurgitaed M&M propaganda.
>Mann's papers published in 1998 and 1999 are not the
>"central pillar" of the Kyoto protocol which was drawn up in 1997. How
>something which is factually inaccurate on the first page can be given an
>award beats me. I am also surprised that someone like yourself who prides
>himself in being a scientist should support such stuff since it is
>transparently trash!
-W.
--
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!
Lloyd Parker
Anybody and his brother can write a blog. Most people have no concept of
science.
>2. OK
>3. Why cant physicists have blogs? Besides, nobody expects blogs to
>be scientific references, they are essentially one sided conversations.
As I said, what reputable physicist publishes his ideas in a blog rather than
scientific journals, meetings, etc?
>5. Why?
>6. ?
>
lubos...@gmail.com
Thanks to Pedro for starting it and William for the link to this
interesting thread.
Alastair, the reason why I agree that the hockey stick is crucial for
the whole global warming paradigm is simply that it was the only
impressive evidence that the current climate variations differed
measurably from the variations that were here for ages. Without the
hockey stick evidence, the natural conjecture says that the variations
we observed in the 20th century were more or less typical in the whole
2nd millenium as well as earlier.
The hockey stick was the symbol that indicated that the humans suddenly
changed things drastically. If you don't have the hockey stick, what's
your evidence that our influence is crucial?
I agree with Alastair that MBH98 and MBH99 were not directly used when
people first invented the ideas of the Kyoto protocol. This makes the
original protocol even more bizarre because its assumptions - namely
that humans are primary for the climate - were not just poorly, but
very poorly justified. In this sense, it was necessary for the Kyoto
promoters to doctor something like the MBH papers because they proposed
the first - although flawed - evidence that the 20th century was really
special.
It is comprehensible to me that Lloyd Parker is not happy about the
award for Marcel Crok. But Marcel Crok has simply made a good piece of
investigative journalistic work - something that most of his colleagues
- those who just like to copy the scary scenarios from each other -
simply don't do.
I tend to agree with Lloyd Parker that blogs are often - and maybe even
usually - untrue. ;-) Incidentally, for those who question that the
prize was awarded, like Lloyd Parker himself, I've also attached an
automatic translation of the Dutch news to English. It is impossible to
agree with L.P. that scientists can't discuss Mars. On the contrary,
the scientific approach is one that acknowledges that Mars and Earth
obey the same natural laws although with different environmental
parameters. ;-) Whoever thinks that it is possible to misunderstand the
Martian climate completely but understand our climate perfectly is a
crackpot. It's not just a superficial relation; the qualitative
features of the climates on Mars and Earth are analogous, indeed.
Evidence shows that there is an obvious "climate change" taking place
on Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Pluto, Earth, and probably other places. It's
of course natural in virtually all cases and probably strictly all of
them.
I don't see anything wrong with Marcel Crok being mentioned by SEPP.
Fred Singer is an important figure in this field - and incidentally he
was a student of John Wheeler whom we theoretical physicists also
admire.
Lloyd Parker, you will have to modify your criticism against those who
are not officially climate scientists. RealClimate.ORG in its newest
article relies on the voice of an astrophysicist who is focusing on
binary stars - because he still understands the climate models (for
Mars) roughly 50 times better than the sum of the RealClimate
modellers. Unless you want to agree with me that the ten RealClimate
people have a non-scientific approach, you will probably have to allow
scientists from other fields to have their say. ;-)
All the best
Lubos, http://motls.blogspot.com/
Science Cop
lubos...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dear Gentlemen!
>
> Thanks to Pedro for starting it and William for the link to this
> interesting thread.
>
> Alastair, the reason why I agree that the hockey stick is crucial for
> the whole global warming paradigm is simply that it was the only
> impressive evidence that the current climate variations differed
> measurably from the variations that were here for ages.
WHAT A PILE OF SMELL MANURE COVERED WITH MAGGOTS.
There are multiply redundant pieces of corroborating evidence which
demonstrates beyond all arguments that Golabal Warming is REAL. it is
here NOW (not someday, by and by), it is damaging in record amounts,
and it accelorating towards WORSE FAST.
If you want to be impressed, forget about dots on a chart. THe WHOLE
WORLD has been given a ringside seat to the data that is so simple even
scientists can understand it.
25% more hurricanes than the next worst comparible figures in recorded
human history. TWENTY FIVE PERCENT MORE, means this is not cyclical, or
it would be 25% more than usual every so often. This is a Peak which
exceeds all previous peaks. You can plot that on a chart. In fact the
right-wing fascist govt of George Bush did that and posted the chart on
the internet, so you can't blame lefties for the data.
Here's the link to the chart, and it is impressive!!!!
Global Warming Smoking Gun: Hurricanes ARE INCREASING in Frequency and
Intensities. http://tinyurl.com/acsnd
Hockey Sticks are just some of the 77,500,000 cubic yards of trash from
Katrina alone, talk about impressive facts. Storms don't know value:
they don't care if it's trees or branches, houses or cars. Show some
trashpile every, anywhere which matches that figure. Katrina was only
one of the five hurricanes over 115 mph this season. Thesew are
IMPRESSIVE things and they are not just dots or bars on a graph -- they
are rude, nasty, mean things you don't want to invite into your home.
> Without the
> hockey stick evidence, the natural conjecture says that the variations
> we observed in the 20th century were more or less typical in the whole
> 2nd millenium as well as earlier.
>
> The hockey stick was the symbol that indicated that the humans suddenly
> changed things drastically. If you don't have the hockey stick, what's
> your evidence that our influence is crucial?
Global Warming Smoking Gun: Hurricanes ARE INCREASING in Frequency and
Intensities. http://tinyurl.com/acsnd
And there is more, lots and lots and lots more. Coral Bleaching
worldwide at 87% of total, increased frequency of El Ninos more than
twice as often, flooding in Bangladesh because spring in the Himalayas
comes at the same time now as the monsoon (when hundreds of years of
history record different before), hottest sea-land temperatures in
clustered bunches.
The fact is your tailepipe is attached to the hurricane-machine and
ytou are seeking to evade behavior change. That makes you accomplise
before the fact, to the fact, and after the fact, to mass negligent
homocide. In other words, you told us more about you than you thought
you did.
> I agree with Alastair that MBH98 and MBH99 were not directly used when
> people first invented the ideas of the Kyoto protocol. This makes the
> original protocol even more bizarre because its assumptions - namely
> that humans are primary for the climate - were not just poorly, but
> very poorly justified. In this sense, it was necessary for the Kyoto
> promoters to doctor something like the MBH papers because they proposed
> the first - although flawed - evidence that the 20th century was really
> special.
>
> It is comprehensible to me that Lloyd Parker is not happy about the
> award for Marcel Crok. But Marcel Crok has simply made a good piece of
> investigative journalistic work - something that most of his colleagues
> - those who just like to copy the scary scenarios from each other -
> simply don't do.
... accomplise before the fact, to the fact, and after the fact, to
mass negligent homocide.
> I tend to agree with Lloyd Parker that blogs are often - and maybe even
> usually - untrue. ;-) Incidentally, for those who question that the
> prize was awarded, like Lloyd Parker himself, I've also attached an
> automatic translation of the Dutch news to English. It is impossible to
> agree with L.P. that scientists can't discuss Mars. On the contrary,
> the scientific approach is one that acknowledges that Mars and Earth
> obey the same natural laws although with different environmental
> parameters. ;-) Whoever thinks that it is possible to misunderstand the
> Martian climate completely but understand our climate perfectly is a
> crackpot. It's not just a superficial relation; the qualitative
> features of the climates on Mars and Earth are analogous, indeed.
... accomplise before the fact, to the fact, and after the fact, to
mass negligent homocide.
> Evidence shows that there is an obvious "climate change" taking place
> on Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Pluto, Earth, and probably other places. It's
> of course natural in virtually all cases and probably strictly all of
> them.
... accomplise before the fact, to the fact, and after the fact, to
mass negligent homocide.
> I don't see anything wrong with Marcel Crok being mentioned by SEPP.
> Fred Singer is an important figure in this field - and incidentally he
> was a student of John Wheeler whom we theoretical physicists also
> admire.
... accomplise before the fact, to the fact, and after the fact, to
mass negligent homocide.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=95 Singer Seitz Ames
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=365 Fred Singer
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=173 Liars Lineup
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=126 Dirty Ten
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=147 Dirty Seven
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=174 Singer Michaels
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=175 Singer McKitrick
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=176 Singer Circle
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=84 Singer Thomas Gale Moore
> Lloyd Parker, you will have to modify your criticism against those who
> are not officially climate scientists. RealClimate.ORG in its newest
> article relies on the voice of an astrophysicist who is focusing on
> binary stars - because he still understands the climate models (for
> Mars) roughly 50 times better than the sum of the RealClimate
> modellers. Unless you want to agree with me that the ten RealClimate
> people have a non-scientific approach, you will probably have to allow
> scientists from other fields to have their say. ;-)
... accomplise before the fact, to the fact, and after the fact, to
mass negligent homocide.