MBH respond to M&M

15 views
Skip to first unread message

Jim Norton

unread,
Nov 1, 2003, 8:18:16 PM11/1/03
to
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/paleo/EandEPaperProblem.pdf

NOTE ON PAPER BY MCINTYRE AND MCKITRICK IN "ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT"
Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes
The recent paper by McIntyre and McKitrick (Energy and Environment, 14,
751-771, 2003)
claims to be an "audit" of the analysis of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (Nature,
392, 779-787,
1998) or "MBH98". An audit involves a careful examination, using the same data
and following
the exact procedures used in the report or study being audited. McIntyre and
McKitrick ("MM")
have done no such thing, having used neither the data nor the procedures of
MBH98. Thus, it is
entirely understandable that they do not obtain the same result. Their effort
has no bearing on the
work of MBH98, and is no way a "correction" of that study as they claim. On the
contrary, their
analysis appears seriously flawed and amounts to a gross misrepresentation of
the work of
MBH98. The standard protocol for scientific journals receiving critical
comments on a
published paper is to provide the authors being criticized with an opportunity
to review the
criticism prior to publication, and offer them the chance to respond. Mann and
colleagues were
given no such opportunity.
It seems clear that MM have made critical errors in their analysis that have
the effect of grossly
distorting the reconstruction of MBH98. Key indicators of the original MBH98
network appear
to have been omitted for the early period 1400-1600, with major consequences
for the character
of the MM reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperatures over that
interval.
MM do not list the number of indicators in their putative version of the MBH
network (which is
based on an odd combination of data from MBH98 and other sources). The reader
must do a
considerable amount of detective work, based on scrutiny of the Tables in their
pages 20-23 and
the indicated data links, to determine just what data have been eliminated from
the original MBH
network. A preliminary attempt to do this already demonstrates that their
deletion of key early
proxy information produces anomalous warming in the 15th century at odds with
the
reconstructed cold conditions of the period by MBH98 and virtually all other
published Northern
Hemisphere temperature reconstructions.
MM appear to have eliminated key proxy indicators from the MBH98 network by the
following
actions:
1) MM (see their Figure 4) describe the substitution of a shorter version
(available back to mid
16th century) of one of the Jacoby et al (1989) Northern Treeline ring width
series for the longer
version (available back to mid 15th century) used by MBH98.
2) MM appear to eliminate, without any justification, the entire dataset of 70
Western North
American (WNA) tree-ring series available between 1400 and 1600. This dataset,
as several
other regional tree-ring data networks, is represented by MBH98 in terms of a
smaller number of
representative Principal Component (PC) time series for each interval. The
authors eliminate all
of these data by not following (see technical point "b" later on in this
document) the procedure of
MBH98 of calculating the PC series separately for all intervals used in their
stepwise
reconstruction approach. The leading pattern of variance in this data set
exhibits conditions from
1400-1800 that are dramatically colder than the mid and late 20th century, and
a very prominent
cooling in the 15th century in particular. The original individual proxy data
used by MBH,
including all of the WNA data have been available since May 2000 on the public
ftp site
provided by Mann and colleagues:
ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/,
and on the NOAA Paleoclimatology website:
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/treering/chronologies/northamerica/usa
3) MM appear to eliminate the entire dataset of Stahle and coworkers of
Southwestern
U.S./Mexican late wood ring width measurements prior to the 17th century (12
back to 1500, 6
back to 1400) under the same false procedural premise described in (2). Once
again, the data
were available at the Mann et al public ftp site:
ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/TREE/STAHLE/SWM/
We have not determined yet, just how many important indicators were eliminated
from the
MBH98 dataset by the various subjective substitutions described by MM on pages
20-23.
However, we have confirmed that elimination of the critical datasets (1)-(3)
alone from the
MBH98 network during the interval AD 1400-1500 yields the spurious result
obtained by MM.
(see Figure 1).
FIGURE 1. COMPARISON OF MBH98 RECONSTRUCTION (BLUE) WITH RECONSTRUCTION
RESULTING FROM THE ELIMINATION OF KEY PROXY DATA SETS (1)-(3) OVER THE AD 1400-
1500 INTERVAL. THIS YIELDS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME RESULT OBTAINED BY MM BY
ELIMINATING A SIGNIFICANT FRACTION OF THE MBH98 DATA AVAILABLE FOR THAT
PERIOD (BOTH SERIES HAVE BEEN SMOOTHED WITH A 40 YEAR LOWPASS FILTER).
MBH98 employed the standard statistical tool of cross-validation to verify the
skill of their
reconstructions. MM describe no such tests. Since increasingly sparse networks
are used
progressively farther back in time, a series of cross-validation experiments
have to be performed
to estimate the skill for different time intervals. For the AD 1400-1500
period, this involves, in
MBH98, performing the reconstruction over the interval 1400-1901 based on
calibration against
the instrumental record over the interval 1902-1980, using the specific network
of proxy
indicators available for the AD 1400-1500 period. The reconstruction is then
independently
compared against the instrumental record over the interval (1854-1901) not used
for calibration.
The skill can be described by a verification coefficient of determination (RE),
which is bounded
by negative infinity and positive one, with substantially positive numbers
indicative of
predictive skill. The mean expected value for a random estimate is -1.
For the reconstruction with the data eliminated in a manner similar to that
implicit in the MM
approach, the RE score (-6.6) is far worse than even a typical random estimate,
and such a result
would have been discarded as unreliable based on the cross-validation protocol
used by MBH98.
The anomalous warm values during the 15th century are the artifact of an
entirely unreliable
statistical estimate. By contrast, the MBH98 reconstruction indicates an RE of
0.42 for the
1400-1500 interval, indicative of significant predictive skill during that time
interval.
The above discussion should be adequate to provide readers with a sense of the
depth of the
flaws underlying the reconstruction achieved by MM that is so at odds with at
least a dozen
other recently published empirical and model-based estimates of Northern
Hemisphere mean
temperature changes in past centuries.
There are numerous other additional, more technical problems in their approach
that would
appear to have rendered the MM analysis flawed irrespective of the elimination
of important
data. We briefly list the few most significant of these:
(a) Use of Internally Inconsistent Surface Temperature Estimates
MM appear to combine gridpoint standard deviations estimated from one version
of the University of
East Anglia surface temperature record, with standardized EOFs from MBH98 based
on a different
temperature data set. MM also appear to inconsistently use standard deviations
of un-detrended data,
while MBH98 had normalized their EOFs by detrended gridpoint standard
deviations.
(b) Incorrect representation of the MBH98 proxy data set.
MBH98 calculated PCs of proxy sub-networks separately for each interval in
their stepwise
reconstruction. This is the only sensible approach, as it allows all data
available over each sub-interval to
be used. This requires 159 independent time series to represent all indicators
required for reconstructions
of all possible sub-intervals, even though the maximum number ever used for a
particular sub-interval is
112. By not following this protocol, MM appear to have eliminated in the range
of 100 proxy series used
by MBH98 over the interval 1400-1600.
(c) Lack of the use of an objective criterion in the determination of the
number of retained instrumental
PCs in the reconstruction:
Since the proxy data network developed by MM differed from that used by MBH98
for all intervals, it
was inappropriate for MM to use the same instrumental temperature eigenvector
subsets that had been
selected by MBH98 for their reconstruction. The subsets were selected by MBH98
based on the
application of an objective criterion to the specific available proxy networks
available, and were
optimized with respect to those networks. The basis sets used by MM have thus
appear not to have been
optimized with respect to the different proxy network they actually use.

====================================================


Anti-environmental myths
http://info-pollution.com/myths.htm
Practical skepticism
http://info-pollution.com/skeptic.htm

Dr. Convection

unread,
Nov 1, 2003, 9:14:01 PM11/1/03
to
"Jim Norton" <jimn4...@aol.com> wrote

> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/paleo/EandEPaperProblem.pdf
>
> NOTE ON PAPER BY MCINTYRE AND MCKITRICK IN "ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT"
> Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes
> The recent paper by McIntyre and McKitrick (Energy and Environment, 14,
> 751-771, 2003)

These sorts of public exchanges could go on for a long time. NATURE has a
complaints policy. The editors of NATURE should speak up and provide some
discosure of the review history of Mann et al.


Jim Norton

unread,
Nov 1, 2003, 10:42:42 PM11/1/03
to
>These sorts of public exchanges could go on for a long time. NATURE has a
>complaints policy.


They do? Never heard of it. And since M&M was not published in Nature I don't
know what the relivance is.

>The editors of NATURE should speak up and provide some
>discosure of the review history of Mann et al.

Why?

David Ball

unread,
Nov 2, 2003, 11:50:22 AM11/2/03
to

This "article" was published in E&E. Why should Nature respond
at all?

Titan Point

unread,
Nov 3, 2003, 11:37:38 AM11/3/03
to
On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 03:42:42 +0000, Jim Norton wrote:

>>These sorts of public exchanges could go on for a long time. NATURE has a
>>complaints policy.
>
>
> They do? Never heard of it. And since M&M was not published in Nature I don't
> know what the relivance is.

Since Nature has declared that the peer-review system they employ should
prevent junk science being published as true, they should be able to prove
it.


>
>>The editors of NATURE should speak up and provide some
>>discosure of the review history of Mann et al.
>
> Why?
>

Why? Because if the Mann Hockey Stick proves to be false, it could take
the credibility of climate science, the IPCC, the reputations of not a few
scientists and politicians and the public trust of science generally, with
it.

These are not trivial issues any more.

Thomas Palm

unread,
Nov 3, 2003, 12:29:16 PM11/3/03
to
"Titan Point" <titanpoi...@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:pan.2003.11.03....@myrealbox.com:

I'm sure there will be some people willing to try to tear down the public
trust in science to prove a point, but in reality having a scientific
paper, even a high impact one, turn out to be wrong is not unique. Things
like that happen, but most of the time the hyenas are not as ready to leap
into the battle. For example, Spencer and Christy has been forced to revise
their algorithm to calculate temparature trends from MSU-data several time.
Where were those people then? Did people lose trust in science?

Strangely enough, these people in other cases expect us to have blind faith
in science, i.e. when a scientist says something is safe. Of course, that
is not possible, if you encourage belief in conspiracy theories that will
make the public distrust all authorities. Nuclear power and GMO:s are
likely to be some of the victims of such an increased distrust.

Juan Herberto

unread,
Nov 3, 2003, 1:35:48 PM11/3/03
to
(Thomas Palm wrote) "..if you encourage belief in conspiracy theories
that will make the public distrust all authorities..."

The "public trust" (& public distrust) may be affected by the opinions
of experts, but the general 'path of least resistance', tempered by
guilt & common sense have a lot more affect upon behavior among the
general populace than the findings of the scientific community. When we
'know' that petrochemical resources are finite, that the right hand of
petrochemical companies are busily finding 'cures' for the woes brought
on by the products of the left hand, that car companies will prefer to
sell customers a 5000 pound vehicle rather than a 2000 pound one, that
split cedar roofs look 'swell' in the California sunlight (in the '50s
the thickest butted shakes were called 'heavy Hollywoods' at NW US cedar
mills), that cheap oil means an oak logged in Missouri can be shipped to
Taiwan for milling & then shipped back to St. Louis (via Seattle) & sold
as 'unfinished' furniture (wrapped inside cardboard made from Alaskan
old-growth hemlock) & politicians consider this a 'win-win' situation,
that spending a trillion US$ every 3 or 4 years on armaments isn't a
problem as long as foreigners will lend their trade surplus $$ to the US
bond market, why, who CARES what a bunch of scientists think? They're
all 'bought & paid for', just like the rest of us (who have regular jobs
&/or mortgages, &/or children in school). We put up with it because it's
more comfortable than challenging it, despite the obvious contradictions
& long-term damages & the self-loathing that drives us to send a few
bucks to Greenpeace or World Wildlife Fund, etc etc. If "we" can only be
convinced to become SHAREHOLDERS (ie someone who expects something for
nothing) then 'we' can afford even more 'charitable donations, as long
as 'we' don't question how the profits are made.
Sweet deal, huh? ^..^

Got Problems?
Get RIDOVEM

Titan Point

unread,
Nov 3, 2003, 6:18:40 PM11/3/03
to
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:29:16 +0000, Thomas Palm wrote:

> "Titan Point" <titanpoi...@myrealbox.com> wrote in
> news:pan.2003.11.03....@myrealbox.com:
>
>> On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 03:42:42 +0000, Jim Norton wrote:
>
>>>>The editors of NATURE should speak up and provide some
>>>>discosure of the review history of Mann et al.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>> Why? Because if the Mann Hockey Stick proves to be false, it could
>> take the credibility of climate science, the IPCC, the reputations of
>> not a few scientists and politicians and the public trust of science
>> generally, with it.
>>
>> These are not trivial issues any more.
>
> I'm sure there will be some people willing to try to tear down the public
> trust in science to prove a point, but in reality having a scientific
> paper, even a high impact one, turn out to be wrong is not unique. Things
> like that happen, but most of the time the hyenas are not as ready to leap
> into the battle. For example, Spencer and Christy has been forced to revise
> their algorithm to calculate temparature trends from MSU-data several time.
> Where were those people then? Did people lose trust in science?

False analogy. The adjustments were of the order of hundredths of a
degree. And more importantly, a mega-expensive world economic death pact
did not hinge on it.


>
> Strangely enough, these people in other cases expect us to have blind faith
> in science, i.e. when a scientist says something is safe. Of course, that
> is not possible, if you encourage belief in conspiracy theories that will
> make the public distrust all authorities. Nuclear power and GMO:s are
> likely to be some of the victims of such an increased distrust.

Like the conspiracy theory that opposition to the Kyoto treaty is funded
by oil companies?

Vito De Lucia

unread,
Nov 3, 2003, 6:56:39 PM11/3/03
to
Hi,

Titan Point wrote:
> False analogy. The adjustments were of the order of hundredths of a
> degree. And more importantly, a mega-expensive world economic death pact
> did not hinge on it.

Uh? "mega-expensive world economic death pact"??

Talk about doom and gloom! ;-)

There is no basis whatsoever for such a dramatic statement. In fact,
climate mitigation policies need not be expensive at all. Benefits may
very well offset the costs, even in the short-term, disregarding
potential benefits for avoided climatic damages.

thanks
ciao
Vito

--
--------------------------------------
Searching for the hermit in vain

I asked a boy beneath the pines.
He said, "The master's gone alone
Herb-picking somewhere in the mounts,
Cloud-hidden, whereabouts unknown."

Chia Tao (777-841)
---------------------------------------

Thomas Palm

unread,
Nov 4, 2003, 3:06:14 AM11/4/03
to

> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:29:16 +0000, Thomas Palm wrote:

>> I'm sure there will be some people willing to try to tear down the
>> public trust in science to prove a point, but in reality having a
>> scientific paper, even a high impact one, turn out to be wrong is not
>> unique. Things like that happen, but most of the time the hyenas are
>> not as ready to leap into the battle. For example, Spencer and
>> Christy has been forced to revise their algorithm to calculate
>> temparature trends from MSU-data several time. Where were those
>> people then? Did people lose trust in science?
>
> False analogy. The adjustments were of the order of hundredths of a
> degree.

The adjustments were enough to shift a cooling trend to one that was
warming enough to be consistent with the ground record, even if S&C still
get a lower result than everyone else who has looked at the same data.

> And more importantly, a mega-expensive world economic death
> pact did not hinge on it.

The opponents to the Kyoto treaty sure seem interested in using that
interpretation of the MSU results since thay have so little else pointing
in their favor, so the treaty does to some extent depend on that result.

>> Strangely enough, these people in other cases expect us to have blind
>> faith in science, i.e. when a scientist says something is safe. Of
>> course, that is not possible, if you encourage belief in conspiracy
>> theories that will make the public distrust all authorities. Nuclear
>> power and GMO:s are likely to be some of the victims of such an
>> increased distrust.
>
> Like the conspiracy theory that opposition to the Kyoto treaty is
> funded by oil companies?

Some of it is. Pat Michaels and others are on record as being financed by
the fossil fuel industry.

Titan Point

unread,
Nov 4, 2003, 3:33:01 AM11/4/03
to
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 08:06:14 +0000, Thomas Palm wrote:

> "Titan Point" <titanpoi...@myrealbox.com> wrote in
> news:pan.2003.11.03....@myrealbox.com:
>
>> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:29:16 +0000, Thomas Palm wrote:
>
>>> I'm sure there will be some people willing to try to tear down the
>>> public trust in science to prove a point, but in reality having a
>>> scientific paper, even a high impact one, turn out to be wrong is not
>>> unique. Things like that happen, but most of the time the hyenas are
>>> not as ready to leap into the battle. For example, Spencer and
>>> Christy has been forced to revise their algorithm to calculate
>>> temparature trends from MSU-data several time. Where were those
>>> people then? Did people lose trust in science?
>>
>> False analogy. The adjustments were of the order of hundredths of a
>> degree.
>
> The adjustments were enough to shift a cooling trend to one that was
> warming enough to be consistent with the ground record, even if S&C still
> get a lower result than everyone else who has looked at the same data.

Nonsense. The cooling trend of the total atmosphere was re-confirmed. The
MSU was re-calibrated with radio -sonde and other measurements and found
to be highly accurate. The ground measurements are the ones that are
deeply flawed, but strangely they tell you what you want to hear so you
don't bother to question them.

>
>> And more importantly, a mega-expensive world economic death
>> pact did not hinge on it.
>
> The opponents to the Kyoto treaty sure seem interested in using that
> interpretation of the MSU results since thay have so little else pointing
> in their favor, so the treaty does to some extent depend on that result.

Nope. The Kyoto Protocol was built on trash science of which the Hockey
Stick is a clear example. Even its proponents admitted that the result,
even if fully implemented, would be so small as to be unmeasureable. The
economic impact would have been huge.

For the record, the satellite record is too short to establish a
meaningful climatic trend BUT it is long enough to point out the anomalous
warming seen in the surface record to be a systematic error cause by urban
heat islands.

>
>>> Strangely enough, these people in other cases expect us to have blind
>>> faith in science, i.e. when a scientist says something is safe. Of
>>> course, that is not possible, if you encourage belief in conspiracy
>>> theories that will make the public distrust all authorities. Nuclear
>>> power and GMO:s are likely to be some of the victims of such an
>>> increased distrust.
>>
>> Like the conspiracy theory that opposition to the Kyoto treaty is
>> funded by oil companies?
>
> Some of it is. Pat Michaels and others are on record as being financed by
> the fossil fuel industry.

And irrelevant. Pat Michaels in funded 97% by the taxpayers. The phrase
"and others" is a conspiracy theory. Perhaps you'd like to request
Greenpeace it return the money it received from Enron.

It is a delusion to claim that the fossil fuel industry is engaged in
some sort of tobacco style cabal to forstall the truth getting out. There
are many, many scientists who have gone on record to say that the
scientific basis for report of the IPCC is deeply flawed. It does the work
or reputation of real environmentalists no good at all to be associated
with paranoid conspiracy theories divorced from reality.

James Acker

unread,
Nov 4, 2003, 11:50:43 AM11/4/03
to

Tim Worstall

unread,
Nov 4, 2003, 12:10:53 PM11/4/03
to
Thomas Palm <Thoma...@chello.removethis.se> wrote in message news:<Xns9428BC1545B57T...@212.83.64.229>...

> "Titan Point" <titanpoi...@myrealbox.com> wrote in
> news:pan.2003.11.03....@myrealbox.com:
>
> > On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 03:42:42 +0000, Jim Norton wrote:
>
> >>>The editors of NATURE should speak up and provide some
> >>>discosure of the review history of Mann et al.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >>
> > Why? Because if the Mann Hockey Stick proves to be false, it could
> > take the credibility of climate science, the IPCC, the reputations of
> > not a few scientists and politicians and the public trust of science
> > generally, with it.
> >
> > These are not trivial issues any more.
>
> I'm sure there will be some people willing to try to tear down the public
> trust in science to prove a point, but in reality having a scientific
> paper, even a high impact one, turn out to be wrong is not unique.

Indeed. Which is really part of the point in this whole fuss. Which
group are correct I'm not competent to say over this hockey stick
thing. But public confidence in science would be best bolstered by
someone, somewhere, actually reperforming the Mann calcualtions with
whatever data it was that he did use, without the missing Excel
columns and all the rest. It's the only way that varied GW denialists
will be denied the option to reject the whole warming hypothesis.
And of course, if Mann turns out to have miscalcualted, then such GW
denialists will be able to gloat.
But at least we will know the truth, and be able to base our future
actions on such truths.

Just like father told you all those years ago : if you make a mistake,
own up , apologise and try to do better next time.

Tim Worstall

Thomas Palm

unread,
Nov 4, 2003, 12:24:19 PM11/4/03
to
t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote in
news:825e2890.03110...@posting.google.com:

> Thomas Palm <Thoma...@chello.removethis.se> wrote in message

>> I'm sure there will be some people willing to try to tear down the
>> public trust in science to prove a point, but in reality having a
>> scientific paper, even a high impact one, turn out to be wrong is not
>> unique.
>
> Indeed. Which is really part of the point in this whole fuss. Which
> group are correct I'm not competent to say over this hockey stick
> thing.

The fact that the Mann curve has survived for several years and been more
or less reproduced by other researchers making independent studies using
somewhat different proxies, while several flaws has been found within
days in the M&M paper give a fairly clear hint which one to trust.

> But public confidence in science would be best bolstered by
> someone, somewhere, actually reperforming the Mann calcualtions with
> whatever data it was that he did use, without the missing Excel
> columns and all the rest.

What makes you think no one has? If someone did it as an excercise to
learn the mechanics of this types of calculations he isn't going to have
it published. Only if you get a different result is it news, which biases
the reporting.

> It's the only way that varied GW denialists
> will be denied the option to reject the whole warming hypothesis.

The "warming hypothesis" doesn't rest on the paper by Mann. It is just
one small piece in a big puzzle, and if you remove that piece the grand
picture will still be the same. It wasn't Mann who showed that CO2 will
cause warming. The denialist will continue to deny in any case.

> Just like father told you all those years ago : if you make a mistake,
> own up , apologise and try to do better next time.

So what are the odds that all the people who have gloated over the
alledged errors of Mann in the public press will own up and apologize if
it turns out Mann was right all along?

David Ball

unread,
Nov 4, 2003, 1:03:40 PM11/4/03
to

Except that you forget about the OTHER studies that confirm
Mann's work using independent means. This is really an issue of making
a mountain out of a molehill. Here's what should have happened:

1. Mann et al publish their findings in Nature.
2. M&M do a rebuttal IN NATURE, first letting the original
authors know that this is what is being done.
3. Mann et al are offered the opportunity IN NATURE to rebut
M&M

What shouldn't have happened was that a hatchet-job, using
part of Mann et al's data should appear in a third-rate journal. What
shouldn't have happened is that such an article should have appeared
without the knowledge of the original authors and without access to
the complete dataset. What shouldn't have happened is that such an
article should have appeared in a journal with highly questionable
peer-review practices. What shouldn't have happened is that a
third-rate media should have taken up the cause of M&M and treated it
like the discovery of fire when nothing could be farther from the
truth.
Science is self-correcting, by design. It doesn't require the
use of partial datasets, obfuscation and spin.

James Acker

unread,
Nov 4, 2003, 2:05:22 PM11/4/03
to

James Acker

unread,
Nov 4, 2003, 2:15:14 PM11/4/03
to
Titan Point <titanpoi...@myrealbox.com> wrote:

: On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 08:06:14 +0000, Thomas Palm wrote:

:> "Titan Point" <titanpoi...@myrealbox.com> wrote in
:> news:pan.2003.11.03....@myrealbox.com:
:>
:>> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:29:16 +0000, Thomas Palm wrote:
:>
:>>> I'm sure there will be some people willing to try to tear down the
:>>> public trust in science to prove a point, but in reality having a
:>>> scientific paper, even a high impact one, turn out to be wrong is not
:>>> unique. Things like that happen, but most of the time the hyenas are
:>>> not as ready to leap into the battle. For example, Spencer and
:>>> Christy has been forced to revise their algorithm to calculate
:>>> temparature trends from MSU-data several time. Where were those
:>>> people then? Did people lose trust in science?
:>>
:>> False analogy. The adjustments were of the order of hundredths of a
:>> degree.
:>
:> The adjustments were enough to shift a cooling trend to one that was
:> warming enough to be consistent with the ground record, even if S&C still
:> get a lower result than everyone else who has looked at the same data.

: Nonsense. The cooling trend of the total atmosphere was re-confirmed. The
: MSU was re-calibrated with radio -sonde and other measurements and found
: to be highly accurate. The ground measurements are the ones that are
: deeply flawed, but strangely they tell you what you want to hear so you
: don't bother to question them.

What, pray tell, do you mean by "total atmosphere"? Are
you integrating the troposphere (which is warming), the mesophere, and
the stratosphere (which is cooling)?

How you can sit there and claim that there is a cooling
trend in the troposphere when Spencer and Christy's own data show that
it's warming is beyond me. But when you use unclear language,
you just foster confusion.

[deletions]

: For the record, the satellite record is too short to establish a


: meaningful climatic trend BUT it is long enough to point out the anomalous
: warming seen in the surface record to be a systematic error cause by urban
: heat islands.

For the record, the urban heat island effect has been quantified,
accounted for, and removed from the instrumental temperature record.
Stop regurgitating the pap that the Idsiots are dishing out. They're
wrong.

[deletions]

: It is a delusion to claim that the fossil fuel industry is engaged in


: some sort of tobacco style cabal to forstall the truth getting out. There
: are many, many scientists who have gone on record to say that the
: scientific basis for report of the IPCC is deeply flawed. It does the work
: or reputation of real environmentalists no good at all to be associated
: with paranoid conspiracy theories divorced from reality.

Read:
http://www.nrdc.org/media/docs/020403.pdf

Quoting from a FAXed message sent to the White House from
Arthur Randol, ExxonMobil senior environmental advisor:

"1. The IPCC is on schedule to issue, in late September 2001,
its Third Assessment Report (TAR), composed of three working group reports
on the science, impacts, and mitigation of climate change and a Synthesis
Report. The IPCC is headed by Robert Watson, an American who is also the
chief science person at the World Bank (Director, Environment Dept.) Watson
was hand picked by Al Gore and served in the Clinton/Gore White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy. His tenure at the IPCC ends with
the completion of the TAR. However, he could be extened at an IPCC session
this year or next.

During the Hague meeting in November, Watson presented a sneak
preview of the Third Assessment Report with the following caveat: "None
of the conclusions in this report are taken from the TAR, but are consistent
with the draft conclusions, which are subject to change until final
government approval and acceptance early next year." His statement belied
his real intent, which was to get media coverage of his views before
there was a chance for the process to challenge his personal agenda.

Issue: Can Watson be replaced at the request of the U.S.?"

At the end of this memo, there are several recommendations. Here
they are.

"1. Restructure the U.S. attendance at upcoming IPCC meetings to assure
none of the Clinton/Gore proponents are involved in any decisional activities.

a. Appoint Dr. John Christy, University of Alabama-Huntsville, Lead Author,
Working Group 1) as science lead for the balance of the IPCC process.
Phone #. This replaces Bierbaum and McCracken.

b. Appoint Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT (Lead Author-Working Group 1) as a
co-lead to conduct an immediate review of the comments on the Working
Group reports (I, II, and III) and to review the US comments to be
submitted (II, III).

c. Detail Dr. Joe Friday, National Research Council Board on Atmospheric
Sciences and Climate (coordinate the "Research Pathways for the Next
Decade" report that the Clinton Admin tried to buy) to work with Christy/
Lindzen.

d. Detail someone from the State Dept. to work under the direction
of Christy/Lindzen for the "consensus negotiations". This replaces
Moitke."

Requests 2 and 3 recommend delays to the IPCC releases so that US
inputs could be reassessed and that Watson could not release a draft
of the Synthesis Report. Request 4 recommended having Harlen Watson
of the House Science Committee available to work with the team.


Delusion? Why would ExxonMobil want to make sure that two of
the most noted global warming scientific skeptics in the United States
were the main voices of the U.S. IPCC team?

Jim Acker

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Jim Acker
jac...@gl.umbc.edu
"Since we are assured that an all-wise Creator has observed the
most exact proportions, of number, weight, and measure, in the
make of all things, the most likely way therefore, to get any
insight into the nature of those parts of the creation, which
come within our observation, must in all reason be to number,
weigh, and measure." - Stephen Hales

Roger Coppock

unread,
Nov 4, 2003, 6:21:37 PM11/4/03
to
David Ball wrote:
>
> Except that you forget about the OTHER studies that confirm
> Mann's work using independent means.

YES! THERE IS A WHOLE BODY OF LITERATURE OUT THERE THAT DOES CONFIRM
MANN et all. The NOAA has put some of the papers on line. Please
see: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

This single MM paper published in a non-peer reviewed journal about
5-year-old issues isn't going to overturn all Paleoclimatology
published in the last decade. I am surprised that it even created
a ripple.


> Science is self-correcting, by design. It doesn't require the
> use of partial datasets, obfuscation and spin.

Fossil foolery, however, never corrects its mistakes, only designs
to prevent remedial greenhouse action, and almost always uses partial
"Cherry Picked" data to tell half-truths, obfuscate and spin.


--

"One who joyfully guards his mind
And fears his own confusion
Can not fall.
He has found his way to peace."

-- Buddha, in the "Pali Dhammapada,"
~5th century BCE


-.-. --.- Roger Coppock (rcop...@adnc.com)


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Steve Schulin

unread,
Nov 4, 2003, 7:10:17 PM11/4/03
to
In article <1cpfqv05u6h2iq9mk...@4ax.com>,
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote, in part:

>
> Except that you forget about the OTHER studies that confirm
> Mann's work using independent means. This is really an issue of making
> a mountain out of a molehill. Here's what should have happened:
>
> 1. Mann et al publish their findings in Nature.
> 2. M&M do a rebuttal IN NATURE, first letting the original
> authors know that this is what is being done.

McIntyre set out to understand what Mann et al. did. During the course
of his replication effort, he described various aspects of his progress
to a discussion list. At one point, the editor of E&E encouraged
McIntyre in his research and expressed hope that he'd formalize his
findings in a scholarly article. The notion that he should have offered
the paper to Nature, instead of offering it to the journal whose editor
actually took the time to be interested in the research, seems pretty
silly to me, bub. McIntyre did tell Mann that he was attempting to
replicate Mann et al 1998.

> 3. Mann et al are offered the opportunity IN NATURE to rebut
> M&M

Mann discouraged any further contact by McIntyre. He's free to respond
if and when and where he wants. Fortunately for him and us, McIntyre and
McKitrick were quite explicit in detailing their methodology, so he can
fully recreate what they did. That's science, Mr. Ball.



>
> What shouldn't have happened was that a hatchet-job, using

> part of Mann et al's data ...

If Mann et al. were replicable, maybe the replicators could have
succeeded. Tell me, Mr. Ball, has anyone to this day identified why Mann
et al. apparently chose to drop the first two years off the chin04
series?

> ... should appear in a third-rate journal. ...

In this case, using standard of replicability, Energy & Environment sure
appears to rate much higher than Nature. But you're surely free to use
whatever standard you choose.

> ... What


> shouldn't have happened is that such an article should have appeared
> without the knowledge of the original authors and without access to

> the complete dataset. ...

Mann was aware that McIntyre was attempting to replicate his work. Mann
arranged for McIntyre to be provided with the complete dataset. McIntyre
sent the dataset txt file back asking that Mann verify it. Mann quite
specifically discouraged any further inquiry from McIntyre. There is
much which can be learned from McIntyre & McKitrick's paper, even amidst
the difficulties related to Mann et al's failed attempt to compile an
accurate file containing their data.

> ... What shouldn't have happened is that such an


> article should have appeared in a journal with highly questionable

> peer-review practices. ...

No harm in asking questions. But you sure are good at appearing to say
something substantive when in fact you're just blathering.

> ... What shouldn't have happened is that a


> third-rate media should have taken up the cause of M&M and treated it
> like the discovery of fire when nothing could be farther from the
> truth.

Lot's of things are further from the truth. For example, the uncritical
plastering of Mann et al's hockey stick shaped curve into Fig. 1 of the
WG1 TAR Summary for Policymakers.

> Science is self-correcting, by design. It doesn't require the
> use of partial datasets, obfuscation and spin.

Who before M&M noted Mann et al's truncating of the chin04 series? Did
Mann et al 1998 mention they did this? No. Did they explain why they did
it? No. Did they include the original untruncated version of the chin04
series in their newly announced ftp site? Yes (and they also included
the untruncated version, too). I'm interested in hearing the story
behind this. I don't understand why you supposed men-of-science find it
of less interest than your limp insults.

Steve Schulin

unread,
Nov 4, 2003, 7:31:49 PM11/4/03
to
In article <3FA8342F...@adnc.com>,
Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:

> David Ball wrote:
> >
> > Except that you forget about the OTHER studies that confirm
> > Mann's work using independent means.
>
> YES! THERE IS A WHOLE BODY OF LITERATURE OUT THERE THAT DOES CONFIRM
> MANN et all. The NOAA has put some of the papers on line. Please
> see: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

Time for all you alarmists to hedge your bets. The Mann-made warming
theory is going down.

> This single MM paper published in a non-peer reviewed journal ...

I know it's futile to confront you with facts when you get like this,
Roger, but the fact is Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed journal.
And the McIntyre and McKitrick paper did indeed go through peer review.
That Mann et al 1998 was unreplicable is a failing of Nature's peer
review process, not E&E's.

> ... about


> 5-year-old issues isn't going to overturn all Paleoclimatology
> published in the last decade. I am surprised that it even created
> a ripple.

Maybe you can find any indication that, or explanation of why, Mann et
al 1998 drop the first two values of the chin04 series. This, and many
other interesting findings, are reported by M&M.

>
>
> > Science is self-correcting, by design. It doesn't require the
> > use of partial datasets, obfuscation and spin.
>
> Fossil foolery, however, never corrects its mistakes, only designs
> to prevent remedial greenhouse action, and almost always uses partial
> "Cherry Picked" data to tell half-truths, obfuscate and spin.

Some of the biggest Kyoto backers have been oil companies. Enron was on
your side,babe -- they were in resonance with your message. When I need
gas I fill up at Exxon because they haven't sold out to you alarmist
global governance types.

David Ball

unread,
Nov 4, 2003, 9:55:19 PM11/4/03
to
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 19:31:49 -0500, Steve Schulin
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:

>In article <3FA8342F...@adnc.com>,
> Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
>> David Ball wrote:
>> >
>> > Except that you forget about the OTHER studies that confirm
>> > Mann's work using independent means.
>>
>> YES! THERE IS A WHOLE BODY OF LITERATURE OUT THERE THAT DOES CONFIRM
>> MANN et all. The NOAA has put some of the papers on line. Please
>> see: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
>
>Time for all you alarmists to hedge your bets. The Mann-made warming
>theory is going down.

Time for all you trolls to find another issue. This one is
dead and starting to smell.

>
>> This single MM paper published in a non-peer reviewed journal ...
>
>I know it's futile to confront you with facts when you get like this,
>Roger, but the fact is Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed journal.

LOL. No, troll, it is dressed up to appear that way. It's
funny that CR went ballistic when S&B's latest "effort" appeared,
despite gross flaws in the science. Nary a word from E&E about their
"paper". I'm not surprised.

>And the McIntyre and McKitrick paper did indeed go through peer review.
>That Mann et al 1998 was unreplicable is a failing of Nature's peer
>review process, not E&E's.

Only to a troll like you. People who respect the peer-review
process have another view of it. Stop trolling, Perfesser. You waste
everyone's time and make yourself look foolish in the process.

David Ball

unread,
Nov 4, 2003, 10:05:47 PM11/4/03
to
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 19:10:17 -0500, Steve Schulin
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:

>In article <1cpfqv05u6h2iq9mk...@4ax.com>,
> David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote, in part:
>>
>> Except that you forget about the OTHER studies that confirm
>> Mann's work using independent means. This is really an issue of making
>> a mountain out of a molehill. Here's what should have happened:
>>
>> 1. Mann et al publish their findings in Nature.
>> 2. M&M do a rebuttal IN NATURE, first letting the original
>> authors know that this is what is being done.
>
>McIntyre set out to understand what Mann et al. did.

Funny, but they didn't do a very good job of it. They might
have started with using the real data, not the selective subset they
chose. Not surprising that they'd come up with the wrong answer when
you use the wrong data.

>During the course
>of his replication effort, he described various aspects of his progress
>to a discussion list. At one point, the editor of E&E encouraged
>McIntyre in his research and expressed hope that he'd formalize his
>findings in a scholarly article.

In E&E? I know you're not kidding, but that's too funny.

>The notion that he should have offered
>the paper to Nature, instead of offering it to the journal whose editor
>actually took the time to be interested in the research, seems pretty
>silly to me, bub. McIntyre did tell Mann that he was attempting to
>replicate Mann et al 1998.

Trolling again, I see. I'm not surprised, Perfesser.

>
>> 3. Mann et al are offered the opportunity IN NATURE to rebut
>> M&M
>
>Mann discouraged any further contact by McIntyre.

LOL. I don't blame him a bit. Honest scholarship should always
be supported. Bad science, started with an agenda should not.

>He's free to respond
>if and when and where he wants. Fortunately for him and us, McIntyre and
>McKitrick were quite explicit in detailing their methodology, so he can
>fully recreate what they did. That's science, Mr. Ball.

LOL. No, I'm afraid it's not, Troll, but then you've never let
science get in the way of a good lie.

>
>>
>> What shouldn't have happened was that a hatchet-job, using
>> part of Mann et al's data ...
>
>If Mann et al. were replicable, maybe the replicators could have
>succeeded. Tell me, Mr. Ball, has anyone to this day identified why Mann
>et al. apparently chose to drop the first two years off the chin04
>series?

LOL. How, Troll, do you replicate something without the
required data?

>
>> ... should appear in a third-rate journal. ...
>
>In this case, using standard of replicability, Energy & Environment sure
>appears to rate much higher than Nature. But you're surely free to use
>whatever standard you choose.

Only to a troll like you. Of course, you still think the
Idso's are on the up and up, so I'm not surprised you'd find E&E to
your liking.

>
>> ... What
>> shouldn't have happened is that such an article should have appeared
>> without the knowledge of the original authors and without access to
>> the complete dataset. ...
>
>Mann was aware that McIntyre was attempting to replicate his work. Mann
>arranged for McIntyre to be provided with the complete dataset. McIntyre
>sent the dataset txt file back asking that Mann verify it. Mann quite
>specifically discouraged any further inquiry from McIntyre. There is
>much which can be learned from McIntyre & McKitrick's paper, even amidst
>the difficulties related to Mann et al's failed attempt to compile an
>accurate file containing their data.

I notice you haven't addressed the multiple studies, that used
independent analysis that arrived at the same conclusions as Mann.

>
>> ... What shouldn't have happened is that such an
>> article should have appeared in a journal with highly questionable
>> peer-review practices. ...
>
>No harm in asking questions. But you sure are good at appearing to say
>something substantive when in fact you're just blathering.

Feel free to go back on your medication any time, Troll.

>
>> ... What shouldn't have happened is that a
>> third-rate media should have taken up the cause of M&M and treated it
>> like the discovery of fire when nothing could be farther from the
>> truth.
>
>Lot's of things are further from the truth. For example, the uncritical
>plastering of Mann et al's hockey stick shaped curve into Fig. 1 of the
>WG1 TAR Summary for Policymakers.

You mean the one supported by the multiple independent
studies? Yes, I can see why that would be a problem for you. Like I
said, Troll, you've got zero credibility. Time to crawl back under
your rock.

Jim Norton

unread,
Nov 4, 2003, 10:12:39 PM11/4/03
to
>This single MM paper published in a non-peer reviewed journal about
>5-year-old issues isn't going to overturn all Paleoclimatology
>published in the last decade. I am surprised that it even created
>a ripple.

You forget that the fossile fools will latch onto anything to "disprove" global
warming. Even if the authors withdraw the paper the damage has already been
done. By that time TechCentralStation and the rest will be promoting the next
great "debunking".

============================

Roger Coppock

unread,
Nov 4, 2003, 10:46:39 PM11/4/03
to
Steve Schulin wrote:
>
> Some of the biggest Kyoto backers have been oil companies.

Documentation supporting this statement, please!


> Enron was on
> your side,babe -- they were in resonance with your message.

Documentation supporting this statement, please!

Tim Worstall

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 4:01:31 AM11/5/03
to
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<cfpgqv0g8850mcr6a...@4ax.com>...

> On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 19:31:49 -0500, Steve Schulin
> <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <3FA8342F...@adnc.com>,
> > Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
> >
> >> David Ball wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Except that you forget about the OTHER studies that confirm
> >> > Mann's work using independent means.
> >>
> >> YES! THERE IS A WHOLE BODY OF LITERATURE OUT THERE THAT DOES CONFIRM
> >> MANN et all. The NOAA has put some of the papers on line. Please
> >> see: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
> >
> >Time for all you alarmists to hedge your bets. The Mann-made warming
> >theory is going down.
>
> Time for all you trolls to find another issue. This one is
> dead and starting to smell.
>
> >
> >> This single MM paper published in a non-peer reviewed journal ...
> >
> >I know it's futile to confront you with facts when you get like this,
> >Roger, but the fact is Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed journal.
>
> LOL. No, troll, it is dressed up to appear that way. It's
> funny that CR went ballistic when S&B's latest "effort" appeared,
> despite gross flaws in the science. Nary a word from E&E about their
> "paper". I'm not surprised.


I think you are being unkind to E & E here.
Do you remember the Castles and Henderson criticism of the economic
models of the SRES and IPCC ? Yes, published in E & E . And do you
recall the IPCC response ( not a formal one, but various lead authors
did say that it reflected their views ) ? And where was that published
? In E&E, in the same issue as the C & H paper.
I regard that as an excellent example of the " point, counterpoint"
style of debate, something that we could do with more of.
On such evidence I am convinced that as and when someone does write a
detailed paper on where M&M are wrong, it will be E & E that publishes
it. All the stats and evidence to do so are up there on the web :
Anyone who wants to get their name up in lights just needs to trawl
through it. And cynic that I am I would regard the non appearance of
such a paper ( rather than side comments such as " the Excel
spreadsheet was wrong " which seem to close to " the dog ate my
homework " ) as an indication that M& M were actually on to something.

As to the point that other papers and work show that Mann's answer,
that there has been recent global warming greater than historical
levels, well, so what? We all know that science and maths don't work
that way. Somewhere around second grade your maths teacher starts to
tell you that you cannot just put down the answer : you have to show
your workings, and it is the correct application of the right methods
which will gain you marks. In terms of scientific reliability,whether
Mann has the right answer or not is irrelevant. If his methods are
flawed, then so is the conclusion.

So, the important question, to my mind, becomes, are M&M correct in
their critique of Mann's workings ? If not, then I await the paper (
and for those who doubt that I might change my view when the facts
change, have a look back in this NG to see my reactions to the first
view of the C&H paper, and how that changes when the IPCC response is
published ) that shows where. And if Mann is wrong in his methods ?
Then the truth of GW will just have to be supported by those papers
which are in themselves supportable. After all, if it really is true,
then there should be a plethora of them, and showing that one paper
amongst many used questionable methods should not bring the whole
edifice crumbling down.

Tim Worstall

Thomas Palm

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 4:01:38 AM11/5/03
to
Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in
news:steve.schulin-720...@comcast.ash.giganews.com:

> In article <1cpfqv05u6h2iq9mk...@4ax.com>,
> David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote, in part:
>>
>> Except that you forget about the OTHER studies that confirm
>> Mann's work using independent means. This is really an issue of
>> making a mountain out of a molehill. Here's what should have
>> happened:
>>
>> 1. Mann et al publish their findings in Nature.
>> 2. M&M do a rebuttal IN NATURE, first letting the original
>> authors know that this is what is being done.
>
> McIntyre set out to understand what Mann et al. did. During the course
> of his replication effort, he described various aspects of his
> progress to a discussion list. At one point, the editor of E&E
> encouraged McIntyre in his research and expressed hope that he'd
> formalize his findings in a scholarly article. The notion that he
> should have offered the paper to Nature, instead of offering it to the
> journal whose editor actually took the time to be interested in the
> research, seems pretty silly to me, bub.

So the article was actually solicited by the editor of E&E. That may
explain how it got through the review process, in case there was any for
this paper, apparently E&E has somewhat fuzzy rules in that respect.

> McIntyre did tell Mann that he was attempting to
> replicate Mann et al 1998.
>
>> 3. Mann et al are offered the opportunity IN NATURE to rebut
>> M&M
>
> Mann discouraged any further contact by McIntyre. He's free to respond
> if and when and where he wants. Fortunately for him and us, McIntyre
> and McKitrick were quite explicit in detailing their methodology, so
> he can fully recreate what they did. That's science, Mr. Ball.

So, has anyone been able to reproduce M&M yet? If they gave so many
details certainly someone should be able to do that.

As for Mann limiting his help, well when somone not a climate scientists
started to ask questions he probably didn't take it all that seriously
and scientists do have limited time.

This has an amusing parallel of which Steve is well aware. I asked him
for a copy of some article by Jelbring he apparently had, since he
didn't want to forward it himself he gave me Jelbring's address instead.
So, I sent him a letter asking for a copy of his article from E&E. I got
the response that since I had stated that a accepted the majortiy view
that ACC is real I was a "believer" and probably not competent to
understand his work. Jelbring claimed the E&E copy policy was so hard he
couldn't send me a copy of the manuscript of his "revolutionary"
article, only some political analysis he had written about the situation
for Kyoto in Russia. (as if that was of any interest) To make matters
more absurd he started sending his replies to my private letters into
the climatesceptics mail group. What they made of getting half a
conversation I don't know. I tried getting a short reply in, but I don't
know if I've succeeded since only members can post directly, Jelbring
didn't want to send it and the moderator of the list hasn't replied to
my letter.

>> ... should appear in a third-rate journal. ...
>
> In this case, using standard of replicability, Energy & Environment
> sure appears to rate much higher than Nature. But you're surely free
> to use whatever standard you choose.

How can you say that when no one has replicated M&M?



>> ... What shouldn't have happened is that a
>> third-rate media should have taken up the cause of M&M and treated it
>> like the discovery of fire when nothing could be farther from the
>> truth.
>
> Lot's of things are further from the truth. For example, the
> uncritical plastering of Mann et al's hockey stick shaped curve into
> Fig. 1 of the WG1 TAR Summary for Policymakers.

That's how science is handled. If it was so trivial to refute Mann how
come not one of all the people who have derided the "hockey stick" has
done so before now? Did they all assume it was correct while at the same
time pretending they though it was a lie, or were they just to ignorant
or lazy even to try to check the science? Or, maybe some of them
actually did, except they found Mann had done a correct job and decided
not to write about that finding. Should, against my expectation, it turn
out that Mann have done any serious errors, this will reflect badly on
the quality of the climate sceptics too, you know.

David Ball

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 7:26:03 AM11/5/03
to
On 5 Nov 2003 01:01:31 -0800, t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote:

>David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<cfpgqv0g8850mcr6a...@4ax.com>...
>> On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 19:31:49 -0500, Steve Schulin
>> <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3FA8342F...@adnc.com>,
>> > Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> David Ball wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Except that you forget about the OTHER studies that confirm
>> >> > Mann's work using independent means.
>> >>
>> >> YES! THERE IS A WHOLE BODY OF LITERATURE OUT THERE THAT DOES CONFIRM
>> >> MANN et all. The NOAA has put some of the papers on line. Please
>> >> see: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
>> >
>> >Time for all you alarmists to hedge your bets. The Mann-made warming
>> >theory is going down.
>>
>> Time for all you trolls to find another issue. This one is
>> dead and starting to smell.
>>
>> >
>> >> This single MM paper published in a non-peer reviewed journal ...
>> >
>> >I know it's futile to confront you with facts when you get like this,
>> >Roger, but the fact is Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed journal.
>>
>> LOL. No, troll, it is dressed up to appear that way. It's
>> funny that CR went ballistic when S&B's latest "effort" appeared,
>> despite gross flaws in the science. Nary a word from E&E about their
>> "paper". I'm not surprised.
>
>
>I think you are being unkind to E & E here.

No, I'm being factual here. If you cannot get your message out
in a conventional way through a highly respected journal what you do
is create a new journal, relax the standards substantially then let
any and all publish "their" science. That's what E&E is doing.

>Do you remember the Castles and Henderson criticism of the economic
>models of the SRES and IPCC ? Yes, published in E & E . And do you
>recall the IPCC response ( not a formal one, but various lead authors
>did say that it reflected their views ) ? And where was that published
>? In E&E, in the same issue as the C & H paper.
>I regard that as an excellent example of the " point, counterpoint"
>style of debate, something that we could do with more of.
>On such evidence I am convinced that as and when someone does write a
>detailed paper on where M&M are wrong, it will be E & E that publishes
>it. All the stats and evidence to do so are up there on the web :
>Anyone who wants to get their name up in lights just needs to trawl
>through it. And cynic that I am I would regard the non appearance of
>such a paper ( rather than side comments such as " the Excel
>spreadsheet was wrong " which seem to close to " the dog ate my
>homework " ) as an indication that M& M were actually on to something.

And the web is a huge problem, because while it offers a
source for vast quantities of information, much of that information is
wrong. All one needs to do is look at the Idso's abuse of the USHCN
data to see that. What you do is take good data, do a thoroughly
piss-poor analysis on it - knowingly violating basic standards of
analysis - then announce your "findings" on the web. It looks like the
real thing, and the people doing it are experts, so they can dress it
up to look really good. To an uninformed public, it appears to be the
real thing when nothing could be farther from the truth,

>
>As to the point that other papers and work show that Mann's answer,
>that there has been recent global warming greater than historical
>levels, well, so what? We all know that science and maths don't work
>that way. Somewhere around second grade your maths teacher starts to
>tell you that you cannot just put down the answer : you have to show
>your workings, and it is the correct application of the right methods
>which will gain you marks. In terms of scientific reliability,whether
>Mann has the right answer or not is irrelevant. If his methods are
>flawed, then so is the conclusion.

LOL. Try again. That is EXACTLY how science works. If I come
up with an answer 10 different ways, the chances are pretty good that
it is the right answer.
BTW, how exactly do you arrive at the same conclusions when
you don't have all the data? You can show all the workings you want,
but you shouldn't be surprised to arrive at a different answer. In
addition, if you do find a different answer, it might be courteous to
contact the author and say, "Uh, is there a problem here?"

>
>So, the important question, to my mind, becomes, are M&M correct in
>their critique of Mann's workings ?

Gee, did you read Mann et al's rebuttal? Perhaps you should.


Lloyd Parker

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 4:32:25 AM11/5/03
to
In article <steve.schulin-7CB...@comcast.ash.giganews.com>,

Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>In article <3FA8342F...@adnc.com>,
> Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
>> David Ball wrote:
>> >
>> > Except that you forget about the OTHER studies that confirm
>> > Mann's work using independent means.
>>
>> YES! THERE IS A WHOLE BODY OF LITERATURE OUT THERE THAT DOES CONFIRM
>> MANN et all. The NOAA has put some of the papers on line. Please
>> see: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
>
>Time for all you alarmists to hedge your bets. The Mann-made warming
>theory is going down.
>
>> This single MM paper published in a non-peer reviewed journal ...
>
>I know it's futile to confront you with facts when you get like this,
>Roger, but the fact is Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed journal.

Yeah, like Buckley's National Review is.

w...@bas.ac.uk

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 10:02:08 AM11/5/03
to
Tim Worstall <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
>wrote in message news:<cfpgqv0g8850mcr6a...@4ax.com>...
>> On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 19:31:49 -0500, Steve Schulin

>> >I know it's futile to confront you with facts when you get like this,

>> >Roger, but the fact is Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed journal.

It would be nice if it published it policy on peer review.

>I think you are being unkind to E & E here.
>Do you remember the Castles and Henderson criticism of the economic
>models of the SRES and IPCC ? Yes, published in E & E . And do you
>recall the IPCC response ( not a formal one, but various lead authors
>did say that it reflected their views ) ?

Indeed - it wasn't an IPCC response. It would be better if you stopped
calling it one.

> And where was that published
>? In E&E, in the same issue as the C & H paper.

It was. OTOH the C+H paper had been widely touted around the world
for quite a while *before* it was published: for example, the economist
published a page sympathetic to the C+H paper, but before the response
was published, and they ignored the response.

>I regard that as an excellent example of the " point, counterpoint"
>style of debate, something that we could do with more of.

Why would we want more of it? C+H was nonsense, and got rebutted.
M&M looks likely to go the same way - time will tell. Its odd that
E+E didn't offer sight of the paper to Mann et al before publication.

>And cynic that I am I would regard the non appearance of
>such a paper ( rather than side comments such as " the Excel
>spreadsheet was wrong " which seem to close to " the dog ate my
>homework " ) as an indication that M& M were actually on to something.

Have you read Mann's, and others, reply yet?

-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!

James Acker

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 10:22:52 AM11/5/03
to
In sci.environment Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
: In article <3FA8342F...@adnc.com>,
: Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:

:> David Ball wrote:
:> >
:> > Except that you forget about the OTHER studies that confirm
:> > Mann's work using independent means.
:>
:> YES! THERE IS A WHOLE BODY OF LITERATURE OUT THERE THAT DOES CONFIRM
:> MANN et all. The NOAA has put some of the papers on line. Please
:> see: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

: Time for all you alarmists to hedge your bets. The Mann-made warming
: theory is going down.

:> This single MM paper published in a non-peer reviewed journal ...

: I know it's futile to confront you with facts when you get like this,
: Roger, but the fact is Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed journal.
: And the McIntyre and McKitrick paper did indeed go through peer review.
: That Mann et al 1998 was unreplicable is a failing of Nature's peer
: review process, not E&E's.

"Unreplicable" is a farce. On a different thread currently
active, I provided a link to a plot of several different studies which
are _independent analyses_ that support Mann et al.'s results. While
you found the time to reply to Ian St. John in short order, you for
some reason didn't have the time to reply to me. And you've posted
other comments, such as this one here.

On that other thread, I asked some direct questions. May
I politely inquire as to whether you intend to answer them, or are
you just hoping that I'll forget about it?

Bottom line: the accuracy of Mann et al.'s results is strongly
supported by several other published research papers which describe
investigations by different groups. This support also as marked
indication that Mickey-Mick's E&E paper is not tenable in any
significant manner. Actually, the tempest-in-a-teapot it is creating
may serve to show how good Mann's research is, rather than how
poor it is -- because it is highlighting the salient fact that Mann's
research IS NOT THE ONLY WORK THAT SHOWS SIMILAR CLIMATE PATTERNS
OVER THE LAST MILLENIUM.

Try to spin that, Mr. Schulin.

[remainder deleted]

Frank Altschuler

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 11:25:04 AM11/5/03
to

"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:3FA87229...@adnc.com...

> Steve Schulin wrote:
> >
> > Some of the biggest Kyoto backers have been oil companies.
>
> Documentation supporting this statement, please!
>

BP calls for ratification of Kyoto Protocol
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/s410744.htm

> > Enron was on
> > your side,babe -- they were in resonance with your message.
>
> Documentation supporting this statement, please!
>

Why Enron Wants Global Warming by Patrick J. Michaels
http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-06-02.html

Why Enron Loved Kyoto, And the EU Shouldn't
O'Keefe Op-Ed In The Wall Street Journal
http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,03143.cfm


Thomas Palm

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 11:38:27 AM11/5/03
to
"Frank Altschuler" <falts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:Av9qb.2650$%
k.1...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com:

>> > Enron was on
>> > your side,babe -- they were in resonance with your message.
>>
>> Documentation supporting this statement, please!
>>
>
> Why Enron Wants Global Warming by Patrick J. Michaels
> http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-06-02.html

Interesting article, apart from all the conspiracy stuff about how
contrarians become unfairly attacked. It does support my view that a carbon
tax is a much simpler way to limit CO2 emissions than tradable emission
permits. Then Enron wouldn't have any trading to earn money from.
It's not the Kyoto treaty that says you have to use tradable permits to
limit emissions within countries, that's just a fad among people who are
infatuated with the idea that a "market" must be better than a tax.

Steve Schulin

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 5:20:55 PM11/5/03
to
In article <bob4kc$b61$1...@news.umbc.edu>,
James Acker <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

> In sci.environment Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> : In article <3FA8342F...@adnc.com>,
> : Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> :> David Ball wrote:
> :> >
> :> > Except that you forget about the OTHER studies that confirm
> :> > Mann's work using independent means.
> :>
> :> YES! THERE IS A WHOLE BODY OF LITERATURE OUT THERE THAT DOES CONFIRM
> :> MANN et all. The NOAA has put some of the papers on line. Please
> :> see: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
>
> : Time for all you alarmists to hedge your bets. The Mann-made warming
> : theory is going down.
>
> :> This single MM paper published in a non-peer reviewed journal ...
>
> : I know it's futile to confront you with facts when you get like this,
> : Roger, but the fact is Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed journal.
> : And the McIntyre and McKitrick paper did indeed go through peer review.
> : That Mann et al 1998 was unreplicable is a failing of Nature's peer
> : review process, not E&E's.
>

> "Unreplicable" is a farce. ...

To publish unreplicable paper like Nature did and call it science is a
sorry matter. To rely on unreplicable paper like IPCC did is another
sorry matter. Farce is not too strong a word. Your notion -- that
support from independent methods is a substitute for replicability -- is
a subject on which I'm happy to disagee with you.

> ... On a different thread currently


> active, I provided a link to a plot of several different studies which
> are _independent analyses_ that support Mann et al.'s results. While
> you found the time to reply to Ian St. John in short order, you for
> some reason didn't have the time to reply to me. And you've posted
> other comments, such as this one here.

If you really want quicker response, you might try making your posts
more pithy. And BTW, just for future reference, if you persist in these
incredibly bogus notions about replicability not being important, I
reserve the right to ignore you.

>
> On that other thread, I asked some direct questions. May
> I politely inquire as to whether you intend to answer them, or are
> you just hoping that I'll forget about it?

Wasn't that just within the last 24 hours? How come you're so impatient
with me, yet you seem to think it just dandy that IPCC let that frickin
hockey stick sit for 9 months in the public eye as Fig. 1 in the WG1 TAR
Summary for Policymakers without a whit of inkling of the contrary info
contained in the body of the TAR.

>
> Bottom line: the accuracy of Mann et al.'s results is strongly
> supported by several other published research papers which describe
> investigations by different groups. This support also as marked
> indication that Mickey-Mick's E&E paper is not tenable in any
> significant manner. Actually, the tempest-in-a-teapot it is creating
> may serve to show how good Mann's research is, rather than how
> poor it is -- because it is highlighting the salient fact that Mann's
> research IS NOT THE ONLY WORK THAT SHOWS SIMILAR CLIMATE PATTERNS
> OVER THE LAST MILLENIUM.
>
> Try to spin that, Mr. Schulin.

I won't be disappointed if Mann has great answers to such questions as

* why does Mann et al 1998 claim to include analysis of fran003,
ital015, ital015x, spai026 and spai047? The authors clearly intended to
include them, at least at one time, because they are included in the
list of datasets analyzed. But, even though the compiled datafile Mann
et al provided M&M was quite faulty, M&M were able to identify, by going
to the original data archives, all 112 series (I might be off by one on
this -- maybe they identified all but one). These five were not amongst
the 112. For you Mann apologists out there, plese note that these five
are also not included in the recently announced, but long extant, ftp
directory. So if you believe him that all the data used in the analysis
is there, you might want to know what these five were apparently dropped
from the analysis.

* why does Mann et al 1998 dropp the first two years from the dataset
known as chin04? The original researcher included these in the time
series.

* why hasn't Mann et al 1998 disclosed the rosters of principal
components?

James Acker

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 6:01:13 PM11/5/03
to
In sci.environment Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
: In article <bob4kc$b61$1...@news.umbc.edu>,
: James Acker <jac...@linux3.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

:> In sci.environment Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
:> : In article <3FA8342F...@adnc.com>,
:> : Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
:>
:> :> David Ball wrote:
:> :> >
:> :> > Except that you forget about the OTHER studies that confirm
:> :> > Mann's work using independent means.
:> :>
:> :> YES! THERE IS A WHOLE BODY OF LITERATURE OUT THERE THAT DOES CONFIRM
:> :> MANN et all. The NOAA has put some of the papers on line. Please
:> :> see: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
:>
:> : Time for all you alarmists to hedge your bets. The Mann-made warming
:> : theory is going down.
:>
:> :> This single MM paper published in a non-peer reviewed journal ...
:>
:> : I know it's futile to confront you with facts when you get like this,
:> : Roger, but the fact is Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed journal.
:> : And the McIntyre and McKitrick paper did indeed go through peer review.
:> : That Mann et al 1998 was unreplicable is a failing of Nature's peer
:> : review process, not E&E's.
:>
:> "Unreplicable" is a farce. ...

: To publish unreplicable paper like Nature did and call it science is a
: sorry matter. To rely on unreplicable paper like IPCC did is another
: sorry matter. Farce is not too strong a word. Your notion -- that
: support from independent methods is a substitute for replicability -- is
: a subject on which I'm happy to disagee with you.

We don't know that it's "unreplicable". You're basing that
opinion on the Mickey-Mick paper, which is probably wrong, because they
either 1) analyzed an incorrect data set, 2) improperly formulated a
new multiproxy data set which produced spurious results, or 3) did
both of those things.
I am reasonably confident that Mann could show anyone who
has the requisite statistical analysis capability how to do what he
did, and produce the same results that he did. Until demonstrated
otherwise by competent researchers (judged by where they publish)
without an agenda (also judged by where they choose to publish)
I'll retain that confidence.

:> ... On a different thread currently


:> active, I provided a link to a plot of several different studies which
:> are _independent analyses_ that support Mann et al.'s results. While
:> you found the time to reply to Ian St. John in short order, you for
:> some reason didn't have the time to reply to me. And you've posted
:> other comments, such as this one here.

: If you really want quicker response, you might try making your posts
: more pithy. And BTW, just for future reference, if you persist in these
: incredibly bogus notions about replicability not being important, I
: reserve the right to ignore you.

See above. As for pithy, your responses to my simple questions
on the other thread could hardly be characterized as that. You
could have said "Yes" or "No" in one case, "higher" or "lower" in
the other. Instead, you bring up new references that don't have
much bearing on the main points of discussion (example: Diaz
et al.)

:> On that other thread, I asked some direct questions. May

:> I politely inquire as to whether you intend to answer them, or are
:> you just hoping that I'll forget about it?

: Wasn't that just within the last 24 hours? How come you're so impatient
: with me, yet you seem to think it just dandy that IPCC let that frickin

I asked when you might respond, since you were so quick to
respond to others. I'd give you a month, as long as I had an idea
you were thinking about it.

: hockey stick sit for 9 months in the public eye as Fig. 1 in the WG1 TAR

: Summary for Policymakers without a whit of inkling of the contrary info
: contained in the body of the TAR.

"Contrary" I think in the eye of a particular beholder (you).

:> Bottom line: the accuracy of Mann et al.'s results is strongly

These questions, while perhaps interesting, do not have a
notable bearing on the fact stated above and reiterated here:

"Mann's research IS NOT THE ONLY WORK THAT SHOWS SIMILAR
CLIMATE PATTERNS OVER THE LAST MILLENIUM."

... which, ahem, the IPCC stated,

... and which you basically confirmed in your pithy evaluation
statement on the other thread.

Let me make a quick aside: Einstein's Theory of Relativity
included the remarkable implication that gravity bent light. That
idea seemed totally outlandish until it was confirmed by the
famous observation of occultation timings during a total eclipse.
That was called corroboration. Corroboration lends credence to
the original work of a researcher. Mann et al.'s work has been
independently corroborated. And that's good science. It is
doubtful that modifications to the data Mann et al. employed
in their analysis will have a major effect on the conclusions of
their analysis or the conclusions of the researchers that provide
independent corroboration -- something that the skeptics, despite
their efforts to discredit Mann, probably already realize. But
their aims are not scientific, they are trying to influence public
opinion and knowledge of the issue. Through the assistance of
poorly-informed editorial writers such as Iain Murray, Tim Patterson,
and ? Carter from Australia, they have probably accomplished
what they set out to do.

Jim Acker

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Jim Acker
jac...@gl.umbc.edu

A second flood, a simple famine, plagues of locusts everywhere,
Or a cataclysmic earthquake, I'd accept with some despair.
But no, you sent us Congress! Good God, sir, was that fair?
--- John Adams, "Piddle, Twiddle, and Resolve", from the
musical "1776"


Nigel Persaud

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 11:34:45 PM11/5/03
to
I don't see that MBH actually responded to M&M's list of data errors.
MBH have said nothing about why they truncated the Central England and
Central Europe data. They say that they sent the wrong data to M&M but
the same data is up at Mann's website. They haven't responded about
using obsolete data. They haven't explained why they used Paris,
France data for a North American site. I guess they don't want to talk
about that very much. But I don't see why M&M are so wrong for
pointing this out. Surely it's up to MBH to explain their data errors.
Trashing M&M doesn't seem like much of an answer.

Tim Worstall

unread,
Nov 6, 2003, 2:52:41 AM11/6/03
to
w...@bas.ac.uk wrote in message news:<3fa9...@news.nwl.ac.uk>...

Got a link ?

Tim Worstall
>
> -W.

w...@bas.ac.uk

unread,
Nov 6, 2003, 4:57:39 AM11/6/03
to
Tim Worstall <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
>> Have you read Mann's, and others, reply yet?

>Got a link ?

You'll find links to it, and a surprising amount of other interesting
stuff, at quark soup:

http://www.davidappell.com/

(if you go there, don't omit to read the stuff about Landscheidt)

in particular (under tuesday 4th):

http://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/Mann/EEReply.html

where you'll find a link to Manns reply (pdf). To quote from
Dr. Tim Osborn, Professor Keith Briffa and Professor Phil Jones on
that page:

"Unfortunately neither MM03 nor the journal in which it was published
took the necessary step of investigating (with Mann, Bradley or Hughes
whether the difference between MM03
results and MBH98 could be explained simply by some error or set of
errors in MM03's use of the data or in their implementation of the
MBH98 method. This should have been an essential
step to take in a case such as this where the difference in results
is so large and important. Especialy when the MM03 results, regarding
a warm 15th century, were also at odds with the
many other reconstructions that have been published, not just at odds
with MBH98. Simple errors should first be ruled out prior to publication.

Mann, Bradley and Hughes have now made a preliminary investigation into
the reasons for the different results, and have already identified a
number of likely errors, which may turn out to
be the cause of the different results.

Objective readers, with a desire to get to the "truth" of this issue,
would do well not to jump to premature conclusions and at least allow
these respected, experienced, and invariably careful
researchers the courtesy of a considered response, after they have had
time to study the so-called audit in detail."

Titan Point

unread,
Nov 6, 2003, 7:38:55 AM11/6/03
to

Yup.


>
> How you can sit there and claim that there is a cooling
> trend in the troposphere when Spencer and Christy's own data show that
> it's warming is beyond me. But when you use unclear language, you just
> foster confusion.

Since I didn't just say "the troposphere" but "the atmosphere" I think the
confusion is yours.


>
> [deletions]
>
> : For the record, the satellite record is too short to establish a
> : meaningful climatic trend BUT it is long enough to point out the
> : anomalous warming seen in the surface record to be a systematic error
> : cause by urban heat islands.
>
> For the record, the urban heat island effect has been quantified,
> accounted for, and removed from the instrumental temperature record.
> Stop regurgitating the pap that the Idsiots are dishing out. They're
> wrong.

Except that it hasn't. The Urban Heat Island effect can be anywhere from
0.1 degree to 8 degrees and depends on the topology of the site, the
composition and albedo of surrounding buildings, the proximity of traffic,
air conditioning and other man-made effects, as well as wind speed and
direction, daytime anomalies like sun-traps and so on.

Its a systematic error which is an order of magnitude greater than the
temperature variation you are trying to measure. Signal processing won't
do it.

Why? Because the IPCC team was stacked with eco-alarmists some of whom
were appointed by Al Gore, an eco-alarmist. They were aware that Watson
was trying to steamroller his eco-alarmist agenda by releasing a parallel
report which pretended to have the same conclusions as the IPCC (but
without all the tedious research and peer review done first).

As they say:


> His
> statement belied his real intent, which was to get media coverage of his
> views before there was a chance for the process to challenge his
> personal agenda.

Do we dare say that ExxonMobil was engaged in a conspiracy when Watson was
not?


James Acker

unread,
Nov 6, 2003, 11:43:44 AM11/6/03
to
Titan Point <titanpoi...@myrealbox.com> wrote:

: On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 19:15:14 +0000, James Acker wrote:

:> Titan Point <titanpoi...@myrealbox.com> wrote:

[deletions for brevity]

:> : Nonsense. The cooling trend of the total atmosphere was re-confirmed.


:> : The MSU was re-calibrated with radio -sonde and other measurements and
:> : found to be highly accurate. The ground measurements are the ones that
:> : are deeply flawed, but strangely they tell you what you want to hear
:> : so you don't bother to question them.
:>
:> What, pray tell, do you mean by "total atmosphere"? Are you integrating
:> the troposphere (which is warming), the mesophere, and the stratosphere
:> (which is cooling)?

: Yup.

OH. Well, since we know that the stratosphere is cooling off
due to a combination of ozone depletion and radiation loss due to
increased GHG trapping of warmth in the troposphere, then this is...
specious?

:> How you can sit there and claim that there is a cooling


:> trend in the troposphere when Spencer and Christy's own data show that
:> it's warming is beyond me. But when you use unclear language, you just
:> foster confusion.

: Since I didn't just say "the troposphere" but "the atmosphere" I think the
: confusion is yours.

I'm glad we cleared that up.

:> [deletions]


:>
:> : For the record, the satellite record is too short to establish a
:> : meaningful climatic trend BUT it is long enough to point out the
:> : anomalous warming seen in the surface record to be a systematic error
:> : cause by urban heat islands.
:>
:> For the record, the urban heat island effect has been quantified,
:> accounted for, and removed from the instrumental temperature record.
:> Stop regurgitating the pap that the Idsiots are dishing out. They're
:> wrong.

: Except that it hasn't. The Urban Heat Island effect can be anywhere from
: 0.1 degree to 8 degrees and depends on the topology of the site, the
: composition and albedo of surrounding buildings, the proximity of traffic,
: air conditioning and other man-made effects, as well as wind speed and
: direction, daytime anomalies like sun-traps and so on.

: Its a systematic error which is an order of magnitude greater than the
: temperature variation you are trying to measure. Signal processing won't
: do it.

References, please, supporting the statement that "signal
processing won't do it" regarding the elimination of urban heat effects
from long-term surface temperature records.

:> : It is a delusion to claim that the fossil fuel industry is engaged in


:> : some sort of tobacco style cabal to forstall the truth getting out.
:> : There are many, many scientists who have gone on record to say that
:> : the scientific basis for report of the IPCC is deeply flawed. It does
:> : the work or reputation of real environmentalists no good at all to be
:> : associated with paranoid conspiracy theories divorced from reality.
:>
:> Read:
:> http://www.nrdc.org/media/docs/020403.pdf

[deletion of text excerpted from letter]


:> Delusion? Why would ExxonMobil want to make sure that two of


:> the most noted global warming scientific skeptics in the United States
:> were the main voices of the U.S. IPCC team?
:>
:> Jim Acker

: Why? Because the IPCC team was stacked with eco-alarmists some of whom
: were appointed by Al Gore, an eco-alarmist. They were aware that Watson
: was trying to steamroller his eco-alarmist agenda by releasing a parallel
: report which pretended to have the same conclusions as the IPCC (but
: without all the tedious research and peer review done first).

Let's go back and review what you said.

"It is a delusion to claim that the fossil fuel industry is engaged in
some sort of tobacco style cabal to forstall the truth getting out.

Go back and review what the tobacco industry did. They sought
out "expert" testimony from friendly doctors to inform the media that
the link between cancer and smoking wasn't proven. They continually
sought to cast doubt on the studies that showed such a link, claiming
that the statistics were uncertain or that the study protocols were
flawed. They attacked the doctors making the linkage studies as having
an anti-big business, anti-tobacco industry "agenda". They produced
their own studies purporting to show that there was no definitive link
between cancer and smoking.

All of those have parallels right now with what the energy
industry is doing or has done with regard to global warming, particularly
finding "friendly" experts to promote a "no-danger-here" message.

Let's make a few modifications to what you just wrote above:

"They were aware that "Dr. Knowitall"
was trying to steamroller his cancer-alarmist agenda by releasing a parallel
report which pretended to have the same conclusions as the FDA (but


without all the tedious research and peer review done first)."

Hmpf.


: As they say:


:> His
:> statement belied his real intent, which was to get media coverage of his
:> views before there was a chance for the process to challenge his
:> personal agenda.

: Do we dare say that ExxonMobil was engaged in a conspiracy when Watson was
: not?

Watson's statements were in the public record; what he said
before the TAR was released could be compared to the TAR when it was
released. ExxonMobil's memo would not have seen the light of day if
NRDC hadn't dug it out of the White House files.

w...@bas.ac.uk

unread,
Nov 6, 2003, 12:13:31 PM11/6/03