Tree Ring Circus

3 views
Skip to first unread message

James

unread,
Jul 30, 2005, 12:26:27 PM7/30/05
to
Tree Ring Circus
Thursday, July 28, 2005
By Steven Milloy
Is it really possible to determine the change in global temperatures over
the last 1,000 years by examining tree rings?

We may finally learn the answer, thanks to the efforts of Congressman Joe
Barton, R-Texas -- who has had everything but the kitchen sink thrown at him
by the global warming lobby in its fierce opposition to his recent inquiry.

On June 23, Rep. Barton, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce, sent letters to the climate researchers responsible for developing
the notorious "hockey stick" graph, which purports to show a dramatic rise
in global temperatures during the 20th century after a millennium of
supposedly little change in global temperature.

The hockey stick graph has been key weapon in the arsenal of the global
warming alarmists in their efforts to scare the U.S. into signing the Kyoto
Protocol and clamping down on greenhouse gas emissions and energy use.

The graph has been criticized for many reasons, including its reliance on
dubious estimates of historic temperatures based on the size of tree rings.
Not only is temperature merely one factor that contributes to tree growth
(as evidenced by the ring size), but a 15th century portion of the hockey
stick graph is based on tree ring measurements from a single tree.

Noting that "sharing data and research results is a basic tenet of open
scientific inquiry" and that the hockey stick research was paid for with
public funds, Chairman Barton asked Dr. Michael Mann of the University of
Virginia for the computer code used to generate the hockey stick graph. Dr.
Mann had previously refused to provide his computer code to other climate
researchers who had requested it.

Dr. Mann apparently decided that he cannot withhold his data and computer
code any longer from the public and agreed in a letter to post his data and
computer code on the Internet -- but not without squealing about it first.
Before Dr. Mann turned over his data, virtually the entire spectrum of
global warming alarmists attacked Chairman Barton for requesting access to
the data and code.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, long a proponent of
global warming alarmism, chided Chairman Barton in a July 13 letter that Dr.
Mann's hockey stick had already been accepted by the United Nations' global
warming organization and that Congress ought not interfere with that
process.

Although the AAAS apparently believes that the UN should be the final
arbiter on scientific matters, it's not at all clear that political
organizations have any special insight into what constitutes scientific
fact.

Dr. Ralph Ciccerone, the president of the National Academy of Sciences,
wrote in a July 15 letter to Chairman Barton that "a focus on individual
scientists can be intimidating."

But congressional committees send out requests for information from private
parties routinely. Moreover, I doubt that Dr. Mann felt "intimidated." He
has previously testified in person before Congress about global warming
without complaining of any intimidation. It's more likely that Dr. Mann
doesn't want to run the risk of more criticism directed at his hockey stick
graph.

Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, the Chairman of the House Science Committee,
melodramatically wrote Chairman Barton claiming that, "The only conceivable
explanation for the investigation is to attempt to intimidate a prominent
scientist and to have Congress put its thumbs on the scales of a scientific
debate. The precedent your investigation sets is truly chilling."

But Chairman Barton merely asked Dr. Mann to provide some information to
Congress, including his computer code - something that Dr. Mann had
previously refused to do when asked by private parties. Chairman Barton isn'
t trying to influence scientific debate. He's trying to make scientific
debate possible -- a good thing in a free society. What's chilling is Dr.
Mann's past stonewalling and utter refusal to permit the public to see how
he concocted the hockey stick -- research that was paid for by the public
and that is being used by global warming advocates to restrict the public's
access to affordable energy.

In his request for information, Barton had also asked Dr. Mann to provide
records of the grants and other sources of funding that had financed his
research, no doubt fueling suspicion about the intentions of Barton's
investigation. But these records would have established that the research
and methodology that Dr. Mann was refusing to share had been publicly
funded.

The Washington Post seized upon this point when it chimed in on the debate
with an editorial likening Chairman Barton's request for information to a
"witch hunt." The Post added that ". to pretend that [Chairman Barton] is
going to learn something useful by requesting data on 15th century tree
rings is ludicrous; to demand decades worth of financial information from
scientists who are not suspected of fraud is outrageous."

Well, a scientist's refusal to provide colleagues with his data and
methodology is suspicious. Chairman Barton's request for publicly funded
scientific data concerning a major public policy issue isn't ludicrous; but
estimating global temperature data based on a single tree certainly is.

The global warmers are trying to demonize Chairman Barton to make him the
bad guy out to harass and intimidate Dr. Mann, now a martyr for global
warming hysteria. But it appears that just the opposite is the case.

For the sake of national energy policy and the global economy, let's all
thank Chairman Barton for his reasonable inquiry into the questionable
hockey stick.


W. D. Allen Sr.

unread,
Jul 30, 2005, 1:41:20 PM7/30/05
to
an Barton ... going to learn something useful by requesting
data on 15th century tree rings is ludicrous...."

But Dr. Mann, however, did learn something useful?

Is the quoted statement above typical of the objectivity of journalism
school grads employed at the Washington Post?

end

"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:42eba...@news.iglou.com...

Raymond Arritt

unread,
Jul 30, 2005, 1:53:34 PM7/30/05
to
W. D. Allen Sr. wrote:
> an Barton ... going to learn something useful by requesting
> data on 15th century tree rings is ludicrous...."
>
> But Dr. Mann, however, did learn something useful?
>
> Is the quoted statement above typical of the objectivity of journalism
> school grads employed at the Washington Post?

Mann has sufficient training and experience to make use of such data.
Please tell us the extent of Barton's coursework and professional
experience in statistics, dendrochronology and exploratory data analysis.

James

unread,
Jul 30, 2005, 2:12:31 PM7/30/05
to

"Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:y8PGe.225157$nG6.191452@attbi_s22...

So you think he wants it for his own personal use? ROTFLMAO


Joshua Halpern

unread,
Jul 30, 2005, 2:21:47 PM7/30/05
to

Actually Hughes is the one who has the professional experience in
dendrochronology.

Coby Beck

unread,
Jul 30, 2005, 2:20:34 PM7/30/05
to
"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:42eba...@news.iglou.com...
> Tree Ring Circus
> Thursday, July 28, 2005
> By Steven Milloy
> Is it really possible to determine the change in global temperatures over
> the last 1,000 years by examining tree rings?
>
> We may finally learn the answer, thanks to the efforts of Congressman Joe
> Barton, R-Texas -- who has had everything but the kitchen sink thrown at
> him by the global warming lobby in its fierce opposition to his recent
> inquiry.

A strange characterization of a handful of mildly written letters and
undelayed compliance with his requests. Also rather a stretch to hope that
Congressman Barton will contribute anything substantive to this field of
science.

> On June 23, Rep. Barton, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and
> Commerce, sent letters to the climate researchers responsible for
> developing the notorious "hockey stick" graph, which purports to show a
> dramatic rise in global temperatures during the 20th century after a
> millennium of supposedly little change in global temperature.
>
> The hockey stick graph has been key weapon in the arsenal of the global
> warming alarmists in their efforts to scare the U.S. into signing the
> Kyoto Protocol and clamping down on greenhouse gas emissions and energy
> use.
>
> The graph has been criticized for many reasons, including its reliance
> on dubious estimates of historic temperatures based on the size of tree
> rings. Not only is temperature merely one factor that contributes to tree
> growth (as evidenced by the ring size), but a 15th century portion of
> the hockey stick graph is based on tree ring measurements from a single
> tree.

Typical slimy journalism: "has been criticized". No disclosure of where the
criticism has come from. Reminds me of the OutFoxed video highlighting of
the "Some people say" technique of reporting what ever personal opinion you
wish to emphasize. "Some people say" the moon is made of green cheese too.

> Noting that "sharing data and research results is a basic tenet of open
> scientific inquiry" and that the hockey stick research was paid for with
> public funds, Chairman Barton asked Dr. Michael Mann of the University of
> Virginia for the computer code used to generate the hockey stick graph.
> Dr. Mann had previously refused to provide his computer code to other
> climate researchers who had requested it.

Why does this author not mention the other extremely invasive and
unwarranted requests about financial disclosures and material spanning the
entire careers of these researchers? This was by far the most important
reason for the small outcry there was.

> Dr. Mann apparently decided that he cannot withhold his data and computer
> code any longer from the public and agreed in a letter to post his data
> and
> computer code on the Internet -- but not without squealing about it first.
> Before Dr. Mann turned over his data, virtually the entire spectrum of
> global warming alarmists attacked Chairman Barton for requesting access to
> the data and code.

The handful of responses can be read here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=172 and it is easy to see the
objection is the form and tone of the request and the extraneous iformation
that put peoples hackles up. Also the request is entirely one-sided. If it
were truly an attempt to assess the Hockey Stick controversy, similar
material should have been requested from M&M, the referenced critics.

> The American Association for the Advancement of Science, long a
> proponent of global warming alarmism, chided Chairman Barton in
> a July 13 letter that Dr. Mann's hockey stick had already been
> accepted by the United Nations' global warming organization and
> that Congress ought not interfere with that process.

Actually what the letter said was:

"There were more than 100 authors of Chapter 2 in the IPCC's 2001
"Scientific Basis" report, where the Mann et al. work was cited, and two
extensive rounds of review by scientific experts and government
representatives were conducted after those authors agreed on their initial
draft. It should be added that the Mann et al. work was far from the only
basis for the conclusion that Northern Hemisphere temperatures in the last
part of the 20th century were likely the warmest in 1000 years; a variety of
independent lines of evidence, summarized in a number of peer-reviewed
publications, were cited in support of this conclusion."

and this:

"We very much appreciate the Committee’s interest in this important field.
Your letters, however, in their request for highly detailed information
regarding not only the scientists’ recent studies but also their life's
work, give the impression of a search for some basis on which to discredit
these particular scientists and findings, rather than a search for
understanding. With all respect, we question whether this approach is good
for the processes by which scientific findings on topics relevant to public
policy are generated and used."

> Although the AAAS apparently believes that the UN should be the final
> arbiter on scientific matters, it's not at all clear that political
> organizations have any special insight into what constitutes scientific
> fact.

Indeed. So is the House of Representatives not a political organization?
Is Barton's House Energy and Commerce Committee not a political
organization? This is a remarkably shallow and transparently flawed point
as a defense of Barton's letters.

> Dr. Ralph Ciccerone, the president of the National Academy of Sciences,
> wrote in a July 15 letter to Chairman Barton that "a focus on individual
> scientists can be intimidating."
>
> But congressional committees send out requests for information from
> private
> parties routinely. Moreover, I doubt that Dr. Mann felt "intimidated." He
> has previously testified in person before Congress about global warming
> without complaining of any intimidation. It's more likely that Dr. Mann
> doesn't want to run the risk of more criticism directed at his hockey
> stick graph.
>
> Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, the Chairman of the House Science Committee,
> melodramatically wrote Chairman Barton claiming that, "The only
> conceivable explanation for the investigation is to attempt to
> intimidate a prominent scientist and to have Congress put its thumbs
> on the scales of a scientific debate. The precedent your
> investigation sets is truly chilling."
>
> But Chairman Barton merely asked Dr. Mann to provide some information to
> Congress, including his computer code - something that Dr. Mann had
> previously refused to do when asked by private parties.

A contemptible effort at feigned innocence here, "merely asked Dr Mann to
provide some information". Here are the requests Barton made:

1. Your curriculum vitae, including, but not limited to,
a list of all studies relating to climate change research
for which you were an author or co-author and the source
of funding for those studies.

2. List all financial support you have received related to
your research, including, but not limited to, all private,
state, and federal assistance, grants, contracts (including
subgrants or subcontracts), or other financial awards or
honoraria.

3. Regarding all such work involving federal grants or funding
support under which you were a recipient of funding or principal
investigator, provide all agreements relating to those underlying
grants or funding, including, but not limited to, any provisions,
adjustments, or exceptions made in the agreements relating to the
dissemination and sharing of research results.

4. Provide the location of all data archives relating to each
published study for which you were an author or co-author
and indicate:
(a) whether this information contains all the specific data
you used and calculations your performed, including such
supporting documentation as computer source code, validation
information, and other ancillary information, necessary
for full evaluation and application of the data, particularly
for another party to replicate your research results;
(b) when this information was available to researchers;
(c) where and when you first identified the location of this
information;
(d) what modifications, if any, you have made to this
information since publication of the respective study; and
(e) if necessary information is not fully available, provide a
detailed narrative description of the steps somebody must
take to acquire the necessary information to replicate your
study results or assess the quality of the proxy data you
used.

5. According to The Wall Street Journal, you have declined to release
the exact computer code you used to generate your results.
(a) Is this correct?
(b) What policy on sharing research and methods do you follow?
(c) What is the source of that policy?
(d) Provide this exact computer code used to generate your results.

6. Regarding study data and related information that is not publicly
archived, what requests have you or your co-authors received for
data relating to the climate change studies, what was your response,
and why?

7. The authors McIntyre and McKitrick (Energy & Environment, Vol. 16,
No. 1, 2005) report a number of errors and omissions in Mann et. al.,
1998. Provide a detailed narrative explanation of these alleged
errors and how these may affect the underlying conclusions of the
work, including, but not limited to answers to the following
questions:

a. Did you run calculations without the bristlecone pine series
referenced in the article and, if so, what was the result?
b. Did you or your co-authors calculate temperature
reconstructions using the referenced “archived Gaspe tree ring
data,” and what were the results?
c. Did you calculate the R2 statistic for the temperature
reconstruction, particularly for the 15th Century proxy record
calculations and what were the results?
d. What validation statistics did you calculate for the
reconstruction prior to 1820, and what were the results?
e. How did you choose particular proxies and proxy series?

8. Explain in detail your work for and on behalf of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, including, but not limited to:
(a) your role in the Third Assessment Report;
(b) the process for review of studies and other information,
including the dates of key meetings, upon which you worked
during the TAR writing and review process;
(c) the steps taken by you, reviewers, and lead authors to ensure
the data underlying the studies forming the basis for key
findings of the report were sound and accurate;
(d) requests you received for revisions to your written contribution; and
(e) the identity of the people who wrote and reviewed the historical
temperature-record portions of the report, particularly Section
2.3, “Is the Recent Warming Unusual?”


What was that again? "Chairman Barton merely asked Dr. Mann to provide some
information"? Yeah, what's the big deal, he just wants to learn a little
about dendrochronology.

> Chairman Barton isn'
> t trying to influence scientific debate. He's trying to make scientific
> debate possible -- a good thing in a free society. What's chilling is Dr.
> Mann's past stonewalling and utter refusal to permit the public to see how
> he concocted the hockey stick -- research that was paid for by the public
> and that is being used by global warming advocates to restrict the
> public's access to affordable energy.
>
> In his request for information, Barton had also asked Dr. Mann to provide
> records of the grants and other sources of funding that had financed his
> research, no doubt fueling suspicion about the intentions of Barton's
> investigation. But these records would have established that the research
> and methodology that Dr. Mann was refusing to share had been publicly
> funded.

So why was it for
"all financial support you have received related to
your research, including, but not limited to, all private,
state, and federal assistance, grants, contracts (including
subgrants or subcontracts), or other financial awards or
honoraria."
rather than just about funding for MBH98? The request was similarily for
"all data archives relating to each published study for which
you were an author or co-author"
again far beyond MBH98.

> The Washington Post seized upon this point when it chimed in on the debate
> with an editorial likening Chairman Barton's request for information to a
> "witch hunt." The Post added that ". to pretend that [Chairman Barton] is
> going to learn something useful by requesting data on 15th century tree
> rings is ludicrous; to demand decades worth of financial information from
> scientists who are not suspected of fraud is outrageous."
>
> Well, a scientist's refusal to provide colleagues with his data and
> methodology is suspicious.

Yes it would be. But this never happened. Nothing was unavailable with the
exception of the exact code used, which is normal. The algorithm, methods
and data were *all* publically available for some time before this "request"
from Barton. And it is a stretch to call M&M "colleagues".
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Acolleague

> Chairman Barton's request for publicly funded
> scientific data concerning a major public policy issue isn't ludicrous;


It is ludicrous to request that which is publically available to anyone with
a web browser or ftp program.

> estimating global temperature data based on a single tree certainly is.

This is not even remotely descriptive of MBH98.

> The global warmers are trying to demonize Chairman Barton to make him the
> bad guy out to harass and intimidate Dr. Mann, now a martyr for global
> warming hysteria. But it appears that just the opposite is the case.
>
> For the sake of national energy policy and the global economy, let's all
> thank Chairman Barton for his reasonable inquiry into the questionable
> hockey stick.

Once again, the Hockey Stick is 7 years old and there are numerous other
studies with a variety of methodologies and variety of datasets that
corroborate the conclusions of MBH98.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

The obsession about MBH98 is approaching comical.

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

Coby Beck

unread,
Jul 30, 2005, 2:28:43 PM7/30/05
to

"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:42ebc30f$1...@news.iglou.com...

The proper way to investigate a scientific issue like this would be to
request a report from the NAS or some similar entity. One must assume if he
requests this info on behalf of his committee it is for his committee's use.
If it was his sole intent to get it to pass it on to undisclosed persons I
think this is more questionable behaviour. There are no scientists on his
committee, so why is he asking for this?

See this for good reasons this action is inappropriate.
http://www.realclimate.org/Boehlert_letter_to_Barton.pdf

Ian St. John

unread,
Jul 30, 2005, 7:07:58 PM7/30/05
to
James wrote:
> Tree Ring Circus
> Thursday, July 28, 2005
> By Steven Milloy
> Is it really possible to determine the change in global temperatures
> over the last 1,000 years by examining tree rings?

Yes. It is called the science of dendrochronological climate reconstruction.
And it has confirmation is sea sediments, borehole temperatures, and ice
core sampling.


James

unread,
Jul 30, 2005, 8:48:21 PM7/30/05
to

"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:vFPGe.149133$HI.74799@edtnps84...

>
> "James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
> news:42ebc30f$1...@news.iglou.com...
> >
> > "Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:y8PGe.225157$nG6.191452@attbi_s22...
> >> W. D. Allen Sr. wrote:
> >> > an Barton ... going to learn something useful by requesting
> >> > data on 15th century tree rings is ludicrous...."
> >> >
> >> > But Dr. Mann, however, did learn something useful?
> >> >
> >> > Is the quoted statement above typical of the objectivity of
journalism
> >> > school grads employed at the Washington Post?
> >>
> >> Mann has sufficient training and experience to make use of such data.
> >> Please tell us the extent of Barton's coursework and professional
> >> experience in statistics, dendrochronology and exploratory data
analysis.
> >
> > So you think he wants it for his own personal use? ROTFLMAO
>
> The proper way to investigate a scientific issue like this would be to
> request a report from the NAS or some similar entity. One must assume if
he
> requests this info on behalf of his committee it is for his committee's
use.
> If it was his sole intent to get it to pass it on to undisclosed persons I
> think this is more questionable behaviour. There are no scientists on his
> committee, so why is he asking for this?
>
He is asking for it to make sure this is accurate or not. The hockey stick
has been under a microscope with no complete data and it's finally time to
look at the stuff with an unbiased eye whether the stuff is looked at by by
undisclosed people or not as long as they are reputable people that know the
stuff. Why in hell would anyone care if it is what he says it is? Mann
should be questioned as well. There are bound to be some.


James

unread,
Jul 30, 2005, 9:18:33 PM7/30/05
to

"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:SxPGe.149079$HI.132184@edtnps84...

Barton's reasonable request
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
July 28, 2005

When talking science, especially global-warming science, civility is a word
rarely used these days. Take, for instance, what happened to House Energy
and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton recently. In June, Mr. Barton
requested research information from the authors of a controversial
global-warming study, because "this dispute surrounding your studies bears
directly on important questions about the federally funded work upon which
climate studies rely."
Sounds reasonable, but to House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood
Boehlert, this constituted "intimidation" of the scientific community. The
New York Republican responded to Mr. Barton's inquiry with another letter,
saying that it was a "misguided and illegitimate investigation." The
Washington Post and columnist David Ignatius quickly followed. "This is a
bizarre episode that deserves much wider condemnation from congressional
leaders," The Post editorialized. Nonsense.
Using historical climate data and computer models, the study claims that
for the past thousand years the earth had experienced relative little change
in temperature until the 20th century, when temperatures suddenly spiked --
a phenomenon called the "hockey stick." It was principally authored by
Michael Mann of the University of Virginia, who was a co-author of the U.N.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001 report. It isn't surprising,
then, that that report claimed the 1990s was the warmest decade in a
thousand years, citing Mr. Mann's research.
The problem is that the study is an outlier -- it dramatically overturns
the accepted view of paleoclimatologists, who generally believe that the
planet has experienced many warming and cooling trends in the past 1,000
years. Some scientists think that the 14th century, which came at the
beginning of the Little Ice Age, was warmer than the 20th century. Other
critics have found flaws in the study's use of certain data sets and
methodology. But since the study fits perfectly with the argument of
global-warming supporters, they don't want to see it robustly debated.
As chairman, Mr. Barton is responsible for making absolutely sure that
the science used to justify legislation is thoroughly vetted. Any changes to
the energy policy of the country to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions would
cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American jobs. President Bush
wasn't exaggerating when he said that the Kyoto Protocol would derail the
U.S. economy. So, instead of angry condemnations, how about a little more
civility?


Coby Beck

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 12:14:21 AM7/31/05
to
"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:42ec1fd4$1...@news.iglou.com...

>
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
> news:vFPGe.149133$HI.74799@edtnps84...

>> The proper way to investigate a scientific issue like this would be to


>> request a report from the NAS or some similar entity. One must assume if
>> he requests this info on behalf of his committee it is for his
>> committee's
>> use. If it was his sole intent to get it to pass it on to undisclosed
>> persons I think this is more questionable behaviour. There are no
>> scientists on his committee, so why is he asking for this?
>
> He is asking for it to make sure this is accurate or not.

And he is as qualified to judge this as you are. I think the point sailed
right over your head.

Coby Beck

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 12:20:45 AM7/31/05
to
"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:42ec2...@news.iglou.com...

>
> Barton's reasonable request
> TODAY'S EDITORIAL
> July 28, 2005
>
>
>
> When talking science, especially global-warming science, civility is a
> word
> rarely used these days. Take, for instance, what happened to House Energy
> and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton recently. In June, Mr. Barton
> requested research information from the authors of a controversial
> global-warming study, because "this dispute surrounding your studies bears
> directly on important questions about the federally funded work upon which
> climate studies rely."
> Sounds reasonable,

Sounds reasonable except this is by no means all that was requested. So
this article starts out with a straw man, and the next paragraphs
predictably tear it down.

> Using historical climate data and computer models, the study claims
> that
> for the past thousand years the earth had experienced relative little
> change
> in temperature until the 20th century, when temperatures suddenly
> spiked --
> a phenomenon called the "hockey stick." It was principally authored by
> Michael Mann of the University of Virginia, who was a co-author of the
> U.N.
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001 report. It isn't
> surprising,
> then, that that report claimed the 1990s was the warmest decade in a
> thousand years, citing Mr. Mann's research.
> The problem is that the study is an outlier -- it dramatically
> overturns
> the accepted view of paleoclimatologists, who generally believe that the
> planet has experienced many warming and cooling trends in the past 1,000
> years.

This may well have been the case a decade ago, maybe when the study came
out, I don't know, but as this article was written a few days ago it is a
blatant untruth. The study fits right in with numerous other
reconstructions based on different methods and different data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

> Some scientists think that the 14th century, which came at the
> beginning of the Little Ice Age, was warmer than the 20th century.

How about some substantiation of this statement?

> So, instead of angry condemnations, how about a little more
> civility?

How about a little more intelligence?

James

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 11:27:25 AM7/31/05
to

"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:xeYGe.165236$9A2.6899@edtnps89...

Yes, he is. He wants all the data upon which to determine. He will make a
decision based on feedback he gets from those that are qualified that are
not part of the obstinate crowd that insist no more data is necessary other
than what they have been given.

It's pretty obvious that you, as well as many others here, are sticking to
the original conclusions that have not been given a decent Q & A. It's your
way or none at all. Why haven't we heard yet that Barton is an oil man that
takes campaign money from evil oil companies. Any other time we would have
heard about it ad nauseum.

Apparently, the science can only be questioned by those that agree with the
minority conclusion but the science isn't settled and never has been, though
that has been preached for years. You want the NAS to pass judgement, when
they are on record as supporting it. I'm tempted to say you just don't get
it but I think you do very well and want to keep wagging the same advocates
with false indignity.


Coby Beck

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 12:50:04 PM7/31/05
to
"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:42ece...@news.iglou.com...

> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
> news:xeYGe.165236$9A2.6899@edtnps89...
>> "James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
>> news:42ec1fd4$1...@news.iglou.com...
>> > "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
>> > news:vFPGe.149133$HI.74799@edtnps84...
>>
>> >> persons I think this is more questionable behaviour. There are no
>> >> scientists on his committee, so why is he asking for this?
>> >
>> > He is asking for it to make sure this is accurate or not.
>>
>> And he is as qualified to judge this as you are. I think the point
>> sailed
>> right over your head.
>
> Yes, he is.

So what's this? A Ronald Reagan "mediocre people deserve a chance too"
argument? I guess for you any opinion is as valid as the next? This data,
methodology and study are very technical and the plain fact of the matter is
that few people can truly judge MBH98 on its scientific merits alone. That
is why you ask a scientific body for their analysis and don't ask for the
data to be sent to you (an action which by itself demonstrates incompetence
considering it is frely available).

> He wants all the data upon which to determine. He will make a
> decision based on feedback he gets from those that are qualified that are
> not part of the obstinate crowd that insist no more data is necessary
> other
> than what they have been given.

Hint: if you can't find a single scientific organization that disagrees with
a scientific conclusion and you do not have any new and contradictory
finding you should accept the conclusion and move on.

> It's pretty obvious that you, as well as many others here, are sticking to
> the original conclusions that have not been given a decent Q & A.

Actually, the original conclusions can be ignored if your concerns are
sincere. Look instead to other reconstructions for their conclusions.
(Hint: they are largely the same: late 20th temperatures are likely the
highest in 2000yrs and the 20th warming trend is anamolous when compared to
the last 2000 years of temperature flucuations)

> It's your
> way or none at all. Why haven't we heard yet that Barton is an oil man
> that
> takes campaign money from evil oil companies. Any other time we would have
> heard about it ad nauseum.

What's your point here? Barton's actions speak for themselves?

> Apparently, the science can only be questioned by those that agree with
> the
> minority conclusion but the science isn't settled and never has been,
> though
> that has been preached for years.

No, the science can be questioned and study by anyone. But in terms of
people or organizations acting in governmental capacity, the science should
only be questioned by scientific bodies. The House Energy Committee is not
a scientific body and thus not qualified to interpret the information they
are requesting. It is thus highly suspect that they make this gesture.

> You want the NAS to pass judgement, when
> they are on record as supporting it.

I am not aware of any NAS examination of MBH98.

James

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 2:20:14 PM7/31/05
to

"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:0j7He.172820$tt5.25642@edtnps90...

LOL This is precious. And obvious of being scared of flaws being discovered.
Being so bloody science minded, you should be welcoming examination into
such an important science thing rather than protesting it. Isn't that what
science is all about? Always examining the science? The fact that you don't
like the methodology is irrelevant.


Roger Coppock

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 3:43:12 PM7/31/05
to
James actually thinks that Congressman Joe
Barton, R-Texas has an unbiased eye! This
takes the prize for the stupidist post of the month.

Jonathan Kirwan

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 4:27:06 PM7/31/05
to
On 31 Jul 2005 12:43:12 -0700, "Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com>
wrote:

>James actually thinks that Congressman Joe
>Barton, R-Texas has an unbiased eye! This
>takes the prize for the stupidist post of the month.

Barton is a politician and it is consistent and rational to consider
his requests to be pursuing a political agenda. Those suspecting a
politician of being political doesn't amount to an accusation that
should be taken with any shock or mental agitation, for gosh sake!
James almost seems disturbed that anyone might dare suggest
Barton-the-politician might actually be acting politically.

It's possible that he is seriously trying to understand things, but
his requests don't support that belief.

By the way, the response letters were quite clear, surprisingly so in
some cases. For example, with Mann's reply, where it was possible to
provide a reasoned response, he did. And where it was important to
retain rights, he did so while at the same time providing the
information requested as a matter of volunteering it, but written
clearly so it wasn't to be taken as a matter of being forced to do so.

The other responses were generally excellent and spoke in general
concert. Yet, also each as individual and human and varied as one
might expect from people speaking for themselves.

If Barton and his office were serious about trying to understand the
science, then that fact would be demonstrated by their approach. So
far, they done everything they possibly could to confirm the opposite
-- it wasn't a respectful inquiry about the science itself at all and
wasn't looking for a comprehensive viewpoint. And the fact that it
garnered a response from the AAAS expressing "deep concern" about the
apparent attempt to "discredit these particular scientists and
findings" supports the point that Barton's request carries a political
message and no real desire to examine the facts.

But Barton's narrow focus on just a few scientists and Barton's
failure to recognize that their work is only one small part among a
very large body of work -- albeit one chart of theirs is one of the
more highly popularized parts of it -- shows that Barton is focusing
on tarnishing exactly those messages that are somehow reaching the
public and not at all exhibiting a serious desire to understand the
comprehensive body of climate science. If he were serious about it,
he wouldn't focus so much attention here.

It's all about the message reaching the public, for Barton, and not
about gaining a comprehensive view. But such concerns are the meat
and potatoes for politicians, so it's not like this is new behavior.

Jon

Coby Beck

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 5:47:20 PM7/31/05
to
"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:42ed165d$1...@news.iglou.com...

>
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
> news:0j7He.172820$tt5.25642@edtnps90...

>> No, the science can be questioned and study by anyone. But in terms of


>> people or organizations acting in governmental capacity, the science
>> should only be questioned by scientific bodies. The House Energy
>> Committee is not a scientific body and thus not qualified to interpret
>> the information they are requesting. It is thus highly suspect that
>> they make this gesture.
>>
>> > You want the NAS to pass judgement, when
>> > they are on record as supporting it.
>>
>> I am not aware of any NAS examination of MBH98.
>>
>
> LOL This is precious. And obvious of being scared of flaws being
> discovered.
> Being so bloody science minded, you should be welcoming examination into
> such an important science thing rather than protesting it. Isn't that what
> science is all about? Always examining the science? The fact that you
> don't
> like the methodology is irrelevant.

This reply is competely non seqitur and more than a little non-sensical.

Steve Schulin

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 9:12:00 PM7/31/05
to
In article <b6bqe19i4h6rlubf6...@4ax.com>,
Jonathan Kirwan <jki...@easystreet.com> wrote, in part:

> ... the response letters were quite clear, surprisingly so in


> some cases. For example, with Mann's reply, where it was possible to

> provide a reasoned response, he did. ...

Mann's reply didn't seem so laudible to me. The claim that Zorita et al.
was a replication of MBH seems to me to require a quite peculiar
definition of replication. And I was disappointed that Mann didn't
actually say yes or no to the question about whether r2 had been
calculated. It turns out, from the old code he released in another venue
this month, that the answer is, yes, MBH did calculate r2. Had MBH98
paper actually reported r2, perhaps the peer reviewers would have asked
a question or two more. I'm grateful that aspects of MBH methodology
continue to be made publicly available. That the IPCC embraced the Mann
et al. hockey stick is a big deal. I'm grateful that Rep. Barton asked
many of the questions he did, and am looking forward to follow-up.

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

James

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 9:47:08 PM7/31/05
to

"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1122838992.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> James actually thinks that Congressman Joe
> Barton, R-Texas has an unbiased eye! This
> takes the prize for the stupidist post of the month.
>

I believe he is looking to see what is unbiased and what is not regardless
of his position.

Raymond Arritt

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 9:51:37 PM7/31/05
to
Steve Schulin wrote:
> That the IPCC embraced the Mann et al. hockey stick is a big deal.

Not really. It's just one of many studies that come to essentially the
same conclusion.

Steve Schulin

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 11:48:19 PM7/31/05
to
In article <JefHe.207029$x96.60313@attbi_s72>,
Raymond Arritt <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:

The MBH graph selected by IPCC to highlight in Fig. 1 of the policymaker
summary had at least two features which I don't recall as being included
in any other construction of NH temperature at the time: MBH spliced the
older construction with modern records, and MBH included an estimate of
uncertainty. Would any of the many studies you have in mind have had the
same visual impact as IPCC's choice?

The summary for policymakers was leaked to public almost 9 months before
the full WG1 report, with its explicit discussion of data which tends to
conflict with the hockey stick. When the full WG1 report was released, a
blowup of the Mann et al. hockey stick, complete with the two features I
mentioned, was quite prominent in the background of photos of folks at
the speakers' table and at the microphone.

The climate science community, and the IPCC, had so little interest in
what MBH actually did that, until non-climate-scientist Steve McIntyre
tried to replicate the research, nobody apparently knew that the Nature
article listed some datasets that weren't included and failed to list
others that were. Pray tell what solace you get from knowing that
there's other published works which may have received no better review
than MBH98.

Raymond Arritt

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 12:37:58 AM8/1/05
to
Steve Schulin wrote:
> In article <JefHe.207029$x96.60313@attbi_s72>,
> Raymond Arritt <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve Schulin wrote:
>> > That the IPCC embraced the Mann et al. hockey stick is a big deal.
>>
>> Not really. It's just one of many studies that come to essentially the
>> same conclusion.
>
> The MBH graph selected by IPCC to highlight in Fig. 1 of the policymaker
> summary had at least two features which I don't recall as being included
> in any other construction of NH temperature at the time: MBH spliced the
> older construction with modern records, and MBH included an estimate of
> uncertainty. Would any of the many studies you have in mind have had the
> same visual impact as IPCC's choice?

Re-read my comment. Since you are attempting to change the subject to
"visual impact", it can be safely presumed that you cede the larger
point; i.e., that late 20th century warming is confirmed in numerous
other studies.

Jonathan Kirwan

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 12:45:37 AM8/1/05
to
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:12:00 -0400, Steve Schulin
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:

>Mann's reply didn't seem so laudible to me.

It was well done.

>The claim that Zorita et al. was a replication of MBH seems to me
>to require a quite peculiar definition of replication.

That's not what he said. Your implication is an example of setting up
a strawman.

Quoting, "The initial description of the work was sufficient to permit
researchers to independently produce the key algorithms." Where here
in his comment does he characterize it as a replication? I took the
comment to mean exactly what Mann said it meant, namely the point that
Barton's question makes a false presumption. Mann wrote, "The key to
replicability is unfettered access to all of the underlying data and
methodologies used by the first researcher. My data and methodological
information, and that of my colleagues, are available to anyone who
wants them." And he cites what you are referring to as an example
demonstrating his point.

>And I was disappointed that Mann didn't
>actually say yes or no to the question about whether r2 had been
>calculated. It turns out, from the old code he released in another venue
>this month, that the answer is, yes, MBH did calculate r2. Had MBH98
>paper actually reported r2, perhaps the peer reviewers would have asked
>a question or two more. I'm grateful that aspects of MBH methodology
>continue to be made publicly available. That the IPCC embraced the Mann
>et al. hockey stick is a big deal. I'm grateful that Rep. Barton asked
>many of the questions he did, and am looking forward to follow-up.

I stand by my points, none of which you did the least damage to in
your reply.

Jon

Jonathan Kirwan

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 12:49:18 AM8/1/05
to
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:48:19 -0400, Steve Schulin
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:

><snip -- I'm sure you won't mind my snipping as freely as you do>

>Would any of the many studies you have in mind have had the
>same visual impact as IPCC's choice?

><snip>

So you admit Barton's choice is about the visual impact, then, and not
about gaining a comprehensive view, at all. Your admission is noted.

Jon

Steve Schulin

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 7:40:54 AM8/1/05
to
In article <GGhHe.230213$nG6.221336@attbi_s22>,
Raymond Arritt <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:

I respectfully disagree that my comments represent a change of subject.
And I'm puzzled at your apparent notion that the late 20th century
portion of the hockey stick is somehow a larger point than the whole
Mann-made warming schtick.

Steve Schulin

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 10:36:32 AM8/1/05
to
In article <9h9re15fv1q21tc2m...@4ax.com>,
Jonathan Kirwan <jki...@easystreet.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:12:00 -0400, Steve Schulin
> <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
> >Mann's reply didn't seem so laudible to me.
>
> It was well done.
>
> >The claim that Zorita et al. was a replication of MBH seems to me
> >to require a quite peculiar definition of replication.
>
> That's not what he said. Your implication is an example of setting up
> a strawman.
>
> Quoting, "The initial description of the work was sufficient to permit
> researchers to independently produce the key algorithms." Where here

> in his comment does he characterize it as a replication? ...

That's a fair question. And my answer is to look at all the mentions of
words like replicate and replication in Mann's response, including the
paragraph from which you quote, and the later use of plural in Mann's
claim that "other scientists have used the methods we described and the
data we archived to replicate our results".

> ... I took the


> comment to mean exactly what Mann said it meant, namely the point that
> Barton's question makes a false presumption. Mann wrote, "The key to
> replicability is unfettered access to all of the underlying data and
> methodologies used by the first researcher. My data and methodological
> information, and that of my colleagues, are available to anyone who
> wants them." And he cites what you are referring to as an example
> demonstrating his point.

And what did you take the later plural to mean?

> >And I was disappointed that Mann didn't
> >actually say yes or no to the question about whether r2 had been
> >calculated. It turns out, from the old code he released in another venue
> >this month, that the answer is, yes, MBH did calculate r2. Had MBH98
> >paper actually reported r2, perhaps the peer reviewers would have asked
> >a question or two more. I'm grateful that aspects of MBH methodology
> >continue to be made publicly available. That the IPCC embraced the Mann
> >et al. hockey stick is a big deal. I'm grateful that Rep. Barton asked
> >many of the questions he did, and am looking forward to follow-up.
>
> I stand by my points, none of which you did the least damage to in
> your reply.

Didn't you say something about how clear Mann was in answering? He was
asked a quite clear question about R2. Yet his answer in no way hinted
that yes, MBH did calculate r2. Thus, I respectfully disagree with your
overall conclusion about clear answering. Whether you consider your
praise for clear answering to be one of your "points" is entirely up to
you.

Ian St. John

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 10:32:58 AM8/1/05
to
Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:48:19 -0400, Steve Schulin
> <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
>> <snip -- I'm sure you won't mind my snipping as freely as you do>
>
>> Would any of the many studies you have in mind have had the
>> same visual impact as IPCC's choice?
>
>> <snip>
>
> So you admit Barton's choice is about the visual impact,

Illustrating the facts is about visual impact. That is not a derogatory
claim. You do not print reports with the intent of 'obscuring the facts'
unless you are a fossil fool or political spin master.

> then, and not about gaining a comprehensive view, at all

Illustrating the facts is the process of 'gaining a comprehensive view', so
that is not a derogatory claim. The whole point of a comprehensive view is
to see the forest, not the trees.

> Your admission is noted.

Admitting to making the graph clear and comprehensive is not derogatory.
Why would you think that?

>
> Jon


Eric Swanson

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 11:21:06 AM8/1/05
to
In article <steve.schulin-A06...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, steve....@nuclear.com says...

>
>In article <JefHe.207029$x96.60313@attbi_s72>,
> Raymond Arritt <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve Schulin wrote:
>> > That the IPCC embraced the Mann et al. hockey stick is a big deal.
>>
>> Not really. It's just one of many studies that come to essentially the
>> same conclusion.
>
>The MBH graph selected by IPCC to highlight in Fig. 1 of the policymaker
>summary had at least two features which I don't recall as being included
>in any other construction of NH temperature at the time: MBH spliced the
>older construction with modern records, and MBH included an estimate of
>uncertainty. Would any of the many studies you have in mind have had the
>same visual impact as IPCC's choice?

I think RA was pointing to the other studies since the TAR. Science isn't
a static thing and the TAR is not the latest effort, as it was a summary.

>The summary for policymakers was leaked to public almost 9 months before
>the full WG1 report, with its explicit discussion of data which tends to
>conflict with the hockey stick. When the full WG1 report was released, a
>blowup of the Mann et al. hockey stick, complete with the two features I
>mentioned, was quite prominent in the background of photos of folks at
>the speakers' table and at the microphone.

Ever heard of "in press"? It takes a long time to produce the final printed
version of anything book which was as nicely done as the TAR. Lots of lovely
color graphics that were printed very well. The Summary for Policy Makers
could have been produced much more quickly as a PDF, thus it appeared much
sooner than the final report. But, since Old Nuke doesn't write for
journal publication, he ignores this aspect of the issue.

>The climate science community, and the IPCC, had so little interest in
>what MBH actually did that, until non-climate-scientist Steve McIntyre
>tried to replicate the research, nobody apparently knew that the Nature
>article listed some datasets that weren't included and failed to list
>others that were. Pray tell what solace you get from knowing that
>there's other published works which may have received no better review
>than MBH98.

Same Old Nuke BS. M & M have been throrughly debunked, as they made some
rather serious errors, yet, Old Nuke still takes their work as Gospel.
I suppose that's what one should expect from an anti-scientific Creationist.

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

Steve Schulin

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 12:41:15 PM8/1/05
to
In article <dcleku$3kr$1...@news3.infoave.net>,
swa...@notspam.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:

> > Raymond Arritt <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Steve Schulin wrote:
> >> > That the IPCC embraced the Mann et al. hockey stick is a big deal.
> >>
> >> Not really. It's just one of many studies that come to essentially the
> >> same conclusion.
> >
> >The MBH graph selected by IPCC to highlight in Fig. 1 of the policymaker
> >summary had at least two features which I don't recall as being included
> >in any other construction of NH temperature at the time: MBH spliced the
> >older construction with modern records, and MBH included an estimate of
> >uncertainty. Would any of the many studies you have in mind have had the
> >same visual impact as IPCC's choice?
>

> I think RA was pointing to the other studies since the TAR. ...

Maybe you're right. But he was replying to comment about IPCC's embrace
of the hockey stick.

> ... Science isn't

> a static thing and the TAR is not the latest effort, as it was a summary.

I agree that science is not settled. The A in TAR stands for assessment
-- and if it had better lived up to its name, perhaps the Mann et al.
hockey stick would not have been so enthusiastically embraced.

> >The summary for policymakers was leaked to public almost 9 months before
> >the full WG1 report, with its explicit discussion of data which tends to
> >conflict with the hockey stick. When the full WG1 report was released, a
> >blowup of the Mann et al. hockey stick, complete with the two features I
> >mentioned, was quite prominent in the background of photos of folks at
> >the speakers' table and at the microphone.
>
> Ever heard of "in press"? It takes a long time to produce the final printed
> version of anything book which was as nicely done as the TAR. Lots of lovely
> color graphics that were printed very well. The Summary for Policy Makers
> could have been produced much more quickly as a PDF, thus it appeared much
> sooner than the final report. But, since Old Nuke doesn't write for
> journal publication, he ignores this aspect of the issue.

LOL - I've previously noted how the IPCC process (finalizing the
policymakers summary and then revising the scientific text) is properly
characterized as the political tail wagging the scientific dog. If you
have any evidence that the revisions to the body of the report were
complete when the policymakers summary was leaked, your ranting might
have more basis in reality.

> >The climate science community, and the IPCC, had so little interest in
> >what MBH actually did that, until non-climate-scientist Steve McIntyre
> >tried to replicate the research, nobody apparently knew that the Nature
> >article listed some datasets that weren't included and failed to list
> >others that were. Pray tell what solace you get from knowing that
> >there's other published works which may have received no better review
> >than MBH98.
>
> Same Old Nuke BS. M & M have been throrughly debunked, as they made some
> rather serious errors, yet, Old Nuke still takes their work as Gospel.
> I suppose that's what one should expect from an anti-scientific Creationist.

M&M have been quite vindicated. And I highly value the scientific
method. Not nearly so much as I value God's Word. That doesn't make me
anti-scientific. But your take on the matter sure makes you sound like
an unreasonable demander -- demanding that others share your apparently
anti-religious assumptions.

Lloyd Parker

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 12:44:05 PM8/1/05
to
In article <42eba...@news.iglou.com>, "James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote:
> Tree Ring Circus
>Thursday, July 28, 2005
>By Steven Milloy
>Is it really possible to determine the change in global temperatures over
>the last 1,000 years by examining tree rings?
>
>We may finally learn the answer, thanks to the efforts of Congressman Joe
>Barton, R-Texas -- who has had everything but the kitchen sink thrown at him
>by the global warming lobby in its fierce opposition to his recent inquiry.
>

"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the scientific community?"

>On June 23, Rep. Barton, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and
>Commerce, sent letters to the climate researchers responsible for developing
>the notorious "hockey stick" graph, which purports to show a dramatic rise
>in global temperatures during the 20th century after a millennium of
>supposedly little change in global temperature.

Read what Rep. Boehlert said to him.

>
>The hockey stick graph has been key weapon in the arsenal of the global
>warming alarmists in their efforts to scare the U.S. into signing the Kyoto
>Protocol and clamping down on greenhouse gas emissions and energy use.
>
>The graph has been criticized for many reasons,

Big Oil money.


>including its reliance on
>dubious estimates of historic temperatures based on the size of tree rings.
>Not only is temperature merely one factor that contributes to tree growth

>(as evidenced by the ring size), but a 15th century portion of the hockey


>stick graph is based on tree ring measurements from a single tree.
>

>Noting that "sharing data and research results is a basic tenet of open
>scientific inquiry" and that the hockey stick research was paid for with

>public funds, Chairman Barton asked Dr. Michael Mann of the University of


>Virginia for the computer code used to generate the hockey stick graph. Dr.
>Mann had previously refused to provide his computer code to other climate
>researchers who had requested it.
>

>Dr. Mann apparently decided that he cannot withhold his data and computer
>code any longer from the public and agreed in a letter to post his data and
>computer code on the Internet -- but not without squealing about it first.
>Before Dr. Mann turned over his data, virtually the entire spectrum of
>global warming alarmists attacked Chairman Barton for requesting access to
>the data and code.
>

>The American Association for the Advancement of Science, long a proponent of
>global warming alarmism,

OK, Idiot Alert!

>chided Chairman Barton in a July 13 letter that Dr.
>Mann's hockey stick had already been accepted by the United Nations' global
>warming organization and that Congress ought not interfere with that
>process.
>

>Although the AAAS apparently believes that the UN should be the final
>arbiter on scientific matters, it's not at all clear that political
>organizations have any special insight into what constitutes scientific
>fact.

IPCC is not the UN. Idiot alert raised to level orange.

>
>Dr. Ralph Ciccerone, the president of the National Academy of Sciences,
>wrote in a July 15 letter to Chairman Barton that "a focus on individual
>scientists can be intimidating."
>
>But congressional committees send out requests for information from private
>parties routinely. Moreover, I doubt that Dr. Mann felt "intimidated." He
>has previously testified in person before Congress about global warming
>without complaining of any intimidation. It's more likely that Dr. Mann
>doesn't want to run the risk of more criticism directed at his hockey stick
>graph.
>
>Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, the Chairman of the House Science Committee,
>melodramatically wrote Chairman Barton claiming that, "The only conceivable
>explanation for the investigation is to attempt to intimidate a prominent
>scientist and to have Congress put its thumbs on the scales of a scientific
>debate. The precedent your investigation sets is truly chilling."

Q: when 2 Republicans are on opposite sides of something, how does Fox News
know how to slant its coverage?

>
>But Chairman Barton merely asked Dr. Mann to provide some information to
>Congress, including his computer code - something that Dr. Mann had

>previously refused to do when asked by private parties. Chairman Barton isn'


>t trying to influence scientific debate. H


Yeah, and Exxon isn't trying to drill in ANWR.

>e's trying to make scientific
>debate possible -- a good thing in a free society. What's chilling is Dr.
>Mann's past stonewalling and utter refusal to permit the public to see how
>he concocted the hockey stick -- research that was paid for by the public
>and that is being used by global warming advocates to restrict the public's
>access to affordable energy.
>
>In his request for information, Barton had also asked Dr. Mann to provide
>records of the grants and other sources of funding that had financed his
>research, no doubt fueling suspicion about the intentions of Barton's
>investigation. But these records would have established that the research
>and methodology that Dr. Mann was refusing to share had been publicly
>funded.
>

>The Washington Post seized upon this point when it chimed in on the debate
>with an editorial likening Chairman Barton's request for information to a
>"witch hunt." The Post added that ". to pretend that [Chairman Barton] is
>going to learn something useful by requesting data on 15th century tree
>rings is ludicrous; to demand decades worth of financial information from
>scientists who are not suspected of fraud is outrageous."
>
>Well, a scientist's refusal to provide colleagues with his data and
>methodology is suspicious.

Peer-reviewed scientific journals. Maybe someone can read one to Barton.


>Chairman Barton's request for publicly funded

>scientific data concerning a major public policy issue isn't ludicrous; but


>estimating global temperature data based on a single tree certainly is.
>

>The global warmers are trying to demonize Chairman Barton to make him the
>bad guy out to harass and intimidate Dr. Mann, now a martyr for global
>warming hysteria. But it appears that just the opposite is the case.

Or you're a doofus. Much higher probability.

Lloyd Parker

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 12:54:00 PM8/1/05