THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Re: 1967, Robin
A very interesting observation, but can you develop it further? Why is it that the G7 are leading the crusade against AGW when, we are told, the third world is at greatest risk from the consequences of climate change. Is it altruism, self interest or just risk free politics?
Hi Peter,
You try to bring the hockey stick back from the dead.
Sorry. Once a liar and cheat, always a liar and cheat. Forget Mann’s new hockey stick. He is a charlatan and it’s another fraud. You have to be pretty naive to believe anything that this guy publishes on past temperatures after his hockey stick fiasco.
My advice to you, Peter: forget Mann and concentrate on the many studies out there plus the historical records, which confirm a MWP that was globally warmer than today.
Regards,
Max
Max,
It looks like that you’ve made the mistake of starting to believe your own black propaganda.
This is quite silly. Edward Wegman agreed that Mann’s original conclusions were reasonable, although he didn’t agree from the evidence presented that Mann had quite the strong case he claimed. That’s a long way different from charges of fraud and charlatanism. You may have been listening too much to Christopher Monckton.
What about Jones, D’Arrigio, Briffa, Oelemans, Jansen, Moberg, Wilson, and all their co-workers? They have all now produced results which agree with Mann. Are they all frauds and charlatans too?
Will there be the same concerted campaign against these and also Mann’s latest paper. Somehow I doubt there will be.
It a measure of McIntyre’ success that Real Climate is now promoting the idea that the Medieval Warm Period should be renamed the Medieval Climate Anomaly; if you cann’t change the facts then muddy the waters by changing the name. This has nothing to do with science and everything to do it politics.
So far as the other climate reconstructions that you mention are concerned, most of them seem to use similar proxy series and statistical techniques to Mann’s, so it is hardly surprising that they produce similar results. But it is impossible to be certain as authors in this field seem reluctant to archive their data so that anyone else can check
You really ought to read Climate Audit, particularly the long series of posts during the last six week about Mann 2008.
Peter 1974
I do not agree with the comment fraud and charlatan either, as that suggests a deliberate attempt to mislead.
As I have said before Dr Mann’s original study got picked up and promoted to a much wider audience than he could have expected. If he had known the consequences he might have consulted more widely, including with Al Gore and the historians community. It was really more a ‘work in progress’ rather than a final document. Other scientists get the opportunity to modify their early research but he got pitched into the front row of the discussion.
I did folow the link you posted but am surprised you felt that this was an objective commentary. This from desmogblog
“As the DeSmogBlog is not a science site, we recommend that you go to Mann’s own RealClimate.org, if you want intelligent interpretation of the statistical bickering.”
If you want an equally ‘unbiased’ view try the numerous studies listed here
http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354
On a more serious note, and taking bias out of the equation, I think it would be useful to read the original 32 page Wegman report on his hockey stick enquiry, rather than rely on the summaries of it from third parties. It would then be instructive to read his answers to specific questions on his testimony headed;
“Response of Dr. Edward Wegman to Questions Posed by the Honorable Mr. Bart Stupak in Connection with Testimony to
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations”
linked from here.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/StupakResponse.pdf
This demontrates the methodology by which hockey sticks are made, the statistical ability of the modellers, the peer review process, and the cooperation and sharing of data within the paleoclimatolgy community.
I think you are overestimating Dr Manns statistical ability and the objective nature of other studies showing similar results. Please read it then it would be most interesting to have your comments.
TonyB
Hi Peter,
You are wrong about Wegman “agreeing with Mann’s conclusions”. To quote Wegman, “Overall, the committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis. The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable.”
Pretty clear to me, Peter.
Forget all the frantic attempts to negate or deny the MWP. There is just too much physical evidence out there supporting it. Creating “proxy” hockeysticks to deny something that every schoolchild knows existed is a waste of time. Reading (and even believeing) these reports is even a greater waste of time.
The MWP was global and warmer than today.
Regards,
Max
Note to TonyB
You apparently have information leading you to believe that the Mann “hockey stick” was an honest error and not an attempt to deny or negate a well-known but embarrassing MWP for purposes of making current warming sound more alarming.
I have no evidence to the contrary, so I accept your view on this.
Of course, this does not make the “hockey stick” any more valid, as the M+M analysis plus Dr. Wegman’s testimony pointed out quite clearly.
Regards,
Max
#1981Max
Absolutely ageree with your 1981. Those people who believe Wegman partially exonerated Dr Mann should read the full report and not rely on summaries of it.
#1982
As you say it certainly does not make the Hockey stick any more valid. The stick and its general methodology have been discredited and it-and its siblings- should be allowed to rest in peace.
TonyB
Tony B,
Mann began his research to “prove” a correlation between temperature increase and manmade CO2 as opposed to objectively looking at the prehistoric temperature record; he’s a hack…….. instead of being contrite and apologetic, humbly admitting his mistake, he has defiantly lashed out at the scientists that brought his omissions to light, (he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar). Now he’s back trying to peddle his discredited data and retain any shred of his tattered reputation. I don’t believe that charlatan and fraud are harsh at all.
Quote:
“Around 1996, I became aware of how corrupt and ideologically driven current climate research can be. A major researcher working in the area of climate change confided in me that the factual record needed to be altered so that people would become alarmed over global warming. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”
Dr. David Deming (University of Oklahoma)
”GCNP I suggest you read other sources of info, other than the IPCC. Too bad they ignore other studies that would question their hypothesis. The GRIP (Greenland) borehole temperature record is not a proxy, but a direct measure of temperature (Dahl-Jensen et al. 1998). It shows that current warmth is not unusual in the context of the last 2,000 years. A similar result for the last 1,000 years has also been obtained from borehole temperatures in the Ural Mountains (Demezhko and Shchapov, 2001).”
Quote:
“The continuing affair of the “hockey-stick” graph is a microcosm of the profound collapse of the rigor, objectivity, and honesty that were once hallmarks of the scientific community. The need to look to the State for very nearly all science funding has inflicted upon the scientific community a dull, dishonest uniformity, so that the deliberate falsification of results to support the current official orthodoxy has become commonplace, particularly where the climate question is concerned. It was bad enough that one of those behind the “hockey stick” affair should have told a fellow researcher, “We need to get rid of the medieval warm period.” It was worse that the authors of the bogus graph attempted to do just that, by ignoring, undervaluing or even suppressing proxies for northern-hemisphere temperature that did not suit the result they wanted; by falsely stating that they had used data they had in fact replaced with “estimates” of their own that gave them a less inconvenient answer; by overvaluing by many orders of magnitude the contribution of datasets that suited the result they wanted. It was worse still that the IPCC, several leading journals and numerous former co-authors of the three fabricators of the hockey stick should have continued to cling to it as though it were Gospel even though it has been justifiably and utterly discredited in the scientific literature, and should have gone through an elaborate pantomime of rewriting and publishing previously-rejected papers with the connivance of a dishonest journal editor, so that an entirely fictitious scientific support for the false graph could be falsely claimed by the IPCC in its current Fourth Assessment Report.”
TonyB, Max and Peter: although interesting and doubtless important, there’s something other-worldly about your discussion of possible global temperature change. Why argue about the law of thermodynamics or the “forcings” that may apply when the IPCC’s “projections” of what we should expect (note their lack of courage in not making predictions) are based on hopelessly flimsy foundations? I’ll explain (again) what I mean:
The IPCC’s 2007 projections about what the world will be like at the end of the century are based on computer models incorporating assumptions about economic growth and technological development and about changes in fuel prices/consumption and demographics. These assumptions relate to six “scenarios” developed by the IPCC back in 2000 (see its “Special Report on Emissions Scenarios”) and shown to be flawed by reputable economists at the time. Note: these have not been updated since 2000. 2000! Consider how the world has been changed by the emergence of, for example, China and India over just the last two years. Indeed, consider how economic and political forecasts made only a few days ago have already been proved to be hopelessly wrong. The IPCC, however, claims to know what the world will be like in 100 years’ time. It’s patently absurd.
Yet based on that absurdity many Western nations are attempting to impose potentially crippling distortions on their economies. It makes no sense.
Brute #1984
I am not disagreeing with anything you say and I hope Peter is reading the various quotes as they do illustrate the fragility of the science behind the hockey stick and other highly selective studies.
Dr Wegman wrote something very similar to your last quote in the link I made. It was along the lines of when you are looking for funding you tend to follow the prevailing scientific consensus.
Dr Mann set out to make a name for himself but didnt imagine it would be quite as large quite as quickly. When you get backed into a corner you fight back (you see it in many forums as well) If his modest study had not been over promoted in the way it was, he may have modifed it by talking to the various people who knew a lot more about certain things (like history) than he did. Which comes right back to one of the three debating positions I posted some days ago.
Are you saying that the David Deming quote was about Mann? I have heard the quote many times but not the inference that it was directed personally at him.
The team have tried to rewrite history.However there are people who have pointed out the Emperor has few clothes and even those warmists who only read material that supports their view must be starting to realise that the siutuation is not as black and white as they may have believed.
TonyB
TonyN: at 1976 you ask (referring to my 1967):
I’ll try. (BTW, I don’t think we should be describing the world’s emerging economies – China, India etc. – as “the third world” any more.) The answer, I think, lies in your concept of risk-free politics – your post here describes it beautifully. But what you say applies only in the West: little or none of it would make sense in, for example, China where the overriding priority is to build up the country’s economic strength. Compare the “carbon footprint” of the average Chinese with that of the average American and than consider the vast amount of poverty in China compared to America. It would hardly be risk-free for a Chinese leader to advocate action that would perpetuate that poverty. Of course, current economic developments may well be changing what is risk-free in the West also.
Robin 1985
A well made point but that comment assumes we are operating on the policy level. Surely it is the people and through them the policymakers that will determine the course of the argument.
The fear of the gullible or less informed or the genuinely idealistic is that;
We are all going to die now!
The Scientists have proven we are going to be fried to death…
or deluged by flooding from the melting ice caps. Its unprecedented!.
Its ALL our fault and we must DO something!
If we can point out that most of this is demonstrable nonsense, the facts-and looming economic reality-will knock the bandwagon over the precipice.
TonyB
TonyB: I’m not sure that I understand what you mean at 1988 – were you referring to 1985 or perhaps 1987? Whichever you meant, in the short term it’s the policymakers who come first and the people second. That applies in both the West and in the emerging economies. There is, however, no evidence that the people’s view (in the West that is) on AGW is as you postulate (we’re all going to die etc). Have a look at this post of TonyN’s – especially the links and comments. IMHO in the West the public’s generally sceptical view will IMHO be heard more loudly and therefore will be reflected in policy as the economic crisis bites. See my final comment at 1987.
I was referring to #1985
Again I dont disagree with much of what you say, but the sad truth is that the majority-who tend to be sceptical (with a small s) don’t tend to shout as loudly or as frequently as the team supporters who also tend to be more proactive in getting their views across. They are also armed with much more ‘scientfic’ material and such primers as ‘The guide to talking to climate sceptics’ which are on numerous web sites including the royal society desmogblog and Green peace. THe BBC is also a cheerleader.
The govt also passes down instruction to its agencies and councils to promulgate the message and even though many working in them may personally disagree they have to ‘follow the official instructions’-as the regional representative of a big Govt UK agency said to me just last week as much money was spent reorganising themselves to meet the diktats of Defra. We’re not going to change the policymakers minds who are locked into the process (tax and influence comes to mind) but once the public realise the extent of the economic crisis they will start to exert more pressure to rethink priorities-once they have been reassured they arent going to fry or be drowned.
Anyway I dont want to go off topic as I am eager to learn of Peters comments on factual refences to Wegmans analysis of hockey sticks, or his reaction to data on sea level rises or his comments on the dissent in the IPCC about processes.
TonyB
Hi TonyB,
We discussed whether or not Mann and his colleagues intentionally wanted to misinform the world about the existence of the Medieval Warm Period, or whether they just made honest mistakes in their “hockey stick” proxy study.
Let us assume that it was, indeed, an honest mistake. But how was the conduct of Mann and his co-authors once the errors were discovered and pointed out?
A booklet titled “On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research” (second edition), published by the National Academy of Science in 1995, provides a well-presented set of criteria to guide the conduct of scientists to ensure that they conduct themselves responsibly and ethically.
On errors in science (page 15) this booklet states:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4917&page=15
“Scientific results are inherently provisional. Scientists can never prove conclusively that they have described some aspect of the natural or physical world with complete accuracy. In that sense all scientific results must be treated as susceptible to error.
Errors arising from human fallibility also occur in science. Scientists do not have limitless working time or access to unlimited resources. Even the most responsible scientist can make an honest mistake. When such errors are discovered, they should be acknowledged, preferably in the same journal in which the mistaken information was published. Scientists who make such acknowledgments promptly and openly are rarely condemned by colleagues.”
Did Mann and his co-authors acknowledge their “honest mistakes” once they were discovered? Was this done “in the same journal in which the mistaken information was published”? If so, there would hardly be any need for Mann and his co-authors to be condemned by colleagues and the general public at large.
Realize this may be a moot point, but I believe it does reflect on the credibility of any subsequent reports by Mann et al. to rationalize or even attempt to negate the earlier errors.
Just my thoughts on this, Tony. Peter probably has another opinion.
Regards,
Max
Er, Tony (1990) this discussion is very much on topic: as I said at 1895, discussion about hockey-sticks, possible sea level rises etc. may be important but they fade to insignificance compared with Western governments’ plans, based on absurd assumptions, to impose potentially crippling distortions on their economies. Yes, a lot of people may be confused by the science and a lot more may regard the issue as of little importance but they’ll all know it really matters when they see that government action is threatening to exacerbate their already bad economic situation. My hunch is that it won’t be the “science” that gets their attention (is the dangerous AGW theory proved? etc.) but the nonsense of taking drastic action based on foolish assumptions – especially when other major economies are doing nothing.
Hi Robin,
Of course you are right (1985). The “scientific debate” on the degree of warming to be expected from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 may be interesting, per se, but in the overall context of the “political W3 debate” on “Who is going to do What about it by When?” it is relatively meaningless.
As you have pointed out the IPCC “projections” are not only based on shaky “science”, but also on other assumed developments for the next 100 years (social, technological, economic, etc.) that are, by definition, absurd (viz. the horse manure analogy).
And, finally, as you have also pointed out, just because a major part of the old “industrially developed” world (EU, Japan, etc.) has given “mitigation” lip service, does not mean that these nations will really cripple their economies to actually implement these steps, and certainly not that the rest of the world, particularly China, India, Brazil and the USA, will jump on the bandwagon, particularly now that there is a more important real crisis out there.
But, as a rational skeptic, I believe it is important that the AGW onion be peeled and that all its layers of absurdity be exposed for one and all to see.
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyB,
This got stuck in the spam filter, so will send link separately.
We discussed whether or not Mann and his colleagues intentionally wanted to misinform the world about the existence of the Medieval Warm Period, or whether they just made honest mistakes in their “hockey stick” proxy study.
Let us assume that it was, indeed, an honest mistake. But how was the conduct of Mann and his co-authors once the errors were discovered and pointed out?
A booklet titled “On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research” (second edition), published by the National Academy of Science in 1995, provides a well-presented set of criteria to guide the conduct of scientists to ensure that they conduct themselves responsibly and ethically.
On errors in science (page 15) this booklet states: (see link)
“Scientific results are inherently provisional. Scientists can never prove conclusively that they have described some aspect of the natural or physical world with complete accuracy. In that sense all scientific results must be treated as susceptible to error.
Errors arising from human fallibility also occur in science. Scientists do not have limitless working time or access to unlimited resources. Even the most responsible scientist can make an honest mistake. When such errors are discovered, they should be acknowledged, preferably in the same journal in which the mistaken information was published. Scientists who make such acknowledgments promptly and openly are rarely condemned by colleagues.”
Did Mann and his co-authors acknowledge their “honest mistakes” once they were discovered? Was this done “in the same journal in which the mistaken information was published”? If so, there would hardly be any need for Mann and his co-authors to be condemned by colleagues and the general public at large.
Realize this may be a moot point, but I believe it does reflect on the credibility of any subsequent reports by Mann et al. to rationalize or even attempt to negate the earlier errors.
Just my thoughts on this, Tony. Peter probably has another opinion.
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyB,
Incidentally the NAS booklet on scientific conduct (which I cited) also mentions the importance of skepticism in science (p. 6):
“The fallibility of methods is a valuable reminder of the importance of skepticism in science. Scientific knowledge and scientific methods, whether old or new, must be continually scrutinized for possible errors. Such skepticism can conflict with other important features of science, such as the need for creativity and for conviction in arguing a given position. But organized and searching skepticism as well as an openness to new ideas are essential to guard against the intrusion of dogma or collective bias into scientific results.”
In this booklet the NAS gives high regard to the importance of skepticism in science in order “to guard against the intrusion of dogma or collective bias into scientific results.”
Unfortunately, skepticism and skeptics are now viewed with derision by those defining themselves as the “mainstream consensus”. It appears that “dogma and collective bias” have, indeed, intruded into “climate change science”.
Is this the familiar response (as noted by Thomas Kuhn) by those scientists who are “stuck” in a “paradigm” to any data or theories that question this paradigm, or is it more dogmatic?
Has “climate science” become tainted as a result of the billions of dollars of public research grants?
Are these funds granted based on obtaining scientific justification for a political agenda?
There are a lot of questions out there.
A common counter-argument is that this would imply a giant “conspiracy”. I believe that this is a weak position. No “conspiracy” is required to explain what is going on. It really only confirms human nature, particularly when very large sums of money are involved.
Regards,
Max
Max
Very interesting series of posts
You will be familiar with the Royal Society’s motto-this from their web site;
“The Royal Society’s motto ‘Nullius in verba’, roughly translated as ‘Take nobody’s word for it’, (or nobody’s word is final) dates back to 1663, and is an expression of the determination of the Fellows to withstand the domination of authority (such as in Scholasticism) and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment. The Latin words (see below) are taken from a passage of Horace in which the poet compares himself to a gladiator, who, having earned peace and retirement, is free from control.”
Unfortunately the degree of scepticism that scientists should be displaying to each others work appears to be limited. Wegman pointed out the degree of cooperation in the paleoclimate world. Precious little investigation into alternative theories going on there it seems
Perhaps as govt patronage has replaced private patronage scientists know what levers they currently need to pull in order to get funding.
I agree the high standards have now been subsumed by a number of key scientists-whether to make a name for themselves or idealogical purposes. Assuming this was their plan from the very start is not something I would agree with, that they have not subsequently acted honourably or to the code is another matter .
I didn’t initially go for the deliberate conspiracy theory, I think things just unfolded. However I think its back to Menckens hobgoblins now, as it suits govt purposes to allow the debate to take the shape it is doing
Robin 1992
I only meant ‘off topic’ in the sense a great deal of factual information has been posted recently and I was hoping to get Peters opinions on the IPCC authors responses, Wegman’s analysis of the recurring hockey stick shapes, and actual sea level data etc. Peter is on surer ground with politics and his views on this topic are always interesting.
TonyB
That’s fine, Tony, I completely understand. As I’ve said, much (nearly all) of the material posted here is important and interesting – I often indulge myself in comments on the AGW hypothesis: recently, for example, my comments on the plain logic of requiring that natural causes are excluded as an explanation of recent warming before assuming it must be man-made GHGs. But, from time to time, I think it’s necessary to remind ourselves of the hard realities out there in the wider economic world.
I look forward to seeing Peter’s response to your interesting observations.
Tony B,
I know, it just seems that we are being a bit too cordial to Mr. Mann and the various other hucksters out there peddling this nonsense. I’m all for being open minded, but “scientists” such as Mann play fast and loose with data and science and are never, (hardly ever) called on it. These, charlatans made wildly inaccurate predictions years ago, (along with Socialist/Collectivist “solutions” to resolve the “problem”). The world listened and waited patiently and as it turns out, these outlandish predictions are not even close to the observed data. Now, they are retracting and parsing their statements proclaiming things such as “I really didn’t mean that” or “we had to exaggerate the data to capture the attention of the general public” or “temperatures would have risen except for (this or that) natural occurrence”. Where I come from we call that LYING. The next thing they’ll say is because they’ve “brought attention” to the problem, mankind has actually managed to change the weather”.
I don’t see anything wrong with calling a spade a spade. These guys need to be thoroughly discredited publicly and completely. The fact that they continue to receive public, tax generated funding is nothing short of astonishing.
Now we have government bodies, world wide, actually debating, (wasting time and money) on whether or not we need to wreck entire national economies to pacify these kooks.
Hansen, Mann, Gore and other frauds continue to garner attention because no one actually calls them on it publicly. (There are many brave souls that point out that the data assessment is flawed, but they hardly receive the attention they deserve). Gore, Mann and others like them will continue to receive sympathetic press unless they are confronted publicly and harshly. Al Gore’s movie has been proven in a court of law to be fraught with inaccuracies, (lies), but is generally accepted as truth and even venerated as a “work of art”.
Leni Riefenstahl would be proud.
Again, I was on the fence regarding this topic when this thread opened a year ago. After reviewing the information provided by numerous sources, I cannot believe that the general public doesn’t see through this canard.
Brute 1998
Its as shame ‘we’ don’t have a charismatic spokersman or woman to speak for us in a forceful and scientific manner without resorting to ad hom attacks.
I am seeing leading AGW proponent Dr Iain Stewart next week at Southampton where he is giving a lecture on the BBC series ‘Climate Wars.’ He is young, charismatic (misguided obviously!)but credible. Hansen is seen as the elder statesman who tells us like it is. Mann is (was) the young scientist who dared to create an icon to show the world what was happening and Al Gore…Whatever I personally think of him he has a very respectable environmental record. Some feel he should have been President so there is a sympathy vote as well. He is always out there, looking earnestly into the cameras and urging us to save the planet or the polar bears get it.
Who have we got? Monckton? A nice guy but not very visually appealing. Steve Mcintyre? He seems a shy man. There are many other anonymous scientists but none with a national recognition factor who could front say a tv show or give interviews. People who dont have closed minds can be convinced when they see the weight of evidence is on our side.
We need some people to step up and take responsibility for countering some of the wilder fantasies we have presented to us. Who wants to volunteer to being non green?
TonyB
TonyB, TonyN, Robin,
Several weeks ago there was a TV special on international news featuring several former US Secretaries of State, discussing various current topics. This was moderated by Christiane Amanpour, CNN’s chief international correspondent.
At one point she asked the venerable ex-Secretaries if they agreed that humans were the principal cause of the recent global warming. All agreed almost immediately that this was so.
At first this reaction surprised me, since none of the individuals had any background in “climatology”.
But then I realized that this had nothing to do with climate science and everything to do with “political correctness” (at which former Secretaries of State, as the ultimate diplomats, were certainly the most astute).
It reminded me of the old (sexist?) riddle: “what is the difference between a diplomat and a lady?”
When a diplomat says “yes”, he means “maybe”; when he says “maybe”, he means “no”; and a real diplomat never says “no”.
When a lady says “no”, she means “maybe”; when she says “maybe” she means “yes”; and a real lady never says “yes”.
(Madeleine Albright is both a diplomat and a lady, but in this instance, the diplomat came out more strongly.)
Regards,
Max