The Fossil Fuel Industry’s Conspiracy Exposed

The inside story of climate scientists under siege, at Wired:

It is almost possible to dismiss Michael Mann’s account of a vast conspiracy by the fossil fuel industry to harrass scientists and befuddle the public. His story of that campaign, and his own journey from naive computer geek to battle-hardened climate ninja, seems overwrought, maybe even paranoid.

But now comes the unauthorized release of documents showing how a libertarian thinktank, the Heartland Institute, which has in the past been supported by Exxon, spent millions on lavish conferences attacking scientists and concocting projects to counter science teaching for kindergarteners.

Mann’s story of what he calls the climate wars, the fight by powerful entrenched interests to undermine and twist the science meant to guide government policy, starts to seem pretty much on the money. He’s telling it in a book out on March 6, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches From the Front Lines.

“They see scientists like me who are trying to communicate the potential dangers of continued fossil fuel burning to the public as a threat. That means we are subject to attacks, some of them quite personal, some of them dishonest.” Mann said in an interview conducted in and around State College, home of Pennsylvania State University, where he is a professor.

It’s a brilliantly sunny day, and the light snowfall of the evening before is rapidly melting.

Mann, who seems fairly relaxed, has just spoken to a full-capacity, and uniformly respectful and supportive crowd at the university.

It’s hard to square the surroundings with the description in the book of how an entire academic discipline has been made to feel under siege, but Mann insists that it is a given.

“It is now part of the job description if you are going to be a scientist working in a socially relevant area like human-caused climate change,” he said.

He should know. For most of his professional life has been at the center of those wars, thanks to a paper he published with colleagues in the late 1990s showing a sharp upward movement in global temperatures in the last half of the 20th century. The graph became known as the “hockey stick”.

If the graph was the stick, then its publication made Mann the puck. Though other prominent scientists, such as Nasa’s James Hansen and more recently Texas Tech University’s Katharine Hayhoe, have also been targeted by contrarian bloggers and thinktanks demanding their institutions turn over their email record, it’s Mann who’s been the favorite target.

He has been regularly vilified on Fox news and contrarian blogs, and by Republican members of Congress…

[continues at at Wired]


Majestic is gadfly emeritus.

Latest posts by majestic (see all)

67 Comments on "The Fossil Fuel Industry’s Conspiracy Exposed"

  1. What’s funnier is that some people actually think they’ve discovered something new here, instead of just more proof that this climate denial crap is a total shell game sponsored by the oil industry. So for anyone who hadn’t gathered the following information by, you know, PAYING ATTENTION, here’s a repeat of those historical facts:

    ExxonMobil and its partners no doubt understood that, with the scientific evidence against them, they would not be able to influence reputable scientists. The 1998 memo proposed that ExxonMobil and its public relations partners “develop and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science.”

    ExxonMobil executed the strategy as planned underwriting a wide array of front organizations to publish in-house articles by select scientists and other like-minded individuals to raise objections about legitimate climate science research that has withstood rigorous peer review and has been replicated in multiple independent peer-reviewed studies — in other words, to attack research findings that were well established in the scientific community. The network ExxonMobil created masqueraded as a credible scientific alternative, but it publicized discredited studies and cherry-picked information to present misleading conclusions.

    ExxonMobil underwrites well-established astroturf groups such as:

    – The American Enterprise Institute
    – The Competitive Enterprise Institute
    – The Cato Institute
    – The American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research
    – The American Legislative Exchange Council
    – The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
    – The International Policy Network
    – Frontiers of Freedom (Known for having been praised by Darth Dick and opposing the Endangered Spieces Act as well)
    – The Center for Science and Public Policy
    – The George C. Marshall Institute (Previously used by Republicans for pro “Star Wars Program” promotion, it’s CEO was also Exec VP and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute)
    – The Heartland Institute

    All of which actively oppose mandatory action on global warming as well as many other environmental standards.Virtually all of them publish and publicize the work of a nearly identical group of spokespeople, including scientists who misrepresent peer-reviewed climate findings and confuse the public’s understanding of global warming. Most of these organizations also include these same individuals as board members or scientific advisers.

    For example, one of the George C. Marshall Institute’s hacks is Patrick Michaels (a “meteorologist”). Michaels has, over the past several years, been affiliated with at least ten organizations funded by ExxonMobil. Others with similar affiliations at Exxon-funded groups: 

    Sallie Baliunas
    Robert Balling
    John Christy
    Ross McKitrick
    Willie Soon
    Roger Bate
    Sherwood Idso
    Frederick Seitz
    David Legates
    George Taylor

    So basically, if you ever see any of those goobers used as a source in a climate-related article, you can count on them to spew pro oil-industry BS that has no basis in objective science.

    One of Frederick Seitz’s most controversial efforts was a 1998 letter asking scientists to sign a petition from a virtually unheard-of group called the “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” calling upon the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto Protocol.

    Seitz signed the letter identifying himself as a former NAS president. He also enclosed with his letter a report co-authored by a team including Soon and Baliunas asserting that carbon dioxide emissions pose no warming threat. The report was not peer reviewed. But it was formatted to look like an article from The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a leading scientific journal.

    The petition’s organizers publicly claimed that the effort had attracted the signatures of some 17,000 scientists.

    But it was soon discovered that the list contained few credentialed climate scientists. For example, the list was riddled with the names of numerous fictional characters.

    Likewise, after investigating a random sample of the small number of signers who claimed to have a Ph.D. in a climate-related field, Scientific American estimated that approximately one percent of the petition signatories might actually have a Ph.D. in a field related to climate science.

    This is the kind of shoddy shit that men like James Inhofe seized upon to support their idiotic and politically/financially self-serving Wrongwing positions in Congress, much to the consternation of anyone with a BRAIN.

    • And those are just the machinations of ONE oil company. Add to that Shell, Conoco, etc., along with coal industry giants like Massey Energy, and the toe jam Blankenship who “leads” that organization responsible for the largest environmental disaster in the history of the world (25 times larger than the Exxon Valdez) until he was topped by Shell’s little kerfuffle in the Gulf.

      Not to mention the non-clean energy “solutions” like nuclear, that are pitching themselves as alternatives but which still represent that old, failed, centralized Edison model of energy distribution. For anyone stupid enough to think that’s “clean energy” (and I include Obama in that stupid category), I would remind you that there’s a radioactive debris field of wreckage from the Japanese tsumani the size of California drifting across the ocean, that’s about to run into…. California.

      Mmm… smell the cleanup of that “clean” energy.

      Wind, solar, geothermal, and micro-power generation. That’s it folks. Unless somebody actually invents cold fusion or manages to get a water-powered car past the corporate thugs in the auto industry, those are the tools we have to work with. The rest leads to disaster.

      • Paintslikebobross | Feb 19, 2012 at 1:33 pm |

        You would think with all this extensive research into quantum mechanics and other novel fields that we would have been able to produce a more efficient type of energy by now.

        • Mr Willow | Feb 19, 2012 at 4:33 pm |

          Well, assuming he did, and if what he says is true—which, generally speaking, it is, in that all the different energy giants will go to tremendous lengths to protect their profits, using tactics quite similar to those 5by5 presented—it would be heavily suppressed, with the use of things like threats internally and false studies and negative media and ad campaigns externally, so we wouldn’t know about it, or would be too frightened of it, and we won’t know about it until the same energy executives discover a way to monetize it in their favour. 

  2. What about the chemtrails?

  3. And FYI, we need to move to clean energy not because we’re running out of oil. We’re not running out of oil.

    In 1956, a man named M. King Hubbert wrote a research paper that advanced the “peak oil” theory. Basically, he said that by 2006, we’d run out of oil entirely. Why is this bullshit (besides the fact that everything still runs on oil)? Well Hubbert “theorized” that the Middle East could produce no more than 375 billion barrels of oil. Problem is, CURRENT proven (known and measured) oil reserves remaining today total 734 billion barrels. And processed oil reserves that are ready to be used, total 1.189 TRILLION barrels, and that excludes the two biggest untapped oil fields.

    The real “problem” (for oil men at least) before the war was not that oil was running out and they had to conquer control of new oil fileds, the “problem” was that there was TOO MUCH oil, and prices were LOW.

    When Hubbert wrote his little report — for Shell Oil, for whom he worked as a consultant — things were even worse. For them at least. To quote them, “Oil was cheaper than dirt — $2.77 a BARREL, that is, a nickel a gallon — and sinking.”

    The only thing that might save an industry drowning in it’s own product? The notion of scarcity. Basically, the oil industry had to change not the REALITY of it’s product, but merely the American people’s PERCEPTION of it.

    So first, they introduced the false notion that there was a dwindling supply, and then introduce three essential concepts to drive business:

    1) Prices should be raised “for the public’s good” to conserve a precious rare resource
    2) Find an alternative to fossil fuels
    3) Protect access to oil, by force if necessary (ie. get the government to protect your business with force of arms in the same way that United Fruit did in Guatemala)Now why would someone in the oil industry propose alternative fuels? Wrong question. The real question is, WHICH alternative fuel was Shell Oil suggesting? The title of Hubbert’s paper wasn’t “Peak Oil” it was “Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels”. You see Shell was about to send out a press release about it’s new sideline business — URENCO, a uranium enrichment consortium. (You see the “advantage” of nuclear power is that it’s big, and not everybody can engage in it, thereby limiting the players to the few and the powerful. The “problem” with solar and wind power is that ANYBODY can engage in it – large, authoritarian industry or the corporate whores that run such enterprises, are quite simply unnecessary.)So what SHOULD we do instead???We need to abandon fossil fuels because the burning of them is killing the fragile biosphere, and because it forces us to have dealings with the batshit crazy loons in the Middle East. Therefore, we should:

    1.) Nationalize OUR oil production. Strip it from corporate control entirely. 

    2.) Radically lower our prices to 1956 levels – $3 a barrel for use by OUR industry here at home, while charging the still very low price of $15 a barrel for the world market, thereby gutting the price of oil worldwide, and forcing the nation’s in the Middle East to find healthier ways of growing their economies. Perhaps they could try creating energy from that giant glowing ball in the sky that’s making things so unbearably hot in that part of the world. Just a thought.

    3.) Since our other industries will be able to ship things throughout the country at much lower prices, they will increase their profits and be able to invest in more research for their businesses, thereby improving their position in the marketplace worldwide by increasing the chances for advancement. Tax incentives should be targeted SPECIFICALLY for R&D for that reason. 

    4.) Beyond that, their increased production will also yield increased tax revenue, because the other thing we’ll do is eliminate all other tax loopholes for corporations save for three — R&D as I already mentioned, higher education offered for their employees would yield a tax rebate, and environmental compliance or improvement would also yield a tax credit.

    5.) All other increased tax revenues from this effort would be earmarked for National Universal Healthcare for ALL Americans, low-cost housing construction, solar and wind power infrastructure, biomass and solar-powered electric fuel stations nationwide to power our cars.

    6.) Begin altering the nature of the national power grid, so that individuals can produce power (via wind or solar) and sell back any excess to fulfill the national power needs.

    7.) Mandate an Apollo Program for the auto industry begin swapping out gas vehicles for bio powered, electrically powered, or solar powered cars, to be completed within the next decade. Begin the overall process of distancing ourselves from the oil/crack pipe that is also killing the sustainable environment of this planet.

    8.) Sieze all Saudi Arabian assets (7% of our total assets is currently owned by them) within the United States, cutting off their influence over American national policy entirely.

    9.) Tax all current and former CEO’s of big oil at a 90% rate. Nobody needs half a billion dollars for their retirement. Let them “survive” on a mere million dollars each – MAX – for the rest of their lives. Put that tax revenue into Social Security, and LOCK that box once and for all. And ENFORCE the law which says that any government official dipping in to said public trust, should go directly to jail. No exceptions.

  4. Michael Mann has as much credibility as his hockey stick graph. 

  5. Marklar_Prime | Feb 19, 2012 at 4:00 pm |

    Yes, emotional appeals like “I *heart* climate science” are what will ultimately prove their case scientifically. What morons.

    • Jin The Ninja | Feb 19, 2012 at 9:15 pm |

       What scientists, NOT funded by right-wing think-tanks or corporations, are opposed to the science of climate change and pollution?

      • Camron Wiltshire | Feb 20, 2012 at 1:03 am |

         Here is a quick wiki search result.

        Also curious if you have investigated the material from both camps or not?

        • Jin The Ninja | Feb 20, 2012 at 2:41 am |

          over 3/4th of that list either: do not dispute anthropogenic climate change merely aspects of the theory related to it OR are funded by right-wing think tanks and oil company lobbies.

          Climate change and industrial pollution- i find, are such obvious features of contemporary life, that it’s not really an argument worthy of much discussion, it simply IS a fact that we’ve violently sundered the earth and her resources.

          • Camron Wiltshire | Feb 21, 2012 at 2:00 am |

            the 3/4ths’ you cite, give me a list, don’t expect me to take your assurance at face value, Sources please.  Also, what scientists NOT receiving any funding from a University (which demonstrably will follow the funding for their research whether they agree or not) or “Left wing” environmental groups or associated corporations (fuel cell, wind farms, green energy etc) support AGW as an unquestionable reality?  

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 21, 2012 at 5:34 am |

            Camron, seriously- Scientists who work for universities and environmental advocacy are far more credible than an oil lobby. I’m disapointed you don’t realise that. i’d also hope scientists ask critical questions of any theory rather than accept it as face value.

          • Camron Wiltshire | Feb 21, 2012 at 10:56 pm |

            False dichotomy.  You are presuming that ALL scientists who disagree with the assumptions of the IPCC which produces the faux “consensus” or “majority” invoked (again Science is not democracy rule, if it were we would still be in the dark ages) work for the “oil lobby”  This is a false conclusion and is therefore insufficient to support your expanded claims. Jin you’re welcome to believe whatever you like, I am sure it is a heartfelt conviction that drives you, whether said conviction is founded on biased data that has been shown to have been manipulated and is in fact in question is what I am offering for consideration.  Rather than trying to portray anyone who looks at this situation in a different light as automatically being a “conservative think tank, oil lobby, denier” try to look at what is being offered and be willing to imagine you might not have all the information.  If you’re unwilling to do so that is fine, but I wouldn’t consider that your arguments are for anything more than a preferred reality tunnel.  It doesn’t matter whether or not you are “dissapointed” that I think so, you must attempt to understand the science predicating my thoughts on the matter or the conversation dissolves into soap opera.  “I’d also hope scientists ask critical questions of any theory rather than accept it as face value”  < I agree and this is a large part of why the discussion continues, notice only the pro AGW camp says the "debate is over" meaning we don't want to have to defend our beliefs openly and no we can't share our temperature data with other scientists (Climategate anyone?)  Occams razor supports that the group unwilling to  open their processes and records for scrutiny from other scientists, most likely has something to hide.  This is precisely why science is not majority rule.  Given your quote desiring critical questioning as important and necessary why then do you believe that Everyone who disagrees is funded by an opposing interest and is not actually just practicing scientific skepticism?  Again I am focusing on the science not the players.  The pro AGW camp are the one's avoiding FOIA requests, destroying information and rigging code to produce hockey sticks no matter what data is entered, not those who simply want to investigate their findings independently.    Just a few examples of Steven E. Jones deliberately obfuscating the scientific process, "The most damning emails on this point are the following, starting with 1107454306.txt, in which Jones refers to MM – McIntyre and McKitrick (bold added):
            At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:Mike, I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !Many more examples folllow here:

          • Camron Wiltshire | Feb 21, 2012 at 10:59 pm |

            Excuse me Phil Jones of East Anglia not Steven E. Jones.  Honest mistake.  (curious who will latch on to this and run to tangent town)

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 23, 2012 at 11:19 am |

            if science is not objective, as eurocentric framework that denies certain alternative, and indigenous and metaphysical realities, then it would stand to reason the social actors involved in the production of such knowledge would have a certain motivation for the knowledge to fit their worldview. If a scientists works for a university, they must adhere to strict ethical and epistemological standards. Meaning their work can be interpreted (generally) to be well-produced. On the other hand, work produced by corporations and libertarian think tanks have a unresolved and unprepetant economic agenda that causes a serious decline in the standard of work produced.

            Again, I am certainly not interested in a discussion of AGW. it’s the health of gaia, that is my primary focus.

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 21, 2012 at 6:05 am |

            Also, the burden of proof to generate such a list lies with you, as the vast majority of scientists support ACW, and most of those work for universities. The wiki link you gave organised the scientists with associated foundations and a short summary of their critical appraisal of ACW, some of them were very mild.

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 21, 2012 at 7:47 am |

            i apologise in advance for what will be my third post (not my intention to inundate you, i felt i had seperate but important points that i left out of my initial posting)

            i am genuinely uninterested in a futile discussing regarding ACC, as i posted on my article regarding indigneous worldviews and the environment, My sole interest/concern (including an outright rejection of al gore’s neo liberal market capitalist approach to environmentalism) is the impact of industrialisation, resource exploitation and a growth based economic system (capitalism) on the earth. it’s not whether or not ACC exists (although i believe it does) it’s the acknowledgement that man has had a tremendously adverse effect on the natural world and her evolutionary and ecological cycles.

            similarly, as i mentioned in a previous post, my worldview informed by religious, spiritual, cultural, educational and personal experiences, have led me to embrace a strong holistic connection to the world/gaea.
            In that embrace i recognise something is deeply wrong with the workings of the natural world caused by the values and productions of modern western civilization.

        • Why waste time researching the lies of your opponents? I don’t think you people are aware of how to properly produce propaganda.

  6. Camron Wiltshire | Feb 20, 2012 at 12:58 am |

    The Hockey stick has been discredited for a decade now…  Don’t take my word for it.  Just study a bit and think about it. 

    Notice how the Science is not discussed.  Mann can’t win in an open forum where independent scientist question his methods or conclusions so he resorts to his only remaining defense, to attempt to discredit any opponents as industry paid stooges.  

    “McIntyre had reported that Mann’s temperature reconstruction model produced a hockey stick no matter what temperature data was input to it.”

    Let’s be dispassionate and reasonable and examine how Michael Mann is manipulating data to present false conclusions.

    • Mysophobe | Feb 20, 2012 at 4:20 pm |

      From the Wired article:

      “Those opposed to climate change began accusing Mann of overlooking important data or even manipulating the records. None of the allegations were ever found to have substance. The hockey stick would eventually be confirmed by more than 10 other studies.”

      That’s a bold statement. Are you telling me that it’s completely untrue? Wired is in bed with the worldwide conspiracy to sell CF lightbulbs? Say it ain’t so. Show me something other than a YouTube interview of some hack author oozing bias to back it up. I’m apparently not as easily convinced as you.

      • Watch the video. You don’t have to be in cahoots to be decieved by a respectable looking report that failed to ask the real questions.

        (examples include the nations politics, the economy, the unemployment rate, the media …. etc.)

        Another example: 

        I have been looking at both sides, and in all honesty I’m still agnostic on the issue, but this guy has a good viewpoint, where he believes global warming is probably happening, but there are some significant discrepancies in the data that both have not, and need to be looked at.

        • Mysophobe | Feb 20, 2012 at 10:06 pm |

          The ICCC was organized and funded by the Heartland Institute. Mcintyre works in an advisory capacity for two major energy companies. The propaganda piece that Camron linked to on another thread without a hint of irony is from, also funded by the Heartland Institute. Something stinks here. Honest arbiter seeking the truth my ass.

          The elephant in the room for me is this:

          If AGW is an such easily disproven hoax built on sand, why the need for such enormous investment of time and resources on the part of it’s opponents? They’ve been at it for over ten years and the only thing they can make stick is “there are minor discrepancies in the data.” As if that never happens in scientific research. It’s no wonder they have to resort to throwing money at it, they’ve got nothing else.

          • I’m not going to claim you are wrong, you may very well be right. But the guy I posted was a, guest speaker, not directly on the payroll so-to-speak of the ICCC. He goes out of his way to point out the mudslinging from both sides. He wants, just as I do, a public discussion to dispel confusion and misinformation that has come from both sides.

            But at this point, i’m going to shut up about it, because I personally don’t know enough of the details to say who is right.

          • Mysophobe | Feb 21, 2012 at 12:28 am |

            The guy you posted is Stephen McIntyre. He has a history of creating confusion, not dispelling it. His amateurish attempt several years ago to discredit Mann by dishonestly manipulating the data and methods to suit his own prejudices was universally rejected by the scientific community. He has worked in the mining and exploration industry his entire career and is currently chairman of the board of Trelawney Mining and Exploration Inc. His expertise in climate science begins and ends with his unscientific failed critique of Mann’s work. I wouldn’t listen to this guy’s opinion on AGW even if I agreed with him. Zero credibility.

          • Camron Wiltshire | Feb 21, 2012 at 1:40 am |

            “Zero credibility.”  Because you say so?  What does working with mining have to do with climate change?? Also why if someone receives funding from the government do you believe they are not suspect but if someone receives funding from independent industry they are?  Also you’ve displayed you understand the science presented by the people in question one iota. You merely point to quotes without sources as though they are inherently correct.  My question for you, just to scratch the surface of what you might actually know regarding this debate, at what proves to you that Co2 is in fact leading to higher global temperature averages?  What level of sea level rise is predicted due to this supposed correlation in the next 100 years?  

          • Mysophobe | Feb 21, 2012 at 3:04 am |

            Are you this inquisitive and rigorous when your doctor tells you that a substantial investment is required on your part for your way of life to continue, or do you take his word for it? Do you try in vain to become an expert in his field or do you trust that he is truly concerned with your well being and competent in his field of science, regardless of who signs his paycheck? Or would you seek out a person with only a cursory understanding of medicine that will tell you there’s nothing to worry about, then go around trying to convince people who heard your original doctor’s diagnosis that the quack is better qualified to treat you because he’s not in bed with the medical establishment?
            Frankly it comes off as pretty naive of an obvious propagandist such as yourself to even pretend to understand the science behind AGW, and it’s remarkably condescending to grill other laypeople with what I’m sure you consider to be rhetorical traps on the subject. I get that you stick to certain circles where up is down, and I’ve read well researched and thought out rebuttals to everything you think you know. So let me ask you, what would convince you that CO2 is contributing to an increase in global temperature averages? Apparently nothing would, either that or you’re not looking.

          • Camron Wiltshire | Feb 21, 2012 at 10:32 pm |

            Can you answer this simple question or will you continue to waste my time with your plodding melodrama?

            Here it is again, “what proves to you that Co2 is in fact leading to higher global temperature averages?  What level of sea level rise is predicted due to this supposed correlation in the next 100 years?”  Please provide sources to support your answer.

          • Mysophobe | Feb 22, 2012 at 1:52 am |

            Not sure if you worded your first question the way you’d have liked, but here’s what I found to answer that.  No source needed unless you dispute the physical properties of CO2 in the atmosphere:

            CO2 is a radiatively active gas that allows the shortwave (visible) radiation from the sun into the climate system and slows that same energy down on its way out as longwave (infrared) radiation, we quite clearly expect that adding more CO2 will raise the average temperature of the earth’s surface.
            I’ve seen you try make the “it’s just an insignificant trace gas” argument several times.  I hope I don’t have to explain to you why that’s invalid.  I’m also assuming you have a basic understanding of the carbon cycle.

            It looks like the most agreed upon predicted sea level increase by 2100 is somewhere around 80cm to 1m.

            Observable sea level increases have been tracking model estimates and IPCC predictions.  IPCC has revised their estimate upwards on several occasions based on observed data.  I suppose if you’d like to attack a source on this, Vermeer’s 2009 paper on the topic or the most recent IPCC sea level increase predictions would do.  Don’t forget to show your work.
            For the record, I believe sea level increase is one of the least of our concerns as it relates to this subject and don’t see how anything hinges on the predictions being correct or not.  It appears to be one of the more unpredictable aspects of climate change.  I’m much more concerned with ocean acidification and temperature disruptions in the convection currents, but have at it.

          • Camron Wiltshire | Feb 22, 2012 at 5:46 am |

            Sources?  Provide links.  Not interested in spending more time is necessary on this.  I will provide my sources in a similar manner.

          • Mysophobe | Feb 22, 2012 at 11:15 am |

            Do you dispute CO2 is radiatively active in gaseous form, and that it absorbs long wave radiation more efficiently than it does short wave?  That’s basic science.  That’s why CO2 is used as a refrigerant.  That’s why a CO2 laser works.  That’s why almost all life on this planet evolved to use CO2 as the primary energy transfer component in the food chain or cycle if you will.  Here’s a lecture describing the gaseous radiative properties:
            The simple answer to your original question would have been, “Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas.” If you’d like to attack that statement here’s a source for that:
            (It will only let me access the mobile link.  For the full version, google britannica greenhouse gas.)

            Here are the sources I named but didn’t link to in response to your second question:



          • Camron Wiltshire | Feb 22, 2012 at 11:29 am |

            Check the top of the blog, I reposted there, probably couldn’tsee my post so it’s understandable miscommunication.

          • Mysophobe | Feb 22, 2012 at 11:26 am |

            Feel free to start a new topic to keep this more readable, I’ll look for it.

          • Camron Wiltshire | Feb 21, 2012 at 1:55 am |

            “If AGW is such an easily disproven hoax… why the need for such enormous investment of time and resources on the part of it’s opponents?”   Perhaps because the IPCC receives much more money to ram into law a ruling that would force energy companies to pay exorbitant amounts of their income not on means to become enviromentally more responsible, but rather to sequester a harmless trace gas (0.035% of the atmosphere) which is not proven to negatively affect temperature by independent scientists whose work predates this entire manufactured fear of AGW. 

             Let’s try the inverse of your question on for size.  If AGW is so unassailably true why then is DeSmogBlog and other such PR organizations going to such elaborate degrees to dismiss anyone who questions their methods.  Why don’t they have an open hearing of all the evidence instead of relying on dismissive ad hominem attacks and guilt by association fallacies? 

      • Camron Wiltshire | Feb 21, 2012 at 1:25 am |

        “hack author oozing bias”  So I take it you didn’t actually watch the video.  It systematically deconstructs Mann’s pseudoscience.  If you don’t want to watch it fine, but dont’t pretend you are ready to have a discussion involving the actual science or lack thereof in Mann’s case.  To then jump into fraudulent strawman attacks on what I or anyone who presents different information must believe about Wired’s position is absurd.  <You may want to study the background of the supposed "hack" you are attempting to dismiss.  Tell me then why is McIntyre incorrect in your estimation?  Can you explain this according the his presentation of where Mann has deliberately left out key data correlates such as tree rings, global temperature averages, Urban Heat Island Effect as well as the amount of weather stations omitted.  They all have a part to play and yet they are either ignored or misrepresented entirely by Mann. 

        In other words he is lying through manipulation and omission of crucial data.

        This is what Climategate and "Hiding the decline" are all about.  We could go on and on but if you're not willing to read up and study into this there is no point in continuing the discussion further in my opinion.

        • Mysophobe | Feb 21, 2012 at 10:25 am |

          I’m sorry, I guess I was unaware that this was a formal debate. Someone who likes to haphazardly point out other’s logical fallacies as much as you do should damn well better not be producing a diarrhea stream of them himself, lest they be labeled a hypocrite. Appeal to authority is all you’ve got. Hell, it’s all I’ve got. Except mine are actual authorities. Let me know when you’d like to focus the discussion on peer reviewed material where it belongs. An no, I’m not here to educate you on what that material is. That’s your job. I like the OSS Foundation as a starting point, kinda AGW for dummies. Hopefully I’ve made it clear that I have no interest in what amateur oil funded libertarian think tank stooges have to say on the subject.

          • Camron Wiltshire | Feb 21, 2012 at 10:39 pm |

            So you are again attempting to discredit me rather than deal with information….. obvious pattern emerges. Tell you what, how about you try answering the simple question I’ve asked above, and here it is for the THIRD time now, ”  My question for you, just to scratch the surface of what you might actually know regarding this debate, at what proves to you that Co2 is in fact leading to higher global temperature averages?  What level of sea level rise is predicted due to this supposed correlation in the next 100 years?”   If you can answer that and provide “peer reviewed” sources to back it up than the discussion or debate if you prefer can commence naturally.   

  7. Ceausescu | Feb 20, 2012 at 1:50 am |

    They’re playing with your heads.

    If you want to know something for sure, you’ll just have to solve the mistery by yourself. In this case, learn some chemistry, maths, and the rest is piece of cake.

  8. All I understand are the data from Hansen’s models, the actions of oil hording megalomaniacs, and the guilt of knowing that I live in a country that encourages MASS consumption of EVERYTHING! Oh, that includes Tobacco.(don’t get me started….)

    • Camron Wiltshire | Feb 21, 2012 at 2:03 am |

      Which of Hansen’s models are you referring to?  Have you studied any detractors of his arguments?  

  9. Wadester10 | Feb 20, 2012 at 11:52 am |

    A warm winter has saved me $500  in heating cost. G.W is as fake as Pam A’s tit’s, but id like it to be real. 

    • Your selfishness more than redeems your ignorance.

      • Jin The Ninja | Feb 20, 2012 at 3:23 pm |

         i’m not vain enough to think i am the most climactically northern poster on the boards, but i must say- many people in my generally very cold part of turtle island, have been applauding the very warm/snow free winter we’ve had this year (and for the last 10 years progressively). of course i always (even in casual exchange) remind them WHY it’s so warm…

  10. It’s critical information. But the sad thing is, we’re going to have to fight EVERYWHERE. Even the oil producing nations’ citizens should demand alternatives be developed. If we don’t adjust our demand/consumption rate, we will go the way of the dinosaurs also. Extinction has many faces, but it seems like we just can’t wait to kill ourselves.

  11. Camron Wiltshire | Feb 22, 2012 at 6:45 am |

    :  Mysophobes response to my question, “What proves to you that Co2 is in fact leading to higher global temperature averages?  What level of sea level rise is predicted due to this supposed correlation in the next 100 years?Mysophobe – “CO2 is a radiatively active gas that allows the shortwave (visible) radiation from the sun into the climate system and slows that same energy down on its way out as longwave (infrared) radiation, we quite clearly expect that adding more CO2 will raise the average temperature of the earth’s surface.  I’ve seen you try make the “it’s just an insignificant trace gas” argument several times.  I hope I don’t have to explain to you why that’s invalid.  I’m also assuming you have a basic understanding of the carbon cycle.”The fact that Co2 is a trace gas (a very minute one at that is not up for debate,a trace gas at a concentration of 0.039% by volume. – wikipedia You’ve not answered the question nor provided a source for what you posted.  Is this is all the assurance you need to “know” that CO2 is responsible for any supposed uncharacteristic heating?Your definition of the properties of CO2 regarding the interchange of solar radiation is not in dispute.  What is in dispute is why you believe it is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that “…we quite clearly expect that adding more CO2 will raise the temperature average of the Earth’s surface.”It’s obvious that you expect it , but can you prove it?  How has this been done in your opinion?  Please cite your sources and provide links to the material.

    • Mysophobe | Feb 22, 2012 at 12:57 pm |

      We are in agreement that CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere.  What I dispute is your implication that this is somehow proof that it’s effects are insignificant.  Arsenic is a trace element in drinking water.  Radioactive plutonium is a trace element in food.  See where I’m going with this?
      I’m glad that we are in agreement that CO2 is a radiatively active gas, or a greenhouse gas as it were.  By extension, we agree that an increase of CO2  in the atmosphere will raise atmospheric temperatures, due to it’s ability to absorb more infrared radiation than visible spectrum radiation.  Trapping heat in simple terms.  So in answer to your question , yes the scientific community and I expect an increase in atmospheric CO2 to result in an increase in atmospheric temperatures.  Your “beyond a shadow of a doubt” caveat is a red herring as I’m sure you know.
      We know from several sources that atmospheric CO2 has been increasing.  Here are the results and analysis of such measurements back to 1958 from the Mauna Loa observatory.

      We also know from several sources that average global temperatures are rising:

      Understanding that correlation is not causation, climate scientists first attempted to attribute these observed temperature increases to a wide variety of other factors:  instrumental uncertainty, urban heat island effect, variable solar radiation, el niño/la nina and other cyclical weather patterns, volcanic activity, residual warming from a mini ice age, etc.  The only plausible explanation left was that an increase in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases was indeed the driving factor.  This causational effect was later confirmed to be very likely by multiple independent studies in several different disciplines:

      The most compelling evidence for me as it relates to this conversation are the direct satellite measurements of the changes in radiative properties of the atmosphere as it relates to CO2 and other greenhouse gases.  Basically direct observation of exactly what the scientific theories describe:

      • Mysophobe | Feb 22, 2012 at 1:05 pm |

        I accidentally double pasted a link in the middle, should have been:

      • Camron Wiltshire | Feb 22, 2012 at 1:47 pm |

        I’ve ushered no “beyond the shadow of a doubt” caveats.  Try avoiding making up strawmen so early in the discussion.   Now we agree that CO2 is a trace gas and a minute portion of the overall portion of the atmosphere.  I’ve not said that it’s minuteness prevents it from having an effect.    The question is what level of effect and is it the effect that you imply which is somehow creating incipient catastrophe?  Is CO2 the culprit or is this a natural cycling of temperature?   Also the supposed proof of temperature increase is hotly contested amongst notable climate scientists such as Dr. Judith Curry of The Georgia Institute of Technology.  She very honestly appraises the situation when she states,
         “I view paleoclimate as a really important subject in the context of understanding climate change.  I have no interest in warmest year or warmest decade; rather we need to understand the magnitude and characteristics and causes of natural climate variability over the current interglacial, particularly the last 2000 years.  I’m more interested in the handle than the blade of the hockey stick.  I also view understanding regional climate variations as much more important than trying to use some statistical model to create global average anomalies (which I personally regard as pointless, given the sampling issue).I don’t want to throw the baby away with the bath water here.  But this whole issue is a big problem for the science and has been an enormous black eye for the credibility of the IPCC and climate science.   I suspect that many denizens will be on board with my assessment and are very familiar with McIntyre’s analysis.  I would be particularly interested in hearing from any defenders of these global paleotemperature analyses by Mann et al.If there is a problem, lets get to the bottom of it and fix it.”

        • Camron Wiltshire | Feb 22, 2012 at 3:25 pm |

          Reading through your sources now.  Will comment later.  Read the above and consider that much of the hoopla surrounding the presumption that we are achieving record levels of CO2  in this decade or half century as compared to the previous 250,000-2000 years BP, is in fact in question,the reliability of the various proxies and global temp reconstructions are heavily disputed amongst preeminent climate scientists such as Dr. Curry (one of many).  

          Therefore why is it so difficult for the pro agw climate scientists to understand that we can not with any discernible accuracy demonstrate the effect of a minute enhancement of a trace gas on global temperature average (it’s all based on black box computer models) and therefore any rush to judgement let alone the creation of a trillion dollar derivatives industry in the form of cap and trade (that would not effect stabilizing the climate whatsoever.) is to say the least a hasty gesture. 

           It also goes far to explain the desire to prevent open debate or discussion of the processes used to create said assumptions about paleoclimatic averages or modern measurements.  (yes I am referring to climate gate, I can provide ample evidence to support this if you like, but here is just one to demonstrate the record exists for anyone willing to look. Much of what you presented as unassailable fact,  is in fact in contested and ruling out the fallacy of appeal to popularity again brings us back round to the actual science and not the self declared “consensus” reality espoused by the pro agw camp.  Remember, science is not majority rule.  Invoking consensus does nothing but support you want to believe that it makes your position the correct one when it fact it denotes you are predicating your belief on a flawed and discredited supposition.  (Galileo too was threatened for ignoring the consensus of the Cahtholic churches geocentric beliefs mind you, of course he was correct and serves as a prominent example of the illegitimacy of this concept in a scientific debate)  The only time consensus should warrant legitimacy is as follows:
          We shall argue that consensus among a reference group of experts thus concerned is relevant only if agreement is not sought.  If a consensus arises unsought in the search for truth and the avoidance of error, such consensus provides grounds which, though they may be overridden, suffice for concluding that conformity is reasonable and dissent is not.  If, however, consensus is aimed at by the members of the reference group and arrived at by intent, it becomes conspiratorial and irrelevant to our intellectual concern.It is well established that the IPCC exists as an instrument to manufacture consensus and given it’s own mandates to do just, that your invocation “consensus” by itself as proving such adherents to the proclamations of the IPCC are inherently correct is a logical fallacy that supports the agenda of an ideologue rather than a dispassionate scientist.The IPCC under the MicroscopeThe charter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is “… to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy.”.This makes it a high-profile single-focus organization whose existence depends on its own reports. In other words it has a vested interest in promoting claims that would guarantee its funding and justify its continued existence.This alone would be reason enough to closely examine its procedures and claims but the situation is made worse by the involvement of governments. These governments not only fund the IPCC but apparently accept its claims without question and allocate funding for climate research on the basis of those findings, then repeat the process when the next IPCC Assessment Report draws on the findings of that government-sponsored research to support its hypothesis.Shouldn’t you also be suspicious of an organization that seeks to imply (or fails to correct false perceptions) that- it is impartial when it is clearly not,- that its authors and reviewers have no vested interest when most do,- that its climate models are accurate when they are not,- that all reviewers support the IPCC’s fundamental claims when very few explicitly do so- that its authors have a wide range of opinions and experience when many work together or have co-authored papers together – that all its authors support the critical claim when many merely reported on observations and far more others had to work from the assumption that the claim was correct?Here are 50 articles that seriously question the credibility and integrity of the IPCC’s activities and claims.  Feel free to read through the numerous examples displaying the incestuous relationship of this Government Policy broker.

        • Mysophobe | Feb 22, 2012 at 3:32 pm |

          You said, “What is in dispute is why you believe beyond shadow of a doubt…”
          I never said or implied that.  Straw man argument and red herring.
          I also take issue with: “The question is what level of effect and is it the effect that you imply which is somehow creating incipient global catastrophe?”
          That wasn’t the original question you posed to me.  Would you like to pose a new question?  Also, show where I implied incipient global catastrophe.  Otherwise it’s appeal to emotion and thus invalid.
          On the other thread, you said “Riddle me this.  Why is 350ppm seen as the climate singularity we should be so fearful and willing to endure more pointless taxation for.”
          You imply that CO2 has an insignificant impact as it relates to this discussion by calling it a singularity.  Also, similar appeal to emotion as above.
          From the first paragraph of your link, Curry says “Further, paleoproxies are outside the arena of my personal research expertise, and I find my eyes glaze over when I start reading about bristlecones, etc.” basically admitting that she is far from an expert on paleoclimatology, unlike those whose work she is critiquing.  From what I’ve read, she has yet to address the rebuttals to her critiques from those whose work she has questioned, instead resorting to  unscientific vitriol and dodging.  I also find it interesting that in the section you quoted, she says “I’m more interested in the handle than the blade of the hockey stick.” Strange that she would reference findings that you claim she had a hand in discrediting.  I suspect that you and others may be reading a bit into her findings.
          I don’t want to spend too much time on McIntyre, but the fact is that his and the other M’s work did not discredit the hockey stick in any way.  They merely found statistical discrepancies and questioned the spices and accuracy of data which they had only a cursory understanding of.  Please show proof that the hockey stick was completely discredited.  It’s immaterial though, due to the fact that several other independent scientific studies have arrived at the same conclusion with similar looking graphs.  Only a fringe minority is arguing otherwise, and only that the recent temp increases are not as great as reported, not that they don’t exist.  Using phrases like “hotly contested” is rather disingenuous for this reason.  I’ll take a closer look at Curry’s findings after work if that would satisfy you.

          • Camron Wiltshire | Feb 22, 2012 at 3:59 pm |

            Isn’t the presumption of the IPCC that a minute enhancement of the trace gas CO2 will lead to a litany of catastrophic effects?  Effects so seemingly disastrous that we had better sequester the culprit by creating a trillion dollar derivative industry which is to be brokered by companies like Generation Investment Management (Blood and Gore’s company) and is dependent on maintaing this position in order to maintain it’s life blood in the form of government funding?  Aren’t you citing their manufactured consensus as reason enough to disparage scientists who dont’ agree with their assumptions?  You are misrepresenting Judith Curry and misreading her intent I’m afraid.  She says she is more interested in the blade, it being the mean average of temperature variability over the long term rather than the contested “blade” portion which is fraught with unscientific methodology such as the ignorance of tree ring proxies from 1961 onward as she states very clearly in the article.  So she is calling into question the most controversial and consequently the portion of “evidence” that is central to the entire AGW fear mongering platform.  I can understand why you don’t want to spend time on McIntyre as he has exposed Mann’s illegitimate methodologies for creating the hockey stick.  To consider him is to paint yourself in a corner obviously.  I used the term “singularity” as an indictment of the fear that is used to convince the unassuming public that their lawns will be beach front property because they drive to work or fly in airplanes.  Do you deny that such alarmist tactics were employed by Nobel prize and Academy Award winning propagandist Al Gore and predicated on fraudulent computer models? 

          • Camron Wiltshire | Feb 22, 2012 at 4:03 pm |

            Excuse me she is more interested in the “stick” not the “blade” = mean temperature average over the last 2000 years rather than the last 10 alone.   “I view paleoclimate as a really important subject in the context of understanding climate change.  I have no interest in warmest year or warmest decade; rather we need to understand the magnitude and characteristics and causes of natural climate variability over the current interglacial, particularly the last 2000 years.  I’m more interested in the handle than the blade of the hockey stick.  I also view understanding regional climate variations as much more important than trying to use some statistical model to create global average anomalies (which I personally regard as pointless, given the sampling issue).”  < how did you miss this again?  It makes much more sense to accurately determine what paleoclimate was before we presume we are experiencing "record" temperature anomalies or that they must be as a result of C02 enhancement alone.  A reckless proposition and unscientific to boot.

          • Mysophobe | Feb 22, 2012 at 4:42 pm |

            Not sure why the emotional rant all of a sudden, I’m not even sure where to start in on that. All I can say is that I speak for no one but myself. You asked me two science questions and I answered them to the best of my ability. I never presented myself as an expert. I’m just a carpenter that reads a lot, probably the wrong guy to talk to if you’re looking for answers that will satisfy your preconceived notions. Now you seem to be moving into the politics of it, which I’d be happy to discuss but it seems a bit pointless if we can’t agree on the basic science behind it. McIntyre and Curry have, with questionable success, called into question specific, isolated and redundant aspects of the science behind the IPCC reports. Please explain how this renders the findings and research of all other unrelated independant studies of the aspects of climate science in doubt. Did you look at the link I sent you regarding satellite observations of increases in atmospheric radiative properties that corresponds with an increase in CO2?

          • Camron Wiltshire | Feb 22, 2012 at 6:13 pm |

            What I am saying is that in this particular discussion the assumptions that are required to support that there is in fact a change in global temperature averages depends on the period you look at as well as matching the various proxies with various forms of temperature measure.  This would have to be established and agreed to in a non coercive manner as per the related quote above for any discernment of variance from said yet to be agreed upon global temperature averages.  This presents that the alarmist perspective of giving up to bureaucracy more of our hard earned money and placing an incalculable burden on the 3rd world countries who are in their industrial infancy due to lack of power production, is in fact incapable of creating or maintaining the non existent climate stability they seek.  

            I’ve not looked at the Satellite record you produced yet, I will say I know there are other satellite correlations that do not support a warming trend for this decade and will find the link to support this.  Again it seems as though the burden of proof is in the IPCC camps corner given they are the ones wishing to enact cap & trade. 

            I appreciate that neither of us are climate scientists.  I’m not trying to browbeat you with any of this, I’m presenting information that deserves a fair hearing.  The stakes are enormous and sadly many well meaning individuals have been duped by the onslaught of propaganda.  I was duped by An Inconvenient Truth way back in 05 and realized subsequently what a con job it all is.  I don’t discount that we are having some effect on climate, I disagree that we are having a greater effect than nature has provided in recent history that would be much more catastrophic were it to occur in modern times than anything presented by the pro AGW camp and their supposed solutions do nothing to effect any real remediation of our very real environmental issues.  

          • Camron Wiltshire | Feb 22, 2012 at 6:15 pm |

            Also the politics are the reason the IPCC was founded in the first place, therefore it is impossible to separate it’s influence on the “science” of the IPCC hired guns who exist to prove the link and enable cap and tax to be passed.  Read through what I am saying again and consider the whole picture.  

          • Mysophobe | Feb 22, 2012 at 8:33 pm |

            Fair enough. I’ll refrain from citing any IPCC assessments or interpretations of the related science. If I can demonstrate that one of your sources is similarily politically motivated in their assessments or interpretations, their findings will be removed from the discussion as well. Agreed?

          • Mysophobe | Feb 22, 2012 at 7:00 pm |

            I never watched Gore’s movie or read his book. The biggest setback to the science of AGW was a polarizing figure such as Gore getting ahold of it. Well that, and laypeople convincing themselves that they’ve miraculously stumbled across some simple detail that the scientists just didn’t think of. While we’re on the subject, I have seen the scientific community as putting forth a pretty consistent position over the years, being “We are beginning to understand the mechanisms involved, as we learn more we’ll tell you.” If you look at the history of the science all the way back to the 70’s, the predictions and estimates have been revised both upwards and downwards. Findings have been added and retracted, but the basic stuff has remained the same. It’s not a gotcha to latch on to, it’s just the way science works. On the other hand, I’ve watched over the years as the skeptic position has evolved from “it’s all a big hoax” to “warming is not happening and I can prove it, they were saying ice age back in 19xx” to “warming is happening, but something else is causing it” to the present position which seems to be “we agree with all the mechanisms, but it’s not as bad as those eggheads say it is so they’re actively suppressing our findings.” I’ll admit that at some point I stopped listening to them. All that said, I have learned a lot in this discussion, especially as it relates to the science and I hope to continue.

          • Mysophobe | Feb 22, 2012 at 6:31 pm |

            It seems that you are now attempting to make the argument that the political implications of the science in question and the motives of any of those involved is a valid reason to doubt the science, rather than arguing the science on it’s own merits. This of course is an invalid argument and an obvious appeal to emotion and attempt to muddy the waters. I have refrained from assigning motives to you or your sources since we began discussing the science and the scientific debate on this subject. Please do the same if you wish to continue. I’d be happy to consider McIntyre’s work. If It does unravel the entire science of climate change and leave me trapped in a metaphorical corner from which I cannot escape, you may declare victory and go home knowing that you’ve bested me. Do you have a link to this technical publication that purportendly completely discredits Mann’s hockey stick that I could look at? Also, a summary in Mcintyre’s own words would be helpful. If you only have YouTube material, I’ll have to look at it later tonight.

          • Camron Wiltshire | Feb 22, 2012 at 6:52 pm |

            What I have done is provide context.  I still believe the science is fundamental but have also demonstrated that the camp which has refused to adhere to basic scientific practice (transparency and independent review) also has a financial incentive at it’s core that is liable to prevent the execution of dispassionate consideration of all data.

            As for the refutation of the Hockey Stick.  This should work.

            “Besting” you is not my motivation,   I just don’t believe in the “pure” motivations of the IPCC because of repeated scandal and because if we are truly concerned with the long term success of our species, we had better pay attention to the instruments of real catastrophic climate change.  That is a discussion for a later date. 
            Best wishes and thank you for making the time to hear a different position.

          • Mysophobe | Feb 22, 2012 at 7:15 pm |

            Please demonstrate with links how the IPCC or “the camp”, as you define it in any way you see fit, has refused to adhere to basic scientific practice. I’ve read about data not being provided immediately upon request or being refused to people without credentials, but I don’t consider that a lack of transparency. I would be annoyed too if some schmoe started grilling me and demanding information about how I arrive at my methods and practices. Transparency as it relates to basic scientific practice is making available methods and data to other’s in your field for the purposes of peer review. I’d like it to be full transparency, especially in the case of pharmaceutical research companies, but it isn’t.

          • Mysophobe | Feb 22, 2012 at 11:48 pm |

            Assuming you agree that neither of us will use political sources in this discussion of climate science, you can replace “IPCC” and “camp” with “Politically independent climate science community”, or disregard entirely.

          • Mysophobe | Feb 22, 2012 at 11:35 pm |

            I took a look at McIntyre and Mckitrick’s critique of Mann’s original paper.  They actually released a later revision than the one you provided in 2003:


            It’s mostly Greek to me, but I gather that they questioned Mann’s methods and data.  The paper states that upon requesting Mann’s data, a subordinate provided them with it.  No mention of hesitancy or deception on Mann’s part.  Their reconstruction after “correcting” Mann’s data set and methods show the same uptick in global temperature averages at the end of the 20th century, but also shows a slightly higher uptick around 1400 AD.  From what I gather, they accomplished this predominantly by removing what they considered to be suspect data from that same time period.

            In an effort to get to the truth, congress convened a subcommittee which appointed and independent panel from the National Academy of Sciences to study and rule on the findings of both Mann and M&M:


            It was a mixed result, expressing uncertainty in some of Mann’s predictions (which he himself had qualified in his original study) and essentially finding that M&M’s critique of Mann’s work did not render it invalid at all, but rather made minor corrections to it.

            Here is a published paper by paleoclimatologist Eugene Wahl and Casper Ammann which purports to demonstrate the Mann construction’s robustness against the proxy based criticism’s of M&M.    Curious if you think this has any more or less merit than M&M’s critique of Mann.

            In defense of my claim that Mann’s supposed lack of accuracy in a 1998 paper is immaterial to present day climate science, here’s a page with references that makes the case that, while Mann’s study has been disputed, multiple independent and more recent studies using different data have confirmed his findings.  Hopefully you can get past the snarky tone, and of course ignore the one IPCC example:


          • Mysophobe | Feb 22, 2012 at 11:39 pm |

            Oops. Here’s the Mann construction robustness against proxy based criticisms paper:


  12. Camron Wiltshire | Feb 22, 2012 at 4:15 pm |

    Ahh  Snap!  
    Peter Gleick Admits to Deception in Obtaining Heartland Climate Files

    Now, Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing. His summary, just published on his blog at Huffington Post, speaks for itself. You can read his short statement below with a couple of thoughts from me:    

  13. Camron Wiltshire | Feb 23, 2012 at 12:35 am |

    Read this, and then watch the video again with new eyes.  Mann’s wiley tactics have been exposed and discredited for sometime.  This paper makes it exceedingly clear that the “hockey stick” which the TAR (Third Assessment Report) of the IPCC is dependent upon, is quite frankly an example of gross statistical manipulation. test the power of Mann’s data-mining algorithm we ran an experiment in which  we  developed sequences of random numbers tuned to have the same autocorrelation pattern as the NOAMER tree ring data. In an autocorrelated process a random shock takes a few periods to drift back to the mean. Initiallywe used a simple first-order  autocorrelation  model, but later we implemented a more sophisticated ARFIMA12 routine that more accurately represents the entire autocorrelation function associated with tree ring data. In statistics these kinds of models are called “red noise.” The key point was that the ARFIMA data is trendless random noise, simulating the data you’d get from trees in a climate that is only subject to random fluctuations with no warming trend.  In 10,000 repetitions on groups of red noise, we found that a conventional PC algorithm almost never yielded a hockey stick shaped PC1, but the Mann algorithm yielded a pronounced hockey stick-shaped PC1 over 99% of the time. The reason is that in some of the red noise series there is a ‘pseudo-trend’ at the end, where a random shock causes the data to drift upwards, and before it can decay back to the mean 

  14. Pbbbt. Mann is such a fraud. Unfortunately what happens is that , the real issues get ignored. This whole cap & trade scam is served up as a solution for pollution, meanwhile the US military still dumps in oceans, Big farm dumps animal wastes in lakes,   nuclear plants leaking;  real destroyers of our ability to live on this planet are still in production. So basically those who cause REAL pollution get off scott free, and the IPCC tries to get us to pay for breathing. I hope people see thru this elaborate ruse. It takes advantage of good people who mean well.  what about the midevil warm period?? they totally omit that from their data…

Comments are closed.