NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html
For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Can anyone verify this? If so then it really changes my opinion on global warming science.


http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/03/03/hockey-stick-1998-2005-rip/

I also thought that this was interesting also.

what a silly idea. that's like saying that global warming stopped in 1973, 1983, and 1990. a single year hotter than the next couple does not show a multi-decade trend.


http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

what a silly idea. that's like saying that global warming stopped in 1973, 1983, and 1990. a single year hotter than the next couple does not show a multi-decade trend.


http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Okay, thanks. What about the hockey stick graph link?

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/03/03/hockey-stick-1998-2005-rip/

I also thought that this was interesting also.

The staff at worldclimatereport.com:

Chief Editor: Patrick J. Michaels

Contributing Editor: Robert C. Balling, Jr.

Contributing Editor: Robert E. Davis

Administrator: Paul C. Knappenberger

Nary a scientist among them, except Micheals who has taken truck loads of cash from Exxon and the like.

Here's their mission statement:

World Climate Report, a concise, hard-hitting and scientifically correct response to the global change reports which gain attention in the literature and popular press. As the nation’s leading publication in this realm, World Climate Report is exhaustively researched, impeccably referenced, and always timely. This popular web log points out the weaknesses and outright fallacies in the science that is being touted as “proof” of disastrous warming. It’s the perfect antidote against those who argue for proposed changes to the Rio Climate Treaty, such as the Kyoto Protocol, which are aimed at limiting carbon emissions from the United States.

Acclaimed by those on both sides of the global warming debate, World Climate Report has become the definitive and unimpeachable source for what Nature now calls the “mainstream skeptic” point of view, which is that climate change is a largely overblown issue and that the best expectation is modest change over the next 100 years. WCR is often cited by prominent scientists and lawmakers and is a surprisingly enjoyable read—which may account for its broad appeal.
So they are a bunch ofpeople who's goal is to debunk climate science.
On to teh specifics of the article, though.
In this context, we revisit our previous discussions of the flawed work of McIntyre and McKitrick (henceforth "MM"). MM published a paper, in the controversial journal Energy and Environment, claiming to "correct" the proxy-based reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperatures published by Mann et al (1998--henceforth "MBH98"). Following the all-too-familiar pattern, this deeply flawed paper was heavily promoted by special interests as somehow challenging the scientific consensus that humans are altering the climate (an excellent account is provided by science journalist Dan Vergano of USA Today here). As detailed already on the pages of RealClimate, this so-called 'correction' was nothing more than a botched application of the MBH98 procedure, where the authors (MM) removed 80% of the proxy data actually used by MBH98 during the 15th century period (failing in the process to produce a reconstruction that passes standard "verification" procedures--an error that is oddly similar to that noted by Benestad (2004) with regard to another recent McKitrick paper). Indeed, the bizarre resulting claim by MM of anomalous 15th century warmth (which falls within the heart of the "Little Ice Age") is at odds with not only the MBH98 reconstruction, but, in fact the roughly dozen other estimates now published that agree with MBH98 within estimated uncertainties.
He even lies when he says that teh hockey stick was debunked in nature magazine:

ll of their original claims have now been fully discredited (see e.g. this previous post as well as this discussion of a paper 'in press' in the Journal of Climate by Rutherford et al). MM however, continue to promote false and specious claims. McIntyre and McKitrick (2005), in a paper they have managed to slip through the imperfect peer-review filter of GRL, now simply recycle the very same false claims made by them previously in their comment on MBH98 that was rejected by Nature.

False claims of the existence of errors in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction can also be traced to spurious allegations made by two individuals, McIntyre and McKitrick (McIntyre works in the mining industry, while McKitrick is an economist). The false claims were first made in an article (McIntyre and McKitrick, 2003) published in a non-scientific (social science) journal "Energy and Environment" and later, in a separate "Communications Arising" comment that was rejected by Nature based on negative appraisals by reviewers and editor [as a side note, we find it peculiar that the authors have argued elsewhere that their submission was rejected due to 'lack of space'. Nature makes their policy on such submissions quite clear: "The Brief Communications editor will decide how to proceed on the basis of whether the central conclusion of the earlier paper is brought into question; of the length of time since the original publication; and of whether a comment or exchange of views is likely to seem of interest to nonspecialist readers. Because Nature receives so many comments, those that do not meet these criteria are referred to the specialist literature."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=111

For a thorough debunking of hockeystick deniers:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11#falseclaims

The staff at worldclimatereport.com:

Chief Editor: Patrick J. Michaels

Contributing Editor: Robert C. Balling, Jr.

Contributing Editor: Robert E. Davis

Administrator: Paul C. Knappenberger

Nary a scientist among them, except Micheals who has taken truck loads of cash from Exxon and the like.

Here's their mission statement:


So they are a bunch ofpeople who's goal is to debunk climate science.
On to teh specifics of the article, though.

He even lies when he says that teh hockey stick was debunked in nature magazine:





http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=111

For a thorough debunking of hockeystick deniers:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11#falseclaims

I'd read this carefully, if I were the OP. Hockeystick denial can get you jailed in come European countries, didn't you know?

Here's your problem, East Pusna--you believed something in the Telegraph.

I don't know, if you go to the website of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/), the first thing you find is a nice graph...