Doctoring climate change

The court decision has been welcomed by the expected opponents, such as Renwick (who manages to fabricate our statements even when we write them down and file them with the High Court), NIWA (whose publicity, er, I mean legal team made mincemeat out of logic and science) and Hot Topic (but then Renowden wouldn’t know a climate scientist from an astrophysicist).

Now they’re joined by doctors eager to fight climate change, in Doctors Welcome Decision On Treacherous Temperature Case.

Hear the twisted science and scurrilous lies

The reference to “treacherous” has a nasty effect, doesn’t it? And it means there must be some treachery, right? Well, actually, wrong. Despicably, they don’t justify it.

The “press release” simply repeats twisted science and scurrilous lies we’ve heard a thousand times before. Laking says:

Health risks of climate change start with injury from heatwaves and storms, more tropical illnesses, and ultimately threaten collapse of food supplies and political insecurity from crop failure, coastal inundation and ocean acidification.

Can’t he see that he’s claiming all those calamities will be produced by “Health risks of climate change”? He can’t be serious. But to drive home his point about disaster he adds:

Global food prices are already rising with the extreme drought affecting half of the United States.

Don’t be fooled by this: climate change didn’t produce the drought, and food (or corn) prices were already rising because the Greens have forced so much of it to be turned into ethanol for cars.

So much for stupid science. He moves on to

the NZ Climate Science Coalition and their wealthy backers, apologists for the tobacco industry and the fossil fuel and mining industry.

We are not wealthy, members are all unpaid volunteers, and we have no links with the tobacco industry. Look at the “proof” listed beneath the press release. Like saying we’re “linked” to the bus company because we rode on one.

“Still peddling lies that kill, they are delaying action essential to protect human health”, says Dr Laking.

These are plain lies, Dr Laking. You would do more of value with your time by providing proof of the global warming scare. Which would be a world first, because nobody else does.

But this is from the medical association or something, isn’t it?

No, this is the never-heard-before “New Zealand Climate and Health Council”, represented by this George Laking, an oncologist. The “council” goes by the Maori title “OraTaiao” which seems to have something to do with the health of the Earth.

Looking around their heroically sparse web site, we find their mission is about saving us from climate change, which is a “real and urgent threat to the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders.” The web site promises to “honour Maori aspirations” (whatever they are, but apparently nobody else’s) and to “uphold the principles” of the Treaty and it expresses “unity” and “caring” with Maori words to demonstrate their sincerity.

This is not the Medical Association with its 5000 members – it’s a tin-pot affair that only started, according to its web site, less than three years ago. This muck-raking attempt to deprecate the Coalition won’t impress anyone beyond their half-dozen members.

275 Thoughts on “Doctoring climate change

  1. Mike Jowsey on September 9, 2012 at 2:26 pm said:

    Ahem. Might it be better to have a conversation about the climate?

  2. I’m reminded of the infamous Paul Nurse / James Delingpole interview

    if I think I have cancer, I see a cancer specialist..
    If I am concerned about climate change, I see……a cancer specialist.

  3. Richard C (NZ) on September 9, 2012 at 3:19 pm said:

    “Global food prices are already rising with the extreme drought affecting half of the United States”

    Wow “extreme”. How is Laking going to characterize a multi year 1930s style dust bowl drought if it occurs?

    And how will he anthropogenically differentiate the attribution and health risks of a severe 2012 era drought from the severe 1930s drought?

    I didn’t realize Doctors considered NZCSET v NIWA to be a “Treacherous Temperature Case”, News to me – and news to the vast majority of Doctors I suspect (those that were even aware of the case that is).

  4. val majkus on September 9, 2012 at 3:23 pm said:

    ‘Still peddling lies that kill, they are delaying action essential to protect human health”, says Dr Laking.’
    sounds defamatory

  5. Speaking of Dellers and health issues, the man has an article in the Mail about the effects of wind turbines on health

    My view is that climate change policies (like Wind Energy) are having a bigger effect on health than any supposed threat from “climate change”

  6. Alexander K on September 9, 2012 at 4:22 pm said:

    Another ‘scientist’ who wouldn’t have a clue about stuff outside his own speciality. There must be an alarmist manual in circulation in his waiting room – even the IPCC is more cautious about doomsaying than this lot of cretinous nonsense.

  7. That’s a good question, Mike. I would “yes”.

  8. It is defamatory, it feels like poison and yet I don’t care for myself that he said it, all I want to do is advise others that he did.

  9. Yes, that’s true.

  10. The last time I went to the docs for a health checkup I had to endure several climate alarmist articles in the magazines in the waiting room.

    Then I got told my blood pressure was abnormally high, but that it might be a side-effect of being in the doctors

    Yes, “climate change” makes you sick. I have first hand experience.

  11. Hi Andy,I know the feeling.Feed us propaganda mags when we feel ill.I watch the fish in the tanks that have not a care in the world.Thanks for your great workRichard T.There are more skeptics out there than you realize.The warmists are getting desperate thanks to you guys.Keep up the good work.

  12. Dan Pangburn on September 10, 2012 at 3:51 am said:

    Paraphrasing Richard Feynman: Regardless of how many experts believe it or how many organizations concur, if it doesn’t agree with observation, it’s wrong.

    The IPCC and many others perceive that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide was the primary cause of global warming. Measurements demonstrate that they are wrong.

    The average global temperature trend has been flat since 2001. No amount of spin can rationalize that the temperature increase to 2001 was caused by CO2 increase but that 25.2% additional CO2 increase had no effect on the average global temperature trend after 2001.

    Without human caused global warming there can be no human caused climate change.

    Average GLOBAL temperature anomalies are reported on the web by NOAA, GISS, Hadley, RSS and UAH. The first three all draw from the same data base of surface measurement data. The last two draw from the data base of satellite measurements. Each agency processes the data slightly differently from the others. Each believes that their way is most accurate. To avoid bias, I average all five. The averages are listed here.

    2001 0.3473
    2002 0.4278
    2003 0.4245
    2004 0.3641
    2005 0.4663
    2006 0.3930
    2007 0.4030
    2008 0.2598
    2009 0.4022
    2010 0.5298
    2011 0.3316

    A straight line (trend line) fit to this data has no slope. That means that, for over a decade, average global temperature has not changed. If the average thru July in 2012 (0.3431) is included, the slope is down.

    See what really caused the warm up during the 20th century in my stuff made public at the Climate Realists web site.

  13. The anomalies are all positive, i.e. warmer than the average.

  14. Richard C (NZ) on September 10, 2012 at 7:43 am said:

    So what? There’s no rise correlating to CO2.

    Both NZCSET 7SS and NIWA 7SS are now consistent with the global series now that the early adjustments are irrelevant

    http://i54.tinypic.com/27xjm0k.png

    And the trajectory is negative

  15. Dan was referring to trend, not the absolute value of the anomaly.

  16. Mike Jowsey on September 10, 2012 at 8:38 am said:

    Dan, thanks for getting the conversation back to climate. Richard C – that is a good graph mate. The blue (R&S) trend line looks perfectly natural. What’s to worry about?

  17. Richard C (NZ) on September 10, 2012 at 8:47 am said:

    Bob D’s handiwork Mike. Credit where credit is due – even if the judge doesn’t think so.

  18. Rob Taylor on September 10, 2012 at 9:15 am said:

    I am amused, but not surprised, to see that this [blog] contains comments calling for Judge Venning’s dismissal for bias and corruption. Venning apparently has shares in some forestry project somewhere, thus, has a vested interest in defending “warmism”!

    The thought that you [ad hom removed] might just be wrong [Kindly show how we’re wrong, Rob, don’t simply insult us. Thanks. – RT]

  19. Richard C (NZ) on September 10, 2012 at 10:03 am said:

    “….science and law seems too threatening for your sensitive egos”

    Both science and law have yet to run full course. The science and statistics of the NZCSET 7SS still stand irrespective of the court decision. The scientific basis of the NZCSET 7SS is more rigorous than the NIWA 7SS and therefore more valid – that hasn’t changed.

    Law provides the avenue of appeal. We don’t know yet whether NZCSET will appeal or, if they do, what their grounds are. There’s potentially a list of grounds for appeal and vacation as long as my arm but whether NZCSET sees it that way too remains to be seen.

    In any event, the NZ public now has choice of 2 series, both valid in terms of methodological interpretation whether rigorous or loose, one more rigorous than the other. Take your pick:-

    http://i54.tinypic.com/27xjm0k.png

    Nothing threatening about the law or the science for us then is there Rob?

    [Ad hom removed]

  20. Rob Taylor on September 10, 2012 at 10:22 am said:

    Richard, the court found that NZCSET lacked scientific and statistical credibility, so I doubt that any NZer [ad hom removed] will be taking any notice of their erroneous “rigourous” (sic) figures.

    I do hope that NZSCET attempts to appeal the decision, as it will both magnify their “own goal” and the amount of costs awarded against them.

    [Ad hom removed. Rob, you know our practice here, so be courteous or be banned. – RT]

  21. Indeed Rob, I expect the public will be cheering that it is another victory for faceless, unaccountable government.

  22. Rob Taylor on September 10, 2012 at 12:10 pm said:

    Get off it, Andy, NIWA fronted up and Dave Wratt has a face, unlike whoever / whatever is funding the NZSCET charade…

  23. Rob, what is the peer-review process that NIWA used?
    Where did they allow the public to see its methodology?
    What is the “international accepted” practice that they used?
    What is deemed a “statistical expert”?

  24. Richard C (NZ) on September 10, 2012 at 12:21 pm said:

    Rob, the court DIDN’T find that the Statistical Audit (and therefore the NZCSET 7SS) “lacked scientific and statistical credibility” on a reasonable basis. All J Venning did was ignore the 3 professional statistical reviewers of it preferring (favouring) Dr Mullen (a climate scientist not a statistician) and NIWA contrary to his Judicial Oath for a statistical opinion in [144]:-

    [144] In response to the critique Dr Mullan recalculated most of the sites changed temperature adjustments applying the RS93 methodology. He concluded that the Coalition had incorrectly calculated the adjustments and if the RS93 methodology was applied correctly it resulted in adjustments close to those calculated in the review using the alternative method that NIWA had employed..

    Since when was Dr Mullen a statistician? And why did J Venning favour a non-statistician (Dr Mullen) over the 3 professional statisticians that he ignored completely?

    There’s at least 3 grounds for appeal in that alone.

    Neither was the NZCSET compilation found to be “erroneous”. On the contrary, NIWA’s complaint was that it was “too rigorous”. This is an implicit admission by NIWA that the NZCSET series is more rigorous than theirs. This is both a legal and a scientific outcome and a millstone that will hang around NIWA’s neck.

    [ad hom removed] the fact remains, the NZ public has a choice – rigorous, or less rigorous. Until NIWA can cite their methodology their series has little validity scientifically even if the judge finds it did legally.

  25. Rob Taylor on September 10, 2012 at 12:31 pm said:

    Andy, have you not read the judgement against NZSCET?

    Which part of “prolix” do you not understand?

  26. John Sparks on September 10, 2012 at 2:26 pm said:

    I have followed this case with interest, however there are a couple of key examples which have enlightened me on the NZSCET Modus Operandi.

    For example, NZSCET blatantly misquote the ‘bullet proof’ quote of Dr Wratt. NZSCET somehow expect the court (and/or the general public?) to interpret this:

    John, please provide a reference for this “blatant misquote”. I haven’t heard of this. It certainly played no part in the court case, despite what you say. Also remember that warming or its absence did not have to be demonstrated in court. – RT

    “To be absolutely bullet proof on this one, would it be a good idea if someone at Greta Point took exactly the same stations as Jim and checked that they got exactly the same result? I’m not doubting your calculations Jim, but I think we should subject any numbers we put out to very careful quality control).”

    to mean that NIWA falsified their data to deceive NZSCET, the public and the court.

    The NZSCET also shows some classic examples of ‘cherry-picking’ data to prove that global climate isn’t changing. The website is full of them.

    The global climate has always changed, and always will. But it is blatantly obvious now that there are currently major changes happening due to humans.

    Increasing heat in the deep (down to 2000m) ocean which is well above the noise level of the instruments give one clue. An ice minimum we haven’t seen for millions of years gives another (yes winds and other local conditions play a role, but so does the fact that the entire globe is warmer).

    I would encourage anyone to read Venning’s verdict. You don’t have to be a lawyer, or a climate change scientist to learn about the integrity of NIWA, and the lack of integrity of NZSCET.

    I would love to see the trust stick around to either appeal, or pay damages. But I have a feeling that their backers will slink quietly back into the corner they came from.

    I hope the leaders of NZSCET are being paid well to sell their souls and our future.

    [I keep telling you – nobody pays us. – RT]

  27. I wonder if you’d have the same view if the finding was against NIWA and the judge had shares in the oil or coal industries.

  28. Richard C (NZ) on September 10, 2012 at 3:06 pm said:

    That’s a fictitious scenario Magoo that’s more a case of justice being served on NIWA’s part and it would be to their disadvantage. The factual situation is that Judge Venning has left himself open to question (re carbon credit investment) whether there’s a rock solid basis for that or a tenuous one. The mere innuendo as a result of his past dealings are enough to taint his impartiality. If it turns out that he does still in fact hold forestry carbon credit investments it would be even moreso

    Given that he has already belatedly stepped aside in similar circumstances, don’t you think it was poor judgment on his part not to step aside from a case with obvious climate/carbon contention?

    Put another way, if he had have stepped aside, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

  29. This kind of sanctimonious moralising really gets on my nerves.

    I read the climategate emails. Did I get the impression of a bunch of people who had the moral high ground?

    Try to guess

  30. Richard C (NZ) on September 10, 2012 at 3:26 pm said:

    “Increasing heat in the deep (down to 2000m)”

    John, please explain the physical mechanism for this that attributes an anthropogenic cause. With citation of reputable literature.

  31. Sorry Richard I wasn’t replying to you but to Rob Taylor. I agree with you entirely.

  32. An ice minimum we haven’t seen for millions of years gives another

    I almost lost my coffee all over the monitor on that one. So explain, please, how the melting ice is uncovering habitats in Greenland, and uncovering bronze age bodies at the top of the Alps?

    Also, since we know that the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were at least as warm as now, and for longer, please explain why the ice minima during those periods would not have been lower.

    Please provide scientific references for your claim that the current ice minimum is unprecedented in millions of years.

  33. John Sparks:

    But it is blatantly obvious now that there are currently major changes happening due to humans.

    The current variations are well within natural bounds. Your assertion that any current ‘major’ changes (what are they?) are due to humans is without any proof whatsoever, and remain in the ‘highly speculative’ category.
    I would also remind you that there has been no change at all in global temperatures in the last 15 years.

  34. Richard C (NZ) on September 10, 2012 at 3:52 pm said:

    I should add that even if J Venning has completely sold out of forestry he would have formed contacts, friendships and possibly allegiances that would continue after a sell down.

    My understanding is that – as the following Stuff article linked reports – J Venning’s investment was with Tahakopa Forest Trust in 2004 but that his involvement was “limited”. I don’t know what he has done regarding that investment since then.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/4807136/Impugned-judge-steps-aside-from-Trinity-case

    However, I refer you to this document re Trinity:-

    RESTATEMENT OF COMPLAINTS TO JUDUCIAL CONDUCT
    COMMISSIONER INCORPORATING MATERIAL PROVIDED BY
    VENNING J. AND HIS SOLICITOR1

    http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz/files/Restatement_of_Complaints_140211%5B1%5D.pdf

    49 (c) Venning J excluded evidence of the value of carbon credits from the Trinity land
    as irrelevant to whether there would be a profit from the forest, but his own forest
    company, Tahakopa, has registered under the Emission Trading Scheme for the
    purpose of selling carbon credits for profit from its forests;

    The thing is, if Tahakopa was managed as a carbon credit forest and not for marketable milled timber, the pruning regime for a commercial forest would not be in place so the value of the wood would be substantially less and the Trust vulnerable to any deterioration in carbon credit prices because if the ETS fell apart it would not be left holding commercial timber. An adverse ruling to a temperature case would not help that situation

    The question is unanswered so far to my knowledge: is J Venning still a Tahakopa Forest Trust investor/partner/unit holder etc?

    Anyone know?

  35. John Sparks:

    Increasing heat in the deep (down to 2000m) ocean which is well above the noise level of the instruments give one clue.

    And yet the 0-700m heat hasn’t increased at all. So please explain how the heat got down to 2000m while by-passing the top 700m. And why would this happen, when all CO2-driven warming theory expects the top layers of the ocean to experience the greatest warming, and the warming to be a top-down process?

  36. Richard C (NZ) on September 10, 2012 at 4:00 pm said:

    Oops sorry Magoo, I didn’t notice you’d replied to Rob Taylor just as I did.

    Oh well, If I’m going to dig a hole it may as well be a big one.

  37. Richard C (NZ) on September 10, 2012 at 4:20 pm said:

    I think this is the original Trinity complaint:-

    COMPLAINT TO THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER CONCERNING VENNING J

    http://trinityscheme.com/wp-content/uploads/2010-05-31-complaint-to-judicial-conduct-commissioner.pdf

    Got to go to work all night now so can’t check it till tomorrow.

  38. Every single one of the many years of emails that was stolen off the East Anglia server? Where did you get them from? Or do you mean that you read the cherry-picked emails that supposedly demostrated that scientists were up to something dastardly?
    I read a subset of those emails too, but all it showed were scientists tired and upset with gamesmanship and spurious time-consuming data requests.

  39. Simon:
    That’s because you didn’t understand what you were reading. To those of us who had been following the debate over the preceding months and years, it was very interesting indeed. It fully confirmed what we had been seeing only from the outside, and gave fascinating insights into the private doubts and background machinations behind these people. I hesitate to call them scientists.

  40. John,

    Sorry, I’m late to this, but permit me some questions too:

    An ice minimum we haven’t seen for millions of years gives another (yes winds and other local conditions play a role, but so does the fact that the entire globe is warmer).

    What are the relative contributions of “winds and other local conditions” and “global” warming? The globe is warmer than when? What human causation is there for these? References please.

  41. Hear the twisted science and scurrilous lies

    Dear me, Dick T, and only the other day you were trying to tell me that you just didn’t say things like this! Even when you did…

    It’s all not going very well is it?

  42. Tell you what Simon, I’ll give you access to my last five years of emails and you can cherry pick them to find evidence of me blocking FOIA requests, instructing my colleagues to delete emails and get people sacked who disagree with my point of view

    On the other hand, you might find nothing.

  43. Um, would you believe I only do that when I get REALLY angry?! But most of the time I don’t.

  44. Given that Justice Venning’s prior interest in Tahakopa was on the public record, the NZCSET could have objected to his appointment if they thought it was relevant.

  45. Given that Justice Venning’s prior interest in Tahakopa was on the public record, the NZCSET could have objected to his appointment if they thought it was relevant.

    For what it’s worth, I agree with Simon. I for one have no problem with Justice Venning’s appointment, and if I had I should have spoken out before the judgement, not after.

    In my opinion he’s taken the easy way out in his judgement, but I prefer to deal with what he’s written, not by attacking him or his motives.

  46. Richard C (NZ) on September 11, 2012 at 10:52 am said:

    “Given that Justice Venning’s prior interest in Tahakopa was on the public record”

    The past interest was but what is the present interest? What is his (or his family’s) current interest (holding)? We don’t even know exactly what the past interest was (or at least I don’t).

    “….the NZCSET could have objected to his appointment”

    They still can via a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. It’s in retrospect now but why not take a leaf out of Bradbury, Peebles and Muir’s book? They were successful in their pursuit of Justice (wrt J Venning recusing himself) and they seem to be light years ahead of the NZCSET in this respect.

    Should be a priority of investigation IMO.

  47. Richard C (NZ) on September 11, 2012 at 10:59 am said:

    “I prefer to deal with what he’s written”

    Yes, there’s ample opportunity there but why not pursue every recourse that has a chance of overturning the decision?

    That is the aim of an appeal is it not? A complaint (if there’s sufficient justification) to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner has exactly the same aim as an appeal.

    Why limit your options?

  48. I agree with Bob that pursuing the judge’s personal financial interests is not going to get us anywhere. It is already getting commented on elsewhere in the blogosphere and it takes the focus away from the scientific arguments.

    There may well be issues but I think they are best discussed in a less public forum.

  49. Richard C (NZ) on September 11, 2012 at 12:04 pm said:

    As it turns out, Geoffrey Venning or family has no current shares in Tahakopa Forest Trust Limited

    http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/552192/16216215/entityFilingRequirement

  50. Rob Taylor on September 11, 2012 at 9:11 pm said:

    Bob D., what credible reference do you have for claiming

    since we know that the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were at least as warm as now, and for longer

  51. Rob Taylor on September 11, 2012 at 9:16 pm said:

    I would also remind you that there has been no change at all in global temperatures in the last 15 years.

    Typical cherry-picked [ad hom gone] fantasy, Bob.

    Do you get paid for this [sleazy ad hom removed. You know how to hurl unhumorous insults, Rob, but not how to win an argument. – RT] activity, or do you just not know how to extract a trend from noisy data?

  52. The weight of archeological, historical and scientific evidence gathered over thousands of years. What do you have?

  53. Hmm, just thought I’d mention that the global average temperature trend over the last 15 years using HadCRUT3 is zero. I feel it’s worth mentioning, considering that the model mean using the SRES balanced scenario expected a 0.2°C/decade rise in temperatures due to the ever-increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, which means we should have had a 0.3°C rise by now.

    That’s all.

    Oh, did I mention it’s zero? 15 long years of no warming, during which time Mann wrote his infamous paper, we saw two of the four IPCC Assessment Reports published, Al Gore wrote his extremely funny An Inconvenient Truth, and Copenhagen failed with a spectacular Splat.

  54. Gary Kerkin on September 11, 2012 at 10:35 pm said:

    I have been some what preoccupied with other matters and haven’t commented here for some time and probably I wouldn’t in this instance but in all the statements being bandied around about geological events and sources off evidence and lack thereof, a recent event seems to have escaped scrutiny. I mean “recent” in the context of geological time. There has been comment, in response to criticism of the stance of the CSET, that we do not deny climate change, let alone warming.

    Let us not forget that the most recent event in a geological time scale was the Little Ice Age. Putting that in the perspective of the last, say, 2,000 years, we are still emerging from the LIA. So, of course we would expect to see some warming and, curiously, the extent does not seem to be greater than the published literature on the the other events Bob D referred to would suggest. That is to say, we do not seem to be seeing more than the published variations determined for the Holocene epoch.

  55. Dan Pangburn on September 12, 2012 at 12:53 am said:

    Ice can melt because the surrounding water is warmer than it was when the water froze. The planet has warmed a lot since the last glaciation and has been warming more or less regularly since the depths of the LIA until about 2001. The assertion that it is warmer at the end of a warming period is not very profound. The observation that arctic ice is melting is evidence that warmer water got to the arctic ocean but does not mean that the planet is still warming.

    That the US, which occupies less than 2% of the planet surface, experienced a heat wave, does not mean that the planet is still warming.

    I developed an equation using the first law of thermodynamics (as a Mechanical Engineer I know how to do that) that calculates average global temperatures, for all of the years since accurate measurements world wide have been made (about 1895), with an accuracy of 88%. This includes and thus corroborates the flat trend since 2001. The equation does this using only one independent variable. That variable is the readily available, naturally occurring set of measurements, the sunspot numbers. The time integral of sunspot numbers, appropriately reduced by radiation from the planet, act as a proxy, through there influence on average cloud altitude/temperature, for energy retained by the planet. Including the influence of CO2 increased the accuracy by only 0.5%. The equation along with some of the rest of my stuff is made public at the Climate Realists website.

  56. Rob Taylor on September 12, 2012 at 2:15 am said:

    So we now see Bob D. drop any pretence of (pseudo) scientific enquiry and merely parrot simple-minded propaganda, like any other industry shill.

    You have become so boring and predictable, Bob [insult gone. a ban is looming unless you learn what the argument is and contribute to it. – RT]

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Vivid-demonstration-knee-jerk-science-rejection.html

  57. Rob Taylor on September 12, 2012 at 2:29 am said:

    we are still emerging from the LIA. So, of course we would expect to see some warming

    So, Gary, what physical net forcing is causing this? Or do you believe that the climate “of course” has some magical elastic property to it?

    Absent any credible explanation, you have nothing but a vague, hand-waving opinion that, along with $3.50, will buy you a cappuchino…

  58. Rob Taylor on September 12, 2012 at 2:37 am said:

    Pseudoscientific nonsense, Dan, as the sun is showing a cooling trend. Have you never looked at the empirical data?

    Has the sun magically lost its ability to warm the Earth? – RT

    Here’s a primer that may help you understand reality better:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm

  59. I love the way Rob Taylor accuses other people of pseudo-science, then provides links to John Cook’s Skeptical Science. Too good.

  60. Richard C (NZ) on September 12, 2012 at 10:08 am said:

    Not for no reason did William Herschel in 1801 notice the close correlation between sunspot numbers and grain prices. Advance notice gives a grain trader an enormous advantage.

  61. Richard C (NZ) on September 12, 2012 at 10:12 am said:

    Gosh, according to Rob Taylor the planet’s normal climate is LIA conditions.

    Who would have thought that without the insight his expert input?

    /Sarc

  62. It seems that Rob Taylor regards my pointing out that the trend over the past 15 years is zero is somehow pseudo-science, and cherry-picking.

    In fact, the 15 year test is sanctioned by none other than NOAA. In their report (Peterson et al. 2009) they try to explain the lack of recent warming, and make the following statement:

    Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

    In other words, Rob, the zero trend over the last 15 years is highly significant, since (by NOAA’s own admission) it negates the models.

    Reference:
    Peterson, T. C., and M. O. Baringer, Eds., 2009: State of the Climate in 2008. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90, S1–S196.

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

  63. Here’s a nice little chart that (I think) uses HADCRUT3 data and relates it with ENSO and volcanic activity.
    http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/LOTI+LandSea+Nino.gif
    There’s a pretty obvious long-term trend there. The 15 year trend could change very suddenly if 2012 turn out to be an extremely warm year.

  64. Simon:
    Note though that a volcano, should one occur, can only reduce temperatures. We haven’t seen a “decent” eruption since Pinatubo back in the early 1990s, and based on currernt performance 2012 is unlikely to be a very warm year.

  65. Gary Kerkin on September 12, 2012 at 1:55 pm said:

    I see the ad hominem attacks still abound. Rob, I did not comment about theories or “net forcings” (what ever that might happen to mean). I merely pointed out that published analyses of information regarding climate over the last couple of millenia indicate periods of warming and cooling which take some hundreds of years.

    Of course, if you are not prepared to accept those records then there will be little that I, or anyone else for that matter, can say that would convince you otherwise.

    If you do accept them then you must also consider that natural processes have played the only important roles in those cycles.

  66. Rob, I perused John Cook’s article, which attempts to refute the claim that the sun is responsible for global warming. I followed his link to Foster & Rahmsdorf (2011), which he relies on, but I stopped any serious study of it when I read Cook’s idiotic statement (speaking of that paper):

    They found that from 1979 to 2010, solar activity had a very slight cooling effect of between -0.014 and -0.023°C per decade, depending on the data set (Table 1, Figure 2).

    The sun is the hottest object for miles around. Anyone who claims it has a cooling effect is a few tiles short of a roof and I’m not wasting my time with them. By the way, no such statement appears in the paper.

    There’s a piece of deception in Cook’s “explanation”. He starts by posing the problem: “Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. The data suggests solar activity is influencing the global climate causing the world to get warmer.” But he never returns to sunspots and doesn’t acknowledge the proven role they have in the formation of clouds. Clouds are the greatest moderator of insolation, and no matter the level of the sun’s energy output, it remains capable of heating the Earth, so clouds are always important.

  67. Rob Taylor on September 12, 2012 at 9:29 pm said:

    Bob, the standard climatological period is 30 years [pointless insult deleted. Rob, Bob knows that. Direct your energy more usefully at the paper Bob cited for you rather than maligning the messenger. – RT]:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

  68. Ok, we’ll check back in 15 years then.
    Keep your fingers on the buzzers

  69. Rob Taylor on September 12, 2012 at 9:45 pm said:

    [expletives don’t improve your persuasiveness. – RT] RT and Dan, you are merely demonstrating an ignorance of the concept of climate forcing.

    Perhaps this will help:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_forcing

  70. Rob,

    from 1979 to 2010, solar activity had a very slight cooling effect

    How would you explain that from John Cook?

    Kindly explain how I demonstrate “an ignorance of the concept of climate forcing” and correct me. The shallow Wikipedia article added nothing to my knowledge.

  71. Not the same Andy?

  72. Rob Taylor on September 13, 2012 at 8:19 am said:

    Bob, you present a cherry-picked technical clause taken out of context from a 2008 paper as evidence of what, exactly?

    I suggest that you educate yourself by actually reading the review paper, which reveals the following:

    One of the most dramatic signals of the general warming trend was the continued significant reduction in the extent of the summer sea-ice cover and, importantly, the decrease in the amount of relatively older, thicker ice. (p. S12)

    Top-of-atmosphere radiation data imply that 2008 saw a net receipt of radiation into the climate system… (p.S17)

    Limited preliminary data imply that in 2008 glaciers continued to lose mass, and full data for 2007 show it was the 17th consecutive year of loss. (same page)

    Notably, the 20 warmest years have all occurred since 1981, and the 10 warmest have all occurred in the past 12 years. (S18)

    …recent observational trends are not sufficient to discount predictions of substantial climate change and its significant and widespread impacts. Given the likelihood that internal variability contributed to the slowing of global temperature rise in the last decade, we expect that warming will resume in the next few years, consistent with predictions from near-term climate forecasts. (S23)

    These latest results show conclusively that anthropogenic CO2 is continuing to accumulate in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans… (S68)

    CapIche?

    .

  73. Richard C (NZ) on September 13, 2012 at 8:56 am said:

    “anthropogenic CO2 is continuing to accumulate in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans”

    But what effect does it have in the atmosphere Rob? Above about 200 ppm CO2 has exhausted any forcing ability. See this series:-

    An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
    Part 1: Scientific Discussion

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-1-details-c.pdf

    And here,

    An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
    Part 2: Layman’s Discussion

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-2-for-laymen.pdf

    And here,

    An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
    Part 3: Policy Maker’s Summary

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-3-summary.pdf

    The key point being the bogus “oversimplification” by the IPCC. Quoting Part 2:-

    “The short summary of what it means is: CO2 increases will not increase the greenhouse effect. Full stop. That is it. CO2 is not a pollutant, it will not change the weather or climate. There is no basis whatsoever for trying to control the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    The IPCC equation assumes a “logarithmic” or log relation between forcing and CO2. The path length curve more closely resembles a „log log‟ relation between forcing and CO2. That is the IPCC model is an oversimplification that results in overestimating the impact of CO2 at higher concentrations”

    Game, set, and match.

  74. Wow. Rob, once again you completely miss the point. I tire of getting into discussions with you, since you always only see what you want to see.
    >Bob, you present a cherry-picked technical clause taken out of context from a 2008 paper as evidence of what, exactly?
    You then proceed to cherry-pick technical clauses yourself, as evidence of what, exactly? None of your points refute the simple point I made that the current 15 years of temperature stasis discount the model predctions, as NOAA themselves said.

    But because I’m a sucker, let me address these spurious cherry-picked sentences:

    One of the most dramatic signals of the general warming trend was the continued significant reduction in the extent of the summer sea-ice cover…

    Once again, nobody is disputing that there has been warming since the LIA. Pointing at Arctic sea ice is possibly one of the stupidest arguments for AGW. We have an enormous amount of history that shows that the Arctic sea ice varies greatly and cyclically, and is subject to many other influences other than air temperature, such as winds, storms, etc., and that there have been plenty of previous episodes where people predicted it would be ice-free over the past hundred or so years. Therefore it’s well within natural variation bounds. We only have official satellite records from 1979, a known ice high point. However, we know from scientific records that the Arctic region experienced warmer periods during the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods. And why do you ignore the Antarctic sea ice? It’s growing.

    Top-of-atmosphere radiation data imply that 2008 saw a net receipt of radiation into the climate system…

    They “imply”, do they? Actually no, they don’t. The CERES TOA measurements records an imbalance of 6.4W/m2. This is clearly so out of whack that nobody believes it. The only source of a radiative imbalance comes from James Hansen’s models! He claims a 0.85W/m2 imbalance in Hansen (2005), based entirely on his models, which exclude all ENSO effects, and do not in any way predict the temperature stasis we are experiencing right now. He has since revised this imbalance significantly downwards.

    Limited preliminary data imply that in 2008 glaciers continued to lose mass, and full data for 2007 show it was the 17th consecutive year of loss.

    See Arctic ice extent discussion above. Glaciers have been retreating for 10,000 years, so what’s new? Do you really expect them all to suddenly start growing?

    Notably, the 20 warmest years have all occurred since 1981, and the 10 warmest have all occurred in the past 12 years.

    Once again, why is this alarming? We have been warming since the LIA, at a very gentle rate. Why should it stop now? Still no proof of human influence.

    …recent observational trends are not sufficient to discount predictions of substantial climate change and its significant and widespread impacts. Given the likelihood that internal variability contributed to the slowing of global temperature rise in the last decade, we expect that warming will resume in the next few years, consistent with predictions from near-term climate forecasts.

    What they are saying is that back in 2008 the recent observational trends hadn’t yet showed a stasis for 15 years, therefore they weren’t yet sufficient to discount the model predictions. However, we have now reached the point where recent observational trends are sufficient to discount the model predictions. Also, they expected the warming to resume. It hasn’t.

    These latest results show conclusively that anthropogenic CO2 is continuing to accumulate in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans…

    This is a discussion around CO2 uptake, which is not what we’re discussing here at all, and is followed by the line you didn’t quote:

    However, a single transect through an ocean basin is not sufficient for characterizing the full patterns of anthropogenic CO2 storage.

  75. Richard C (NZ) on September 13, 2012 at 10:44 am said:

    “The only source of a radiative imbalance comes from James Hansen’s models! He claims a 0.85W/m2 imbalance in Hansen (2005), based entirely on his models, which exclude all ENSO effects”

    Now we have a study showing that the AR5 models exhibit negligible ENSO response to CO2 contrary to Trenberth’s claims:-
    ****************************************************
    New paper shows no ‘average’ change in El Ninos due to CO2

    A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters reports “the overall response to CO2 increases is determined using 27 [climate] models, and the ENSO [the El Nino Southern Oscillation] amplitude change based on the multi-model mean is indistinguishable from zero.”

    Alarmists, such as Kevin Trenberth, claim that increased CO2 causes an increase in the frequency and intensity of El Ninos, but this paper finds that the mean response from climate models does not support such claims.

    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, doi:10.1029/2012GL052759

    Significant Changes to ENSO Strength and Impacts in the Twenty-First Century: Results from CMIP5

    Key Points

    * ENSO amplitude is insignificant in the majority of IPCC-class models.
    * ENSO amplitude change is not due to mean state or seasonal cycle changes.
    * The teleconnection response is sensitive to the ENSO amplitude change.

    Author:
    Samantha Stevenson

    >>>>>>>>

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2012/09/new-paper-shows-no-average-change-in-el.html

  76. Rob Taylor on September 13, 2012 at 11:52 am said:

    So, Bob, you admit:

    Once again, nobody is disputing that there has been warming since the LIA

    In that case, pray tell, what is the nett climate forcing that has caused this warming? Or does the climate somehow magically “rebound” from the LIA of its own accord??

  77. Richard C (NZ) on September 13, 2012 at 12:02 pm said:

    “….what is the nett climate forcing that has caused this warming?”

    Celestial cycles Rob, right on track too (as opposed to the CO2 forced IPCC models that are off on a tangent):-

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/figure.png

  78. Rob Taylor:

    So, Bob, you admit:
    Once again, nobody is disputing that there has been warming since the LIA

    I admit?! Good grief Rob, have you really being paying that little attention? Nobody here has, to my knowledge, ever questioned the warming since the Little Ice Age – it’s your own side that denies the LIA ever happened, since they can’t account for it using their models! Remember, the low point of the LIA was in the 1600s, so the warming since then cannot possibly have been caused by humans.

    In that case, pray tell, what is the nett climate forcing that has caused this warming? Or does the climate somehow magically “rebound” from the LIA of its own accord??

    What a strange statement. The climate, Rob, goes through cycles, warm and cold. We don’t really know what causes them (we think we understand the long cycles, but even then there’s doubt). By ‘we’ I mean humanity, not me personally. Some people have hypothesised (is that a word?) that CO2 causes warming and cooling, but that’s obviously not true, since the LIA, MWP, RWP and MWP all had lowish CO2.

    Ignorance is acceptable, Rob. Science progresses steadily, but not all things are known. I haven’t yet seen a proof of what causes these cycles, if you have please let us know. Even your mate Tamino (Grant Foster) admitted that if the MWP existed (it did, of course) then it has grave consequences for current CO2 theory, since they are completely unable to account for how it happened.

    A superb response, Bob. Hypothesise is a perfectly fine word which describes admirable scientific thoughtfulness.

  79. Yes, not the same Andy. The link is to a vapid article which attempts to paint a picture of an all-consuming consensus. It features Oreskes to add credibility.

  80. Rob Taylor on September 13, 2012 at 2:12 pm said:

    Ignorance is acceptable, Rob. Science progresses steadily, but not all things are known. I haven’t yet seen a proof of what causes these cycles, if you have please let us know.

    And so we have it, at last. Bob is ignorant (more likely, willfully blind) to the knowledge gained from 150 years of climate research.

    Fourier, Arrhenius, Calender, Keeling, Hansen may as well not exist for him. In fact, what was the point of the Enlightenment?

    Better, perhaps, that we still worshipped the thunder gods and eat our food raw?

  81. Rob Taylor on September 13, 2012 at 2:13 pm said:

    OK, Richard, name a national scientific association that does not support AGW.

  82. This is why it’s pointless to attempt a conversation with Rob Taylor.

  83. The Medieval Warm Period wasn’t global and was limited to Northern Europe only.
    Mann et al. (2009). “Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly”. Science 326 (5957): 1256–60.

  84. Rob, it will be deliberately contemptuous remarks like this which get you banned.

    If you disagree that “not all things are known” please give your reasons. If you have evidence of what causes these cycles, please present it. When you say Bob is ignorant of everything what stands out is your own ignorance and disregard of others – perhaps even a hatred of those you disagree with. It’s a shame, because I was just daring to think that perhaps you were engaging in a serious conversation.

    I can only suppose that you imagine the vulgar, graceless judgement you’ve just presented might be admired outside a schoolyard but you couldn’t be more wrong. There’s no possibility of it changing our minds. Clean your act up or get lost.

  85. Simon:
    You’re going to have to come up with someone other than Mann, to be taken seriously.

    In the meantime, have a look at these:
    Wilson, A.T., Hendy, C.H. and Reynolds, C.P. 1979. Short-term climate change and New Zealand temperatures during the last millennium. Nature 279: 315-317
    Summary: Temperatures 0.75°C higher in the MWP

    Williams, P.W., King, D.N.T., Zhao, J.-X. and Collerson, K.D. 2004. Speleothem master chronologies: combined Holocene 18O and 13C records from the North Island of New Zealand and their palaeoenvironmental interpretation. The Holocene 14: 194-208.
    Summary: MWP warmer than today

    Eden, D.N and Page, M.J. 1998. Palaeoclimatic implications of a storm erosion record from late Holocene lake sediments, North Island, New Zealand. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 139: 37-58.
    Summary: RWP warmer than MWP warmer than today.

  86. Simon, Southern Africa also showed a MWP:
    Holmgren, K., Tyson, P.D., Moberg, A. and Svanered, O. 2001. A preliminary 3000-year regional temperature reconstruction for South Africa. South African Journal of Science 97: 49-51
    Summary: Up to 2.5°C warmer

    Tyson, P.D., Karlen, W., Holmgren, K. and Heiss, G.A. 2000. The Little Ice Age and medieval warming in South Africa. South African Journal of Science 96: 121-126
    Summary: 3-4°C warmer

    Kuhnert, H. and Mulitza, S. 2011. Multidecadal variability and late medieval cooling of near-coastal sea surface temperatures in the eastern tropical North Atlantic. Paleoceanography 26: 10.1029/2011PA002130
    Summary: 1.1°C warmer

  87. Richard C (NZ) on September 13, 2012 at 3:33 pm said:

    Can’t help but notice Rob, that you’ve studiously avoided addressing the ‘An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming’ series up-thread that highlights the IPCC’s oversimplification and subsequent wrongful CO2 forcing assumptions.

    I’m starting a list of those challenged that fail to address the issue with any rebuttal of substance:-

    Martin Lack
    Simon
    Rob Taylor

    I suppose, seeing I can’t offer anything rebuttal-wise either, that I should add my name to the list. But I’m the one doing the challenging and I suspect there’s others who subscribe to my position so there’s another list……..

  88. Simon, Antarctica. Can’t get much further south than that:
    Hemer, M.A. and Harris, P.T. 2003. Sediment core from beneath the Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica, suggests mid-Holocene ice-shelf retreat. Geology 31: 127-130
    Summary: MWP warmer than today.

    Hall, B.L., Koffman, T. and Denton, G.H. 2010. Reduced ice extent on the western Antarctic Peninsula at 700-907 cal. yr B.P. Geology 38: 635-638
    Summary: MWP warmer than today.

    Hall, B.L. 2007. Late-Holocene advance of the Collins Ice Cap, King George Island, South Shetland Islands. The Holocene 17: 1253-1258
    Summary: Pre-1300 warmer than today.

    Khim, B.-K., Yoon, H.I., Kang, C.Y. and Bahk, J.J. 2002. Unstable climate oscillations during the Late Holocene in the Eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula. Quaternary Research 58: 234-245
    Summary: MWP warmer than today.

    Bertler, N.A.N., Mayewski, P.A. and Carter, L. 2011. Cold conditions in Antarctica during the Little Ice Age — Implications for abrupt climate change mechanisms. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 308: 41-51
    Summary: MWP up to 0.35°C warmer than today.

  89. Simon, a quick one from South America. I have more, if you like.
    Solari, M.A., Herve, F., Le Roux, J.P., Airo, A. and Sial, A.N. 2010. Paleoclimatic significance of lacustrine microbialites: A stable isotope case study of two lakes at Torres del Paine, southern Chile. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 297: 70-82
    Summary: MWP warmer than today

  90. I think I gave up with Rob about here

  91. Andy, when you read those statements, I’m sorry to say that you have to wonder about his mental stability.

    “Hitler’s dreams of a Thousand Year Reich, only worse!” Wow.

    “You and your fellow intellectual prostitutes, however, are helping drive all humanity into a world of suffering, war and want.”

    Entertaining, but also a little sad.

  92. “The so-called psychological studies, I find interesting and encouraging for a number of reasons. Politically, it’s the usual stereotyping of the opposition, a way of dehumanising, and therefore writing off their influence as insignificant. There’s nothing new about the particular stereotypes they’re trying to shoehorn us into, just that they’re trying to come up with some pseudo-psychological justification for it.

    There is a real perception issue here, on both sides of the fence, which has to be recognised. The climate realists think that such stereotypes are just deliberate propaganda ad hominems, meant to marginalise us and nothing more. However, the alarmists have spent so many years pushing them, that they’ve long ago come to think of them as the reality. It’s how they actually think we are. It’s another one of their unfounded beliefs, and it’s been our asset for some time”

    Sensible comment from Pointman. People like Lack,Taylor, Bill, Perrott, Fenwick, Renownden etc are actually assets to us. The more they use words like “Climate Change Deniers” in articles the more the public takes them less seriously.
    Let them spew their abuse via the media. As Napolean said “never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake”.
    These guys have lost the war already. They just dont know it.

  93. Rob Taylor on September 13, 2012 at 6:06 pm said:

    That’s right, old chaps, do not adjust your minds, there must be a problem with reality…

    As the ice melts, the seas rise, the deserts grow and the winds blow, fear not; the invincible shield of shared ignorance will keep you and yours safe from harm – until it doesn’t.

    In the meantime, keep obsessing over cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes from papers that, were you only able to understand them, actually give the lie to your beliefs.

    Oh, and good luck with that NZCSET appeal; I’m sure the Flat Earth Society is counting on you to do your best to overturn all those centuries of scientific oppression since the Medieval Warm Period!

  94. Um, I’m gobsmacked. You’ve not presented any evidence we haven’t refuted, yet you refuse to respond to the evidence we present to you. So in what way do you display a readiness to change your mind, when you don’t display a readiness even to engage in honest discussion? You’re a fraud. Are you specifically inviting a ban with these inflammatory remarks?

    Again, I’m forced to conclude you actually hate those who disagree with you. Why else have you ignored the challenge I gave you just three hours ago:

    If you disagree that “not all things are known” please give your reasons. If you have evidence of what causes these cycles, please present it.

    You give no evidence, or even a decent train of reason, so how could we possibly “adjust our minds”? You consider abusive banter an argument. You invite ridicule.

  95. I find this sort if thing incredible – it seems to suggest an inability to comprehend language around here.

    After someone pointed out that the evidence shows that a so-called medieval warming period did not have higher temperatures than the present on a hemispheric or global basis we get this silly reaction from Bob I think:

    “You’re going to have to come up with someone other than Mann, to be taken seriously”

    In one foul swoop Bob puts his blinkers on. Because in fact Mann’s work has proven very reliable , repeated by others and confirmed by th US Academy of Sciences review. Sure, certain politicians have carried out a disgstung campaign against Mann – – but that avoids the well supported science.

    And then Bob goes on to list all sorts of references to “prove” Mann wrong. Ignoring completely the fact these referee to regional instances where the temperature was higher in this times, not to te overall hemispheric or global estimates.

    The purposeful confusion of regional data with the well established and replicated overall global and hemispheric data is a common denial mantra and it’s dishonest.

    It’s a sign of desperation.

  96. Richard C (NZ) on September 13, 2012 at 7:16 pm said:

    “…repeated by others” – Ha! Yep, in fact you can do it yourself at home:-

    Fables of the Reconstruction
    (Or, How to Make Your Own Hockey Stick)

    http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/12/fables-of-the-reconstruction.html

    And,

    Make your own Michael Mann hockey stick at home

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/23/make-your-own-mannian-hockey-stick-at-home/

    You never fail to raise laugh Ken, it’s healthy. Thanks for your quip it’ll keep me in chuckles for days. Call again soon.

  97. Richard C (NZ) on September 13, 2012 at 7:36 pm said:

    In case you sincerely believe that these are legit reconstructions Ken (and I suspect you do), may I point out the specific issue with the help of Rand Simberg’s explanation:-

    The Death of the Hockey Stick?

    “The real damage came when a retired Canadian mining engineer, Steve McIntyre, and a professor at the University of Guelph, Ross McKitrick, started digging into Mann’s methodology, and found flaws in both his statistical analysis and data interpretation, and published a paper describing them in Geophysical Research Letters in 2005. They showed that Mann’s methodology would generate a hockey stick almost independently of the data input, by feeding it spectral noise”

    http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-death-of-the-hockey-stick/?singlepage=true

    Do you see the funny part Ken? “Mann’s methodology would generate a hockey stick almost independently of the data input, by feeding it spectral noise”.

    Makes your day don’t it?

  98. Ken, you say:

    After someone pointed out that the evidence shows that a so-called medieval warming period did not have higher temperatures than the present on a hemispheric or global basis

    But the IPCC itself used to believe that. It said so in the AR2. Many strands of evidence still show warmer temperatures then than now, as for example at the CO2 Science MWP Project.

    Mann has been so often deprecated he is without authority. Follow the link I cite and marvel at the sheer weight of evidence.

  99. In one foul swoop Bob puts his blinkers on

    One foul swoop brings back anxious memories of my bike ride last Saturday where I was being strafed by Magpies.

  100. Richard C (NZ) on September 13, 2012 at 8:22 pm said:

    Is it Mangled Phrase Week and we didn’t know?

    One foul swoop, seal level rise, and inactivists – conjures up some weird images e.g. groups of people too sedentary to be bothered to erect seal proof fences along coastlines. And they’re not moved by that evil renegade bird either (I assume he meant fowl, ha!) .

  101. Richard and Richard, I actually don’t expect any better from you. Sorry!

    But the fact remains that despite the extreme and cowardly attacks on Mann and his work it has been replicated and vindicated. McKintrick’s analysis proved wrong. The politically manipulated Wegmann report discredited, as was a lot of his evidence at the House hearings. And the US National Research Council’s report does vindicate Mann’s work (that’s why you guys never mention it, isn’t it?. You prefer to go with Wegmann despite the evidence discrediting him for that report and his subsequent papers. His proven plagerising and distortion of conclusions).

    You guys have to continue your persecution of Mann because of the icon status of his findings. Findings that are accepted by the science community and his work continues to be published despite the McCarthy like persecution.

    And just have a look at the titles of the papers that Bob quotes – you can see they all refer to regional measurements. It’s not honest to pull those out as evidence against Mann.

    Treadgold. Heard of Galileo? He shook things up when he produced telescopic evidence for a heliocentric solar system. Previously a geocentric system was accepted. That’s the thing about scientific knowledge, it is provisional and improves with time as we get more evidence. That is what happened over the medieval temperature estimates. They have improved with time. We now have a better picture than we had in the 80s and 90s. That’s why AR4 is much more authoritative than AR2.

    It is dishonest to demand that we go back to the past picture based on little evidence just because it fits with your ideology.

  102. Ken:

    And then Bob goes on to list all sorts of references to “prove” Mann wrong. Ignoring completely the fact these referee to regional instances where the temperature was higher in this times, not to te overall hemispheric or global estimates.

    You know, my old grandmother used to say: “There’s none so think as them as wants to be.”
    Ken is a perfect example, in every way.

    First of all, I don’t need to prove Mann wrong, plenty of far better people have already done that. I was countering Simon’s bizarre statement that the MWP was just a NH phenomenon. By the way, you have read the Hockey Stick Illusion, by Andrew Montford, haven’t you, Ken. If not, you honestly have nothing to say about it, because you don’t even understand the issues, going by past experience.

    Second, Ken, showing paper after paper that all find MWPs in every region of the globe at the same time kinda proves that the MWP occurred, and wasn’t limited to the NH, no?

    Thanks for playing, you know the way out by now.

  103. But the fact remains that despite the extreme and cowardly attacks on Mann and his work it has been replicated and vindicated. McKintrick’s analysis proved wrong. The politically manipulated Wegmann report discredited, as was a lot of his evidence at the House hearings. And the US National Research Council’s report does vindicate Mann’s work (that’s why you guys never mention it, isn’t it?.

    Interesting assertion, but once again it exists alone in its fact-free vacuum.

    Q&A with NAS panel officials:

    CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that. It looks like my time is expired, so I want to ask one more question. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?
    DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report. But again, just because the claims are made, doesn’t mean they are false.
    CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that you can have the right conclusion and that it not be–
    DR. NORTH. It happens all the time in science.
    CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, and not be substantiated by what you purport to be the facts but have we established–we know that Dr. Wegman has said that Dr. Mann’s methodology is incorrect. Do you agree with that? I mean, it doesn’t mean Dr. Mann’s conclusions are wrong, but we can stipulate now that we have–and if you want to ask your statistician expert from North Carolina that Dr. Mann’s methodology cannot be documented and cannot be verified by independent review.
    DR. NORTH. Do you mind if he speaks?
    CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, if he would like to come to the microphone.
    MR. BLOOMFIELD. Thank you. Yes, Peter Bloomfield. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his coworkers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

    NAS panel:

    Reconstructions that have poor validation statistics (i.e., low CE) will have correspondingly wide uncertainty bounds, and so can be seen to be unreliable in an objective way. Moreover, a CE statistic close to zero or negative suggests that the reconstruction is no better than the mean, and so its skill for time averages shorter than the validation period will be low. Some recent results reported in Table 1S of Wahl and Ammann (in press) indicate that their reconstruction, which uses the same procedure and full set of proxies used by Mann et al. (1999), gives CE values ranging from 0.103 to -0.215, depending on how far back in time the reconstruction is carried. STR Preprint, 91

    Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions demonstrate very limited statistical skill (e.g., using the CE statistic) for proxy sets before the 19th century (Rutherford et al. 2005, Wahl and Ammann in press). STR 111

  104. That’s the thing about scientific knowledge, it is provisional and improves with time as we get more evidence. That is what happened over the medieval temperature estimates. They have improved with time. We now have a better picture than we had in the 80s and 90s. That’s why AR4 is much more authoritative than AR2.

    Fair point, that’s just how science works. I agree with you. But what exactly was the new evidence, Ken? Was it that single tree way in the north of Siberia? Was it the most influential tree in the world, that lonely old twisted tree on the Yamal Peninsula? Was it another bristlecone pine, which should not be used for temperature studies? Or was it credible evidence? Let me know.

  105. Richard C (NZ) on September 13, 2012 at 9:32 pm said:

    “McKintrick’s analysis proved wrong” Huh? News to me (I assume you mean McIntyre and McKitrick).

    Care to cite the “proof” Ken? Or is this your standard Marcel Marceau rebuttal?

  106. Bob, notice you avoid your little misrepresentation of regional temperature profiles as hemispheric or global ones. I guess it’s so obvious you want to bury that for another time. It’s dishonest to keep bringing up that denial mantra – its just so obviously a distortion.

    Now what about you quoting from the summary of the NAS report on Mann’s work instead of cherry picking things out of context. Whatever comments you can cherry pick from the House Committee proceedings you are left with a very credible report, produced by top scientists (not selected by Barton and his political mates as Weggman was), a report which does make a few criticisms of detail (what you expect from an objective, honest consideration) but actually finds the main conclusions correct. By the way, subsequent work by Mann, corrected some of his earlier weaknesses and confirmed the main findings. As has independent work by other groups.

    The discrediting of Weggman actually came later when the plagerism of him and his students were exposed. It meant that a least one of their papers was withdrawn. But his original report was always suspect because of his collaboration with McKintrick which he found necessary to duplicate his mistake.

  107. Richard, you sound just like those critics of Galileo who didn’t want to give up the geocentricity they had invested so much time in. Pretending the empirical evidence was very weak so they could ignore it. All you can do is fall back on typical denier mantra – a single tree in Siberia, etc. how childish.

    Why do you think the IPCC updated their conclusions? It was because of the overwhelming ballance of evidence – they had the job of looking at all the publications and coming to a consensus on them. Whereas you guys just hunt around for anything which counters that – happily(?) ingoring the irrelevance of theindividual regional studies you quote so greedily to the overall global and hemispheric estimates.

  108. Ken,
    Ok, so I was twisting your tail. Now, leaving the ribbing behind, what new evidence did the IPCC find that removed the MWP?

  109. Now what about you quoting from the summary of the NAS report on Mann’s work instead of cherry picking things out of context.

    Uhh, just where do you think the quote above was from? The one beginning “NAS panel”? Do you always just shoot from the hip without thinking?

    Here’s another from the NAS report, to show that your statement “As has independent work by other groups” is incorrect:

    Temperature reconstructions for periods before about A.D. 1600 are based on proxies from a limited number of geographic regions, and some reconstructions are not robust with respect to the removal of proxy records from individual regions (see, e.g., Wahl and Ammann in press). Because the data are so limited, different large-scale reconstructions are sometimes based on the same datasets, and thus cannot be considered as completely independent. … STR 111

  110. Richard C (NZ) on September 13, 2012 at 10:12 pm said:

    “It’s dishonest to keep bringing up that denial mantra”

    Ken, I’ve started a list of those who being challenged on the butchering (or should I say doctoring in this thread) of science by the IPCC, can’t offer a rebuttal of substance. Do I add your name to it or will you be THE ONE to successfully refute the case?

    I’m referring to this series linked up-thread:-

    An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
    Part 1: Scientific Discussion

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-1-details-c.pdf

    And here,

    An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
    Part 2: Layman’s Discussion

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-2-for-laymen.pdf

    And here,

    An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
    Part 3: Policy Maker’s Summary

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-3-summary.pdf

    The key point being the bogus “oversimplification” by the IPCC. Quoting Part 2:-

    “The IPCC equation assumes a “logarithmic” or log relation between forcing and CO2. The path length curve more closely resembles a „log log‟ relation between forcing and CO2. That is the IPCC model is an oversimplification that results in overestimating the impact of CO2 at higher concentrations”

    The list so far is:-

    Martin Lack
    Simon
    Rob Taylor

    Are you next on the list Ken with your own “denial mantra” or can you meet the challenge?

  111. but actually finds the main conclusions correct.

    Umm, no, it doesn’t.

    NAS report again:

    Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium”

    You say:

    By the way, subsequent work by Mann, corrected some of his earlier weaknesses and confirmed the main findings.

    It is in fact this subsequent work (Mann (1999)) that is being referred to here.

  112. Richard, so do you often do this? Present rubbish as if it were an argument?

    Of course you do – you are after all blaming me for the mess you and Dedekind made of your first “paper”? Where you couldn’t see the site effects staring you in the face despite your mate being a statistics “expert.”

    Here’s a suggestion (rather obvious but I realize you have trouble in the s Irene area). What about reading the AR4 document, identifying the research considered since the AR2 and having. Look at some if the papers – Mann’s amongst them.

    See you tomorrow!

  113. But his original report was always suspect because of his collaboration with McKintrick which he found necessary to duplicate his mistake.

    I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about here.

  114. Bob, I’ll look at my copy of the NAS report tomorrow, check your cherry picking, and quote from the summary (since you refuse to).

    Where did I think the quote was from? The proceedings of the House Committee – it has that format.

    But I’ll check and get back to you tomorrow..

    Perhaps you could in the meantime apologist for quoting regional studies on medieval temperatures as if they were global/hemispheric. You have gone really quiet on that one.

    Catch you tomorrow.

  115. Bob, I’ll look at my copy of the NAS report tomorrow, check your cherry picking, and quote from the summary (since you refuse to).

    Unbelievable. Do you ever open your mouth without putting your foot in it, Ken?

    Where do you think this quote “Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium”” came from? Wait for it…

    Page 4 of the Summary.

    Sleep well.

  116. Sorry Bob – we have crossed wires and I didn’t see your comment quoting from the report – only the earlier one from the proceedings of the Committee.

    I am familiar with that quote you used – climate change deniers routinely use it in their attempts to discredit Mann but always ignore the main conclusions/summary. I will produce those for you tomorrow but meanwhile you could read my post “Climate change deniers’ tawdry manipulation of “hockey sticks”
    (http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/climate-change-deniers-tawdry-manipulation-of-hockey-sticks/) where I have previously discussed this sort if distortion.

    The subsequent work of Mann’s I referred to was published (I think) in 2008, 2009). The work you refer to was what the report covered. It couldn’t possibly cover papers published later.

  117. Richard – this is just bafflegab. I can’t make any sense of what you write.

  118. Bob, just to wet your apatite (I am just quoting from my old post) this s what the NRC said in summary:

    “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years.”

    Now I must catch some sleep.

Comment navigation

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation