Only Three Months Left For Planet Earth( and other false doomsday predictions)
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
gee that does not at all jive with continued co2 growth
could it be there is something amiss with the pseudoscience?
Poor Greta, she will be at a loss without a rational for scolding adults
I guess she could scold her parents for dropping her into the spotlight based upon false propaganda
May was cold, June quite warm in Greenland.
Overall this year will likely be in the top 5 for warmest years ever.
The full charts of the year show that Greenland glaciers continue to melt massively.
https://nsidc.org/greenland-today/greenland-surface-melt-extent-interactive-chart/
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/
As usual, CM and larue use cherry picked data.
When you look at the full data set its obvious how wrong they are.
Again.
Weather Channel Falsely Claims Mangroves Will Be Gone in 30 Years
The Weather Channel published an article on its website Wednesday claiming global warming threatens the extinction of mangrove trees – which rely on warm temperatures to live – within 30 years.
Common sense and scientific evidence reveal that the Weather Channel’s alarmist claim is preposterous.
Mangroves Love Heat, Salty Water
Mangrove trees grow along shorelines in saltwater or brackish water. They provide many ecological benefits, including filtering water pollution, anchoring shoreline soil, and providing breeding grounds and host environments for many marine species.
Mangroves are very susceptible to frost events and therefore are limited to the tropics and subtropics. There are no coastlines that are too warm for them, as they grow throughout the tropics and thrive even along the equator on all three continents that span the equator.
Mangroves Currently Expanding Their Range
Recent scientific research shows warming temperatures allow mangrove trees to grow larger and more rapidly, and also for mangrove forests to expand their ranges.
A recent study in the peer-reviewed Journal of Ecology reports, “As freeze events decline with climate change, mangroves expand their range to higher latitudes….”
The Journal of Ecology study also mangroves dramatically increase their growth and concentrations under warmer conditions.
“We found that chronic warming doubled plant height and accelerated the expansion of mangrove into salt marsh vegetation, as indicated by a six-fold greater increase in mangrove cover in warmed plots compared to ambient temperature plots,” the study found.
That’s right, mangrove cover increased six-fold under warmer temperatures!
The study also found warmer temperatures facilitated elevation gain, with mangroves migrating further inland from the shore, “driven by increased mangrove root production in warmed plots.”
Dubious Alarmism
How, then, does the Weather Channel claim global warming threatens to make mangroves go extinct within 30 years?
The Weather Channel cited a very dubious alarmist study regarding mangroves and sea-level rise, and then further misrepresented the dubious study to make it appear even more alarmist.
One could call the Weather Channel’s (mis)representations bad science, but even that would likely be too kind.
Stationary Ranges?
In the study cited by the Weather Channel, modelers attempted to discern the pace of mangrove migration 10,000 years ago when the global sea level dramatically rose.
The modelers then forecast that mangrove forests can migrate to higher elevations at a speed of no more than 7 millimeters (0.27 inches) of sea-level rise per year.
Anybody who lives near mangroves knows mangrove forests can migrate much faster than that. Mangrove roots can spring up from the soil several feet from the trunk of the host mangrove tree.
Moreover, mangrove seed pods float on the water and can, therefore, take root at the same pace with the rising waters and tides.
Accordingly, mangrove forests can easily keep up with rising sea level, and can certainly migrate more than 0.27 inches of sea-level rise per year.
Wild Sea-Level Speculation
Regardless, according to NASA satellite measurements, sea level is currently rising at approximately 3 millimeters (0.1 inches) per year, a pace that has held steady for at least the past 25 years.
That is less than half the pace of what the modelers dubiously predict as the upper pace of mangrove migration.
So, even at an upper migration limit of 0.27 inches per year, the authors of the Weather Channel-cited study acknowledge mangroves are easily keeping up with modest sea-level rise.
However, the authors of the study cited by the Weather Channel dubiously speculate that sea-level rise will immediately and dramatically skyrocket.
The authors speculate that within 30 years, sea levels will rise at nearly triple its current pace – despite no significant increase in the pace of sea-level rise since satellite instruments began measuring sea-level rise late last century.
Accordingly, the notion that sea-level rise will nearly triple between now and 2050 is far-fetched.
Misrepresenting the 30-Year Threshold
Nevertheless, even if the dubious rapid and immediate acceleration of sea level occurs, and even in the unlikely event that mangrove systems cannot migrate at 0.27 inches per year, the year 2050 would be the year in which mangroves would first start to struggle to keep up with sea-level rise – it would not be the year in which all mangroves all over the world become extinct, as the Weather Channel claims.
Alarmists Assume People Can’t Plant Seeds
Moreover, in the event all those dubious events occurred, people could easily plant mangroves at the slightly higher shoreline. It is not that difficult a task.
Holding Alarmists Accountable
The nature of alarmism is to make predictions too far into the future for doomsayers to be held accountable during their lifetimes.
This particular prediction is for 30 years from now, which will allow most people alive today to verify whether the mangrove extinction prediction comes true.
The alarmist prediction will certainly not come true, proving who the “science deniers” truly are.
Mangrove image by Pat Josse from Pixabay
https://climaterealism.com/2020/06/sorry-weather-channel-mangroves-will-not-disappear-in-30-years/
The Weather Channel published an article on its website Wednesday claiming global warming threatens the extinction of mangrove trees – which rely on warm temperatures to live – within 30 years.
Common sense and scientific evidence reveal that the Weather Channel’s alarmist claim is preposterous.
Mangroves Love Heat, Salty Water
Mangrove trees grow along shorelines in saltwater or brackish water. They provide many ecological benefits, including filtering water pollution, anchoring shoreline soil, and providing breeding grounds and host environments for many marine species.
Mangroves are very susceptible to frost events and therefore are limited to the tropics and subtropics. There are no coastlines that are too warm for them, as they grow throughout the tropics and thrive even along the equator on all three continents that span the equator.
Mangroves Currently Expanding Their Range
Recent scientific research shows warming temperatures allow mangrove trees to grow larger and more rapidly, and also for mangrove forests to expand their ranges.
A recent study in the peer-reviewed Journal of Ecology reports, “As freeze events decline with climate change, mangroves expand their range to higher latitudes….”
The Journal of Ecology study also mangroves dramatically increase their growth and concentrations under warmer conditions.
“We found that chronic warming doubled plant height and accelerated the expansion of mangrove into salt marsh vegetation, as indicated by a six-fold greater increase in mangrove cover in warmed plots compared to ambient temperature plots,” the study found.
That’s right, mangrove cover increased six-fold under warmer temperatures!
The study also found warmer temperatures facilitated elevation gain, with mangroves migrating further inland from the shore, “driven by increased mangrove root production in warmed plots.”
Dubious Alarmism
How, then, does the Weather Channel claim global warming threatens to make mangroves go extinct within 30 years?
The Weather Channel cited a very dubious alarmist study regarding mangroves and sea-level rise, and then further misrepresented the dubious study to make it appear even more alarmist.
One could call the Weather Channel’s (mis)representations bad science, but even that would likely be too kind.
Stationary Ranges?
In the study cited by the Weather Channel, modelers attempted to discern the pace of mangrove migration 10,000 years ago when the global sea level dramatically rose.
The modelers then forecast that mangrove forests can migrate to higher elevations at a speed of no more than 7 millimeters (0.27 inches) of sea-level rise per year.
Anybody who lives near mangroves knows mangrove forests can migrate much faster than that. Mangrove roots can spring up from the soil several feet from the trunk of the host mangrove tree.
Moreover, mangrove seed pods float on the water and can, therefore, take root at the same pace with the rising waters and tides.
Accordingly, mangrove forests can easily keep up with rising sea level, and can certainly migrate more than 0.27 inches of sea-level rise per year.
Wild Sea-Level Speculation
Regardless, according to NASA satellite measurements, sea level is currently rising at approximately 3 millimeters (0.1 inches) per year, a pace that has held steady for at least the past 25 years.
That is less than half the pace of what the modelers dubiously predict as the upper pace of mangrove migration.
So, even at an upper migration limit of 0.27 inches per year, the authors of the Weather Channel-cited study acknowledge mangroves are easily keeping up with modest sea-level rise.
However, the authors of the study cited by the Weather Channel dubiously speculate that sea-level rise will immediately and dramatically skyrocket.
The authors speculate that within 30 years, sea levels will rise at nearly triple its current pace – despite no significant increase in the pace of sea-level rise since satellite instruments began measuring sea-level rise late last century.
Accordingly, the notion that sea-level rise will nearly triple between now and 2050 is far-fetched.
Misrepresenting the 30-Year Threshold
Nevertheless, even if the dubious rapid and immediate acceleration of sea level occurs, and even in the unlikely event that mangrove systems cannot migrate at 0.27 inches per year, the year 2050 would be the year in which mangroves would first start to struggle to keep up with sea-level rise – it would not be the year in which all mangroves all over the world become extinct, as the Weather Channel claims.
Alarmists Assume People Can’t Plant Seeds
Moreover, in the event all those dubious events occurred, people could easily plant mangroves at the slightly higher shoreline. It is not that difficult a task.
Holding Alarmists Accountable
The nature of alarmism is to make predictions too far into the future for doomsayers to be held accountable during their lifetimes.
This particular prediction is for 30 years from now, which will allow most people alive today to verify whether the mangrove extinction prediction comes true.
The alarmist prediction will certainly not come true, proving who the “science deniers” truly are.
Mangrove image by Pat Josse from Pixabay
https://climaterealism.com/2020/06/sorry-weather-channel-mangroves-will-not-disappear-in-30-years/
why does all your graphs only goes back to 196O or 1880? the earth is millions of years oldHansen's 1988 prediction.
You claimed that all 40 year old predictions were wrong.
You should admit you are wrong instead of trying to change the debate.
check the source of his propaganda
if it is www.realclimate.org then you know Michael E. Mann is involved, the same alarmist twice caught
1 for producing the fraudulent hockey stick
2. climategate conspiring with Phil Jones to " redefine the Peer Review process"
then watch Framkfooter go absolutely ape shit trying to defend a very obvious fraudulent activist mascara-ding as a scientist
The people who claimed Mann was a fraud were sued in court and had to apologize.
larue.
Mann's work has been confirmed by multiple studies, the 'climategate' conspiracy theories were all found to be nonsense when investigated and only people who 20 years behind the times still think its an issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#Congressional_investigations
And there's this.
Mann elected to National Academy of Sciences
Did Tim Ball get elected there as well?
Anthony Watts?
Judith Curry?
https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-news-dr-tim-ball-defeats-michael-manns-climate-lawsuit/
Breaking News: Dr Tim Ball Defeats Michael Mann’s Climate Lawsuit!
Published on August 23, 2019
Supreme Court of British Columbia dismisses Dr Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit versus Canadian skeptic climatologist, Dr Tim Ball. Full legal costs are awarded to Dr Ball, the defendant in the case.
The Canadian court issued it’s final ruling in favor of the Dismissal motion that was filed in May 2019 by Dr Tim Ball’s libel lawyers. View the Judge’s Decision here.
The plaintiff Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, first published in 1998, was featured prominently in the U.N. 2001 climate report. The graph showed an “unprecedented” spike in global average temperature in the 20th Century after about 500 years of stability.
Skeptics have long claimed Mann’s graph was fraudulent.
On Friday morning (August 23, 2019) Dr Ball sent an email to WUWT revealing:
“Michael Mann’s Case Against Me Was Dismissed This Morning By The BC Supreme Court And They Awarded Me [Court] Costs.”
‘Hockey Stick’ Discredited by Statisticians in 2003
In 2003 a Canadian study showed the “hockey stick” curve “is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.” When the data was corrected it showed a warm period in the 15th Century that exceeded the warmth of the 20th Century.
So, the graph was junk science. You could put baseball scores into Mann’s Climate Model and it would create the Hockey Stick.
But the big question then became: did Mann intentionally falsify his graph from motivation to make profit and/or cause harm (i.e. commit the five elements of criminal fraud)?
No one could answer that question unless Mann surrendered his numbers. He was never going to do that voluntarily – or face severe consequences for not doing so – that is, until Dr Ball came into the picture!
Breaking News: Dr Tim Ball Defeats Michael Mann’s Climate Lawsuit!
Published on August 23, 2019
Supreme Court of British Columbia dismisses Dr Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit versus Canadian skeptic climatologist, Dr Tim Ball. Full legal costs are awarded to Dr Ball, the defendant in the case.
The Canadian court issued it’s final ruling in favor of the Dismissal motion that was filed in May 2019 by Dr Tim Ball’s libel lawyers. View the Judge’s Decision here.
The plaintiff Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, first published in 1998, was featured prominently in the U.N. 2001 climate report. The graph showed an “unprecedented” spike in global average temperature in the 20th Century after about 500 years of stability.
Skeptics have long claimed Mann’s graph was fraudulent.
On Friday morning (August 23, 2019) Dr Ball sent an email to WUWT revealing:
“Michael Mann’s Case Against Me Was Dismissed This Morning By The BC Supreme Court And They Awarded Me [Court] Costs.”
‘Hockey Stick’ Discredited by Statisticians in 2003
In 2003 a Canadian study showed the “hockey stick” curve “is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.” When the data was corrected it showed a warm period in the 15th Century that exceeded the warmth of the 20th Century.
So, the graph was junk science. You could put baseball scores into Mann’s Climate Model and it would create the Hockey Stick.
But the big question then became: did Mann intentionally falsify his graph from motivation to make profit and/or cause harm (i.e. commit the five elements of criminal fraud)?
No one could answer that question unless Mann surrendered his numbers. He was never going to do that voluntarily – or face severe consequences for not doing so – that is, until Dr Ball came into the picture!
How many times do you have to push this same fake news story?
This is at least the third time and you haven't learned yet.
From Mann:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/08/13/mark-steyns-new-book-on-michael-mann/
Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann
Posted on August 13, 2015 by curryja | 735 Comments
by Judith Curry
A Disgrace to the Profession: The World’s Scientists – in their own words – on Michael E Mann, his Hockey Stick and their Damage to Science – Volume One
The book is organized around quotes from Ph.D. scientists (100+) that have made remarks about Mann, either publicly in interviews, on blogs, or in private emails that were revealed through FOIA or unauthorized releases (e.g. Climategate, SkS).
From climate scientists, all of whom support the general consensus on climate change:
Wallace Broecker: “The goddam guy is a slick talker and super-confident. He won’t listen to anyone else,” one of climate science’s most senior figures, Wally Broecker of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University in New York, told me. “I don’t trust people like that. A lot of the data sets he uses are shitty, you know. They are just not up to what he is trying to do…. If anyone deserves to get hit it is goddam Mann.”
Eduardo Zorita: Why I Think That Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf2 Should be Barred from the IPCC Process. Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore. These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed.
Atte Korhola: Another example is a study recently published in the prestigious journal Science. Proxies have been included selectively, they have been digested, manipulated, filtered, and combined – for example, data collected from Finland in the past by my own colleagues has even been turned upside down such that the warm periods become cold and vice versa. Normally, this would be considered as a scientific forgery, which has serious consequences.
Hans von Storch: A conclusion could be that the principle, according to which data must be made public, so that also adversaries may check the analysis, must be really enforced. Another conclusion could be that scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment activities like IPCC.
Bo Christiansen: The hockey-stick curve does not stand. It does not mean that we cancel the manmade greenhouse effect, but the causes have become more nuanced… Popularly, it can be said that the flat piece on the hockey stick is too flat. In addition, their method contains a large element of randomness. It is almost impossible to conclude from reconstruction studies that the present period is warmer than any period in the reconstructed period.
David Rind: Concerning the hockey stick: what Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is that there is practically no reliable tropical data for most of the time period, and without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm) the globe actually got. I’ve made the comment to Mike several times, but it doesn’t seem to get across.
Tom Wigley: I have just read the M&M stuff criticizing MBH. A lot of it seems valid to me. At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work – an opinion I have held for some time. Can you give me a brief heads up? Mike is too deep into this to be helpful.
From Mann’s collaborators and coauthors:
Phil Jones: Keith [Briffa] didn’t mention in his Science piece but both of us think that you’re on very dodgy ground with this long-term decline in temperatures on the thousand-year timescale. It is better we put the caveats in ourselves than let others put them in for us.
Keith Briffa: I have just read this letter – and I think it is crap. I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few tropical series. He is just as capable of regressing these data again any other “target” series, such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage he has produced over the last few years
Edward Cook: I will be sure not to bring this up to Mike. As you know, he thinks that CRU is out to get him in some sense. I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly cannot be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.
Raymond Bradley: I would like to disassociate myself from Mike Mann’s view. As for thinking that it is “Better that nothing appear, than something unnacceptable to us” …as though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant. Science moves forward whether we agree with individual articles or not.
Matti Saarnisto: In that article [Science], my group’s research material from Korttajärvi, near Jyväskylä, was used in such a way that the Medieval Warm Period was shown as a mirror image. The graph was flipped upside-down. In this email I received yesterday from one of the authors of the article, my good friend Professor Ray Bradley …says there was a large group of researchers who had been handling an extremely large amount of research material, and at some point it happened that this graph was turned upside-down. But then this happened yet another time in Science, and now I doubt if it can be a mistake anymore. But how it is possible that this type of material is repeatedly published in these top science journals? There is a small circle going round and around, relatively few people are reviewing each other’s papers, and that is in my opinion the worrying aspect.
Rob Wilson: I want to clarify that my 2 hour lecture was, I hope, a critical look at all of the northern hemispheric reconstructions of past temperature to date. It was not focused entirely on Michael Mann’s work. The “crock of xxxx” statement was focused entirely on recent work by Michael Mann w.r.t. hypothesized missing rings in tree-ring records. Although a rather flippant statement, I stand by it and Mann is well aware of my criticisms (privately and through the peer reviewed literature) of his recent work.
Some of the harshest criticisms come from physicists; I’ve selected this one from Jonathan Jones, who I had the pleasure of meeting with last June while in the UK:
Jonathan Jones: My whole involvement has always been driven by concerns about the corruption of science. Like many people I was dragged into this by the Hockey Stick. The Hockey Stick is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence, so I started reading round the subject. And it soon became clear that the first extraordinary thing about the evidence for the Hockey Stick was how extraordinarily weak it was, and the second extraordinary thing was how desperate its defenders were to hide this fact. The Hockey Stick is obviously wrong. Climategate 2011 shows that even many of its most outspoken public defenders know it is obviously wrong. And yet it goes on being published and defended year after year. Do I expect you to publicly denounce the Hockey Stick as obvious drivel? Well yes, that’s what you should do. It is the job of scientists of integrity to expose pathological science. It is a litmus test of whether climate scientists are prepared to stand up against the bullying defenders of pathology in their midst.
Two of the most surprising statements (to me) are from two young scientists associated with Skeptical Science:
Neal King: My impression is that Mann and buddies have sometimes gone out on a limb when that was unnecessary and ill-advised. Mann, for all his technical ability, is sometimes his own worst enemy. Similarly, with regard to “hiding the decline” in Climategate, I am left with the impression that the real question is, Why would you believe the tree-ring proxies at earlier times when you KNOW that they didn’t work properly in the 1990s? Mann et al spent too much time defending what was incorrect, and allowed the totality of the argument to become “infected” by the fight.
Robert Way: I don’t mean to be the pessimist of the group here but Mc2 brought up some very good points about the original hockey stick. I’ve personally seen work that is unpublished that challenges every single one of his reconstructions because they all either understate or overstate low-frequency variations. Mann et al stood by after their original HS and let others treat it with the confidence that they themselves couldn’t assign to it. The original hockey stick still used the wrong methods and these methods were defended over and over despite being wrong. He fought like a dog to discredit and argue with those on the other side that his method was not flawed. And in the end he never admitted that the entire method was a mistake. They then let this HS be used in every way possible despite knowing the stats behind it weren’t rock solid.
This selection of quotes does not include the strongest ‘zingers’, which come from scientists that are somewhat further afield or have made public statements that are critical of the AGW consensus.
Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann
Posted on August 13, 2015 by curryja | 735 Comments
by Judith Curry
A Disgrace to the Profession: The World’s Scientists – in their own words – on Michael E Mann, his Hockey Stick and their Damage to Science – Volume One
The book is organized around quotes from Ph.D. scientists (100+) that have made remarks about Mann, either publicly in interviews, on blogs, or in private emails that were revealed through FOIA or unauthorized releases (e.g. Climategate, SkS).
From climate scientists, all of whom support the general consensus on climate change:
Wallace Broecker: “The goddam guy is a slick talker and super-confident. He won’t listen to anyone else,” one of climate science’s most senior figures, Wally Broecker of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University in New York, told me. “I don’t trust people like that. A lot of the data sets he uses are shitty, you know. They are just not up to what he is trying to do…. If anyone deserves to get hit it is goddam Mann.”
Eduardo Zorita: Why I Think That Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf2 Should be Barred from the IPCC Process. Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore. These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed.
Atte Korhola: Another example is a study recently published in the prestigious journal Science. Proxies have been included selectively, they have been digested, manipulated, filtered, and combined – for example, data collected from Finland in the past by my own colleagues has even been turned upside down such that the warm periods become cold and vice versa. Normally, this would be considered as a scientific forgery, which has serious consequences.
Hans von Storch: A conclusion could be that the principle, according to which data must be made public, so that also adversaries may check the analysis, must be really enforced. Another conclusion could be that scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment activities like IPCC.
Bo Christiansen: The hockey-stick curve does not stand. It does not mean that we cancel the manmade greenhouse effect, but the causes have become more nuanced… Popularly, it can be said that the flat piece on the hockey stick is too flat. In addition, their method contains a large element of randomness. It is almost impossible to conclude from reconstruction studies that the present period is warmer than any period in the reconstructed period.
David Rind: Concerning the hockey stick: what Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is that there is practically no reliable tropical data for most of the time period, and without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm) the globe actually got. I’ve made the comment to Mike several times, but it doesn’t seem to get across.
Tom Wigley: I have just read the M&M stuff criticizing MBH. A lot of it seems valid to me. At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work – an opinion I have held for some time. Can you give me a brief heads up? Mike is too deep into this to be helpful.
From Mann’s collaborators and coauthors:
Phil Jones: Keith [Briffa] didn’t mention in his Science piece but both of us think that you’re on very dodgy ground with this long-term decline in temperatures on the thousand-year timescale. It is better we put the caveats in ourselves than let others put them in for us.
Keith Briffa: I have just read this letter – and I think it is crap. I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few tropical series. He is just as capable of regressing these data again any other “target” series, such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage he has produced over the last few years
Edward Cook: I will be sure not to bring this up to Mike. As you know, he thinks that CRU is out to get him in some sense. I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly cannot be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.
Raymond Bradley: I would like to disassociate myself from Mike Mann’s view. As for thinking that it is “Better that nothing appear, than something unnacceptable to us” …as though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant. Science moves forward whether we agree with individual articles or not.
Matti Saarnisto: In that article [Science], my group’s research material from Korttajärvi, near Jyväskylä, was used in such a way that the Medieval Warm Period was shown as a mirror image. The graph was flipped upside-down. In this email I received yesterday from one of the authors of the article, my good friend Professor Ray Bradley …says there was a large group of researchers who had been handling an extremely large amount of research material, and at some point it happened that this graph was turned upside-down. But then this happened yet another time in Science, and now I doubt if it can be a mistake anymore. But how it is possible that this type of material is repeatedly published in these top science journals? There is a small circle going round and around, relatively few people are reviewing each other’s papers, and that is in my opinion the worrying aspect.
Rob Wilson: I want to clarify that my 2 hour lecture was, I hope, a critical look at all of the northern hemispheric reconstructions of past temperature to date. It was not focused entirely on Michael Mann’s work. The “crock of xxxx” statement was focused entirely on recent work by Michael Mann w.r.t. hypothesized missing rings in tree-ring records. Although a rather flippant statement, I stand by it and Mann is well aware of my criticisms (privately and through the peer reviewed literature) of his recent work.
Some of the harshest criticisms come from physicists; I’ve selected this one from Jonathan Jones, who I had the pleasure of meeting with last June while in the UK:
Jonathan Jones: My whole involvement has always been driven by concerns about the corruption of science. Like many people I was dragged into this by the Hockey Stick. The Hockey Stick is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence, so I started reading round the subject. And it soon became clear that the first extraordinary thing about the evidence for the Hockey Stick was how extraordinarily weak it was, and the second extraordinary thing was how desperate its defenders were to hide this fact. The Hockey Stick is obviously wrong. Climategate 2011 shows that even many of its most outspoken public defenders know it is obviously wrong. And yet it goes on being published and defended year after year. Do I expect you to publicly denounce the Hockey Stick as obvious drivel? Well yes, that’s what you should do. It is the job of scientists of integrity to expose pathological science. It is a litmus test of whether climate scientists are prepared to stand up against the bullying defenders of pathology in their midst.
Two of the most surprising statements (to me) are from two young scientists associated with Skeptical Science:
Neal King: My impression is that Mann and buddies have sometimes gone out on a limb when that was unnecessary and ill-advised. Mann, for all his technical ability, is sometimes his own worst enemy. Similarly, with regard to “hiding the decline” in Climategate, I am left with the impression that the real question is, Why would you believe the tree-ring proxies at earlier times when you KNOW that they didn’t work properly in the 1990s? Mann et al spent too much time defending what was incorrect, and allowed the totality of the argument to become “infected” by the fight.
Robert Way: I don’t mean to be the pessimist of the group here but Mc2 brought up some very good points about the original hockey stick. I’ve personally seen work that is unpublished that challenges every single one of his reconstructions because they all either understate or overstate low-frequency variations. Mann et al stood by after their original HS and let others treat it with the confidence that they themselves couldn’t assign to it. The original hockey stick still used the wrong methods and these methods were defended over and over despite being wrong. He fought like a dog to discredit and argue with those on the other side that his method was not flawed. And in the end he never admitted that the entire method was a mistake. They then let this HS be used in every way possible despite knowing the stats behind it weren’t rock solid.
This selection of quotes does not include the strongest ‘zingers’, which come from scientists that are somewhat further afield or have made public statements that are critical of the AGW consensus.
I thought you only discussed the science and said that attacks on scientists are disgusting.
I take this also as you conceding that you can't win the argument about the science.
If this is all you can add to the climate change debate......
So it is petty clear That Michael Mann is not a very trustworthy person , he is an activist masquerading as a scientist and sadly he is a fraud
hell when ones own colleagues get pissed about his fraud it is a red flag that often cited graphics from his website are not suitable as evidence. ie trust factor
Hopefully the distinction between a scientist and a fraud is clear. One can not be a scientist and a fraud at the same time
a little poetic justice perhaps given how many honest hard working real scientist on the opposing side have endured despicable character assignation and they have never attempted to defraud anyone, they just had a differing view
hell when ones own colleagues get pissed about his fraud it is a red flag that often cited graphics from his website are not suitable as evidence. ie trust factor
Hopefully the distinction between a scientist and a fraud is clear. One can not be a scientist and a fraud at the same time
a little poetic justice perhaps given how many honest hard working real scientist on the opposing side have endured despicable character assignation and they have never attempted to defraud anyone, they just had a differing view
Its clear that you aren't very trustworthy, larue.
Posting third hand, partial quotes as attacks is pretty lame.
Its about as lame as the climategate conspiracy theory was, where the oil industry hacked researchers and used partial quotes to try to paint them poorly.
Just like you and Steyn.
Obviously you can't debate the science, so this is what you're left with.
Lame.
You can't give an alternate theory to explain warming, can you?
The Arctic Is Unraveling as a Massive Heat Wave Grips the Region
June 16, 1917
Ojai is just inland from Santa Barbara On this date in 1917 the reported temperature was 128 degrees, and the town burned up. Today is 57 degrees cooler than 1917.
Ojai is just inland from Santa Barbara On this date in 1917 the reported temperature was 128 degrees, and the town burned up. Today is 57 degrees cooler than 1917.
