An Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore is Phony

[Ramo]

Science works by peer review. Practically nobody in the climate modelling community puts out papers that assert that humans have a negligible impact in global warming and that survive peer criticism. Again, see the Oreskes study.

You can't compare this with evolution because evolution is based on hard facts (fossiles, genetics, observations etc) while the reasons behind global warming still are guesses and computermodels that plainly tells what the questioner wants to hear

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

MBH dead, dead, dead.


Dead as in Monty Python parrot sketch dead.

Excerpted fact Sheet

Wegmen report

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Debate on climate change far from over
The UN panel from which governments get their information is deeply flawed, writes Economics editor Alan Wood
July 19, 2006
AT lunchtime on Monday, John Howard and Victoria's Steve Bracks were on their feet talking about energy, climate change and the environment. While their approaches were notably different, there is one thing on which they both agree: the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the font of all scientific wisdom on global warming.

In fact it has become quite fashionable of late to assert the global warming debate is over and an overwhelming scientific consensus prevails. This is simply untrue.

As acknowledged in an Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics report on climate change scenarios, also released on Monday, there are still considerable scientific uncertainties surrounding the nature and extent of future climate change.

A report released in the US on Friday has torn apart one of the main props used by the IPCC to illustrate the need for urgent action on climate change. The report raises serious questions about the IPCC process and the findings on which world governments rely in forming their climate change policies. First, some background.

In telling the global warming story the IPCC, since 2001, has relied very, very heavily on what has become known as the "hockey stick". It is based on a 1999 paper, the principal author of which was paleoclimatologist Michael Mann.

Before the publication of his paper the generally accepted view of the past 1000 years was that there was a period of elevated temperatures known as the Medieval Warm Period, which was followed by the Little Ice Age, and then a new period of global warming.

Mann's hockey stick eliminated the Medieval Warm Period, flattening the fluctuations in global temperatures over most of the past millennium (the blade of the hockey stick) until we get to the 20th century, where the rate of global warming takes off in a sharp upward surge (the handle of the hockey stick).

This is the basis for the IPCC claim, now widely accepted, that the 20th century was the warmest in the past 1000 years, the 1990s were the warmest decade in the past millennium, and 1998 was the warmest year in the past 1000 years. Scary stuff!

Two Canadians, Steve McIntyre, an engineer, and Ross McKitrick, an economist, challenged Mann's work in 2003. They argued his technique produced hockey sticks from just about any set of data. Mann responded in a notably less than scientific manner by withholding adverse statistical results and important data, and discouraging the publication of criticism of his work.

A Wall Street Journal report of the controversy last year attracted the attention of the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce. It wrote to Mann and his co-authors, as well as to the IPCC, demanding relevant information and then approached independent US statisticians for advice on assessing the data provided.

Leading US statistician Edward Wegman, of George Mason University, who is chairman of the US National Academy of Sciences' committee on applied and theoretical statistics, agreed to assemble a group of statisticians to assess the Mann data. Their report was released last Friday and supported McKitrick and McIntyre's criticisms of the hockey stick, finding Mann's statistical work flawed and unable to support the claims of the hottest century, decade and year of the past millennium.

Yet the IPCC used the hockey stick in its publications, media releases, press conferences - where senior IPCC figures sat with the chart as a backdrop - and, for a time, incorporated it into the IPCC's logo.

It is important to understand that this is a debate about the use of statistics. Mann did no original scientific work, using available data and manipulating it in a new way.

However, it destroys the idea of an alarming escalation in global temperatures and, as the Wall Street Journal remarked on Friday, brings the present temperature rise within the range of natural historical variation.

There remains plenty of room for argument about the projections of future temperature rises and their implications, based on what are still primitive climate change models. But there is no escaping the damage done to the IPCC's reputation. It has relied heavily on a badly flawed piece of work, produced by what Wegman discovered was a small, insular group of paleoclimatologists who incestuously peer review, reinforce and defend each others' work.

Significantly, former commonwealth statistician Ian Castles and his colleague David Henderson, former head of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's economics department, have also exposed statistical and analytical flaws in the economic scenarios underlying the IPCC's climate change projections. As with McIntyre and McKitrick's criticism of the hockey stick, the IPCC establishment initially tried to ignore, then discredit, their work.

However, last year a House of Lords committee looking at the economics of climate change praised their work and said that without them the debate on emissions scenarios would not have taken place.

The Lords committee also expressed concerns that the IPCC was an increasingly politicised body that tried to suppress dissent. It warned of a risk it was becoming a knowledge monopoly, "in some respects unwilling to listen to those who do not pursue the consensus line".

In an article last week in Canadian newspaper the National Post, McIntyre and McKitrick say the IPCC's lead author, who selected Mann's hockey stick for prominent display, was none other than Mann himself. They quote eminent US climate science academic Kurt Cuffey as saying the IPCC's use of the hockey stick sent "a very misleading message".

They ask a pertinent question.

If the IPCC process isn't fixed, and there is no evidence the IPCC intends to do anything about it, how do we know it won't send out another very misleading message in its upcoming Fourth Assessment report?

The Australian

[Solly]

Interesting Ogie Sums it all up very well.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

This was the money quote:

It is important to understand that this is a debate about the use of statistics. Mann did no original scientific work, using available data and manipulating it in a new way.

Given that the arguement is all about statistics and Mann has admitted he himself is no statistian, the die is cast when faced with a stat heavy weight like Wegman.

Game, set, match.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Game, set, match.

I still don't see the doomsday industry letting up though. Facts don't usually get in the way of hard-set opinions.

[Arrian]

This is pretty damning too:

relied heavily on a badly flawed piece of work, produced by what Wegman discovered was a small, insular group of paleoclimatologists who incestuously peer review, reinforce and defend each others' work.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Arrian,

Yeah that is the ultimate key point but of course that is much harder to prove and a matter of speculation moreso than hard cold facts. To date Mann has buffaloed, belittled and bluffed his way on to center stage with his climate clique posse backing him. Faced with this factual slap down (Wegman's support of M&M) one can start to see the failings of the insular peer review system but that of course will be glossed over as these scientists and all their peer review buddies had no 'agenda'.


Whats interesting is the response so far from Mann. (Real Climate) The Wegman report calls quite appropriately for independant statistician review akin to things they do for drug company testings etc. The gnashing of teeth and rationale after rationale for not sharing methodologies (from Mann et.al.) is amazing.

[Arrian]

I think the concept of peer review is excellent. But ultimately, people are people, and they're going to do things that muck it up from time to time. There is always, I fear, going to be the danger of groupthink.

Ultimately, it *did* get caught because other people (in this case, statisticians) checked it out. That's a sort of peer review.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian
I think the concept of peer review is excellent. But ultimately, people are people, and they're going to do things that muck it up from time to time. There is always, I fear, going to be the danger of groupthink.

Ultimately, it *did* get caught because other people (in this case, statisticians) checked it out. That's a sort of peer review.

-Arrian

One could argue that it happened 8-9 years after the fact, wherein the damage was already done in the form of national and international policy, Mann's testimonial in front of congress claiming the 20th century was the hottest in 2000 years and that the affect was attirbutable chiefly to man made affects ( a point which may be true but is simply unproven), the cannard echoed in the MSM chamber even today etc.

Even now this information is not being covered to any great extent by MSM save an editorial a few days back by WSJ. It will take a while for this to seep out to the general public.


This probably is as much a condemnation of the politics of science as peer review per se though.


The one aspect of the Wegman report that I thought weak was the social network portion. It was interesting and plausible but clearly not provable. Clearly it was there to buttress recommendations such as the one I mentioned above. Need for independant statistician verificantion prior to publication of work or use of such work in determining public policy.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

TCO where are you?

[TCO]

Here is a good geologist:

http://climateaudit.org

[TCO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Actually, Gore is correct. Those two guys are on the oil companies payroll. When 95% of all climatologists agree, and the ones who don't are working for fossil feul companies, there is really no debate. Just a bunch of dunderheads who refuse to see the truth because it might cost them some profits.

And way to misinterpret what the report said (which mentioned the Little Ice Age, btw).

1. Where is your proof? Do you even know which people he is referring to? (If so, what are the names and let's see the proof).
2. Who cares? If they are right and paid by oil companies, they are still right. Converse, same.
3. What does it show about the quality of Gore and his arguments that he plays the man, rather then the ball.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Yup. The National Academy of Sciences has completed a report that says there is good evidence that we humans have been causing global warming.

Did you read it? Can you discuss it with sophistication? What are the conflicts within the report? Was the report on this topic or scoped to a less general one?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I quoting this because it needs to be said again. As Victor previously said 95%+ of all real climate scientists have agreed that the Earth is warming and it is mostly due to human activity. The energy industry and many right wing nut jobs have bankrolled crap "science" studies which are designed to pretend there is not concensus in the scientific community. This is exactly like the "Intelligent Design" theists.

I saw a survey that showed that 25% of meteorologists do not accept proof of GW. In any case, this topic has become politicized. When you see people standing behind models (years ago) that are now repudiated, but we have new models that are better but tell the same story, it worries you. There is a pattern to this type of behavior.

All this said, I think GW is likely based on record of temp increase. But the science and the level of objectivity is atrocious.