Crescendo to Climategate Cacophony - DeSmogBlog

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Crescendo to ClimateGate Cacophony V1.0 03/15/10 sharing and archiving, noting “Their recommendations are reproduced here because, although they sound scientific and sensible, most have been ignored in economic science.‖ The second complains about lack of data archiving in economics, but includes a seemingly-gratuitous footnote attacking Mann. With all due respect to economists, whereas the results of physics models tend to converge over time, it is not instantly clear that this happens the same way in economics, in which case it is especially important for the latter to show the code and data used to generate forecasts. I have previously written about ways in which people with narrow computational experience sometimes over-generalize their experiences to other disciplines involved with computing: www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/simple-question-simple-answer-no/#comment-97878 “Working paper at Federal Reserve” is not most people‟s idea of an academic paper. With all due respect to the relevance of economics to policy, might it be wise to know a little more about the science before writing about it. Why are these here? ideas.repec.org/a/fip/fedlrv/y2006ijanp81-93nv.88no.1.html ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedlwp/2005-014.html p.54 ―Center for Science and Public Policy (2005) ―Climate change and the insurance industry: A critical look at the Cere report - Availability and affordability of insurance under climate change, a growing challenge for the U.S.‖ The Center for Science and Public Policy, October 28, 2005.‖ That is worse than odd. I make no comment on the quality of the report itself, which is: ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/ceres.pdf That source is CSPP, an ExxonMobil funded center within FF, run by Ferguson. Either they got this from P.Spencer or found it themselves. In either case, how “expert” is it to include a paper from such a source, treating it as an academic paper? p.55 “Lindzen, Richard (2005) ―Understanding common climate claims,‖ to appear Proceedings of the 2005 Erice Meeting of the World Federation of Scientists on Global Emergencies” Lindzen‘s views were well-known, and this paper was not for climate scientists: www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Lindzen_2005_Climate_Claims.pdf It certainly does reference M&M. It also references Singer‘s claims about Revelle, Happer‘s claims about politicization of science, and a Soon paper in E&E.. This paper offers ―Republicans versus sunspots‖ chart (p.8) Again, did P.Spencer feed this to them, or did they find this obscure source? p.56 Given the topic, it was likely necessary to reference the next two, but normally, E&E is considered “grey literature” or “journal of last resort for out-of-mainstream papers.” Major journals publish papers they think actually matter. Did the statisticians not know about E&E? ―McIntyre, Stephen and McKitrick, Ross (2003) ―Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy data base and Northern hemispheric average temperature series,‖ Energy and Environment, 14, 751-771. McIntyre, Stephen and McKitrick, Ross (2005a) ―The M&M critique of MBH98 Northern hemisphere climate index: Update and implications,‖ Energy and Environment, 16(1), 69-100.‖ p.57 IPCC is listed equal to Newsweek articles, and four popular press articles discuss global cooling around 1975. A common anti-science meme is ―Scientific consensus predicted impending ice age in the 1970s‖, meaning scientists were wrong. It didn‟t and they weren‟t. www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008BAMS2370.1 Such popular articles are irrelevant to the hockey stick discussion. 170
Crescendo to ClimateGate Cacophony V1.0 03/15/10 Does this report really need more articles by Lindzen (WSJ), Legates (Financial Post), and Michaels (Washington Times)? Did they believe Crok? Why? He had studied chemistry, but from Google Scholar had never published any peer-reviewed papers. He was Editor-in-Chief of a tennis magazine, and (2003-2009) a science writer for NWT, a Dutch popular science magazine. However, he was in contact with McIntyre by 1Q05. Did M&M provide it to WP, either directly or through P.Spencer? Is there any other plausible explanation? The reference is not to the original Dutch version, but to an English translation, hosted at McKitrick‟s website, mentioned by McIntyre: climateaudit.org/2005/03/04/german-translation-of-marcel-croks-article-with-new-comments www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf Other Literature Including Articles in the Popular Press ―Colligan, Douglas (1973) ―Brace yourself for another ice age,‖ Science Digest, 73(2), 57-61. “Crok, Marcel (2005) ―Proof that mankind causes climate change is refuted: Kyoto protocol based on flawed statistics,‖ Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, February 2005. Gwynne, Peter (1975) ―The cooling world,‖ Newsweek, April 28, 1975. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001) Climate Change 2001: Third Assessment Report, IPCC (Especially Chapter 2: ―Observed climate variability and change,‖ Folland C. K. and Karl, T. R., coordinating lead authors). Legates, David (2005) ―Where‘s the data?: holding science to prospectus standards would stop climate researchers from launching misrepresentations like the ‗Hockey Stick‘,‖ Financial Post, September 20, 2005. Lindzen, Richard (2001) ―Scientist‘ report doesn‘t support the Kyoto Treaty,‖ Wall Street Journal, June 11, 2001. Michaels, Patrick J. and Douglass, David H. (2004) ―Global-warming sciences meltdown,‖ Washington Times, Aug 16, 2004, page A17. Muller, Richard (2004) ―Global warming bombshell,‖ MIT Technology Review, www.technologyreview.com/BizTech/wtr_13830,296,p1.htm Sullivan, Walter (1975a) ―Scientists ask why world climate is changing: Major cooling may be ahead,‖ The New York Times, p. 92, May 21, 1975. Sullivan, Walter (1975b) ―Climatic changes by aerosols in atmosphere feared,‖ The New York Times, pg. 1, September 14, 1975.‖ Presentations p.57―McIntyre, Stephen and McKitrick, Ross (2005) ―The Hockey Stick Debate: Lessons in Disclosure and Due Diligence,‖ September 7, 2005 Does that seem a proper citation? As it happens, it was a presentation at GMI, never mentioned anywhere in the WR. M&M were both GMI “Experts”, but that affiliation did not appear either. www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/316.pdf [GMI2005a]. Does this scholarship seem up the normal standards of distinguished academics? 171
Page 1 and 2:
Crescendo to Climategate Cacophony
Page 3 and 4:
Crescendo to ClimateGate Cacophony
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
GMU GWPF Crescendo to ClimateGate C
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120: Crescendo to ClimateGate Cacophony
Page 169: Crescendo to ClimateGate Cacophony
Page 185: Crescendo to ClimateGate Cacophony
show all

Crescendo to Climategate Cacophony - DeSmogBlog

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?