FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Books, dissertations, abstract

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 5 | 6 || 8 | 9 |   ...   | 33 |

«Edited and Annotated by John Costella The Lavoisier Group March 2010 About the Author John Costella was born in East Melbourne in 1966. After being ...»

-- [ Page 7 ] --

The community of climate scientists, however, in making averages of different proxies gets a much smaller amplitude of about 0.5° Celsius, which they say shows that reasonable combinations of effects can indeed explain this and that the 20th century warming is unique.

Keller realizes the mistake inherent in this trick shortly. First, he provides an excellent

summary of the debate:

Thus, the impasse—one side the skeptics pointing to large temperature variations in many records around the globe, and the other side saying, “Yes, but not at the same time and so, if averaged out, is no big deal.”

He then points out that this glib brush-off is simply not valid:

But, just replying that events don’t happen at the same time (sometimes by a few decades) is the reason might not be enough. It seems to me that we must go one step further. We must address the question: what effects can generate large … temperature variations over hundreds of years, regional though they may be (and, could these occur at different times in different regions due to shifting climate patterns)? If we can’t do this, then there might be something wrong with our rationale that the average does not vary much even though many regions see large variations. This may be the nub of the disagreement, and until we answer it, many careful scientists will decide the issue is still unsettled, and that indeed climate in the past may well have varied as much or more than in the last hundred years.

This remarkable statement—mailed to all of the key players in this scandal—shows that they knew, clearly, more than eight years before the Climategate whistle-blower released these emails, that the entire basis of their claims was on shaky ground.

In his last paragraph, Keller points out the elementary mathematical error in the “averaging trick”:

Also, I note that most proxy temperature records claim timing errors of … 50 years ahead or behind the correct date or so. What is the possibility that records are cancelling each other out on variations in the hundred-year time frame due simply to timing errors?

There are, in fact, many more mathematical reasons why the “averaging trick” is completely wrong; but Keller’s observation is completely correct, and by itself discredits the entire corpus of work establishing these “multi-proxy” historical temperature estimates.

May 2, 2001: email 0988831541.txt Mike Mann criticizes Ed Cook’s work with colleague Jan Esper—not for poor methods or invalid conclusions, but rather because it was being used publicly, before being able to be blocked through the peer review process. Firstly, he applies the “peer group

pressure” argument:

We may have to let the peer-review process decide this, but I think you might benefit from knowing the consensus of the very able group we have assembled in this email list, on what Esper and you have done?

Cook parries admirably:

Of course, I know everyone in this “very able group” and respect their opinions and scientific credentials. The same obviously goes for you. That is not to say that we can’t disagree. After all, consensus science can impede progress as much as promote understanding.

Mann is taken aback, and tries a different tack:

I don’t in any way doubt yours and Jan’s integrity here.

I’m just a bit concerned that the result is getting used publicly, by some, before it has gone through the gauntlet of peer review. Especially because it is, whether you condone it or not, being used as we speak to discredit the work of us, and Phil and his co-workers; this is dangerous. I think there are some legitimate issues that need to be sorted out ….

I’d be interested to be kept posted on what the status of the manuscript is.

Cook responds with a level of integrity foreign to Mann’s mind-set:

Unfortunately, this global change stuff is so politicized by both sides of the issue that it is difficult to do the science in a dispassionate environment. I ran into the same problem in the acid rain/forest decline debate that raged in the 1980s. At one point, I was simultaneous accused of being a raving tree hugger and in the pocket of the coal industry. I have always said that I don’t care what answer is found as long as it is the truth or at least bloody close to it.

May 17, 2001: email 0990119702 Ed Cook makes valid statistical and mathematical criticisms of the error estimation

methods being used by Mike Mann and colleagues:

I have growing doubts about the validity and use of error estimates that are being applied to reconstructions …. (mathematical reasons follow).

But I really think that uncertainty bars on graphs, as often presented, may potentially distort and unfairly degrade the interpreted quality of reconstructions. So, are the uncertainty bars better than nothing? I’m not so sure.

Mike Mann responds by agreeing that the estimates of uncertainties are wrong, but

that wrong estimates are better than nothing:

What you say is of course true, but we have to start somewhere. … I firmly believe that a reconstruction without some reasonable estimate of uncertainty is almost useless! … I believe that this is absolutely essential to do, whether or not we can do a perfect job.

Cook is arguing that misleading estimates of uncertainties are worse than not presenting any estimates at all; Mann is arguing that graphs without error estimates would not look credible, which is more important than the estimates actually being meaningful.

Cook is correct.

May 23, 2001: email 0990718382 John Christy explains the events of the filming of an episode of “20/20” for the American Broadcasting Company, in which he fears he will be quoted out of context,

but he includes the following comment:

However, I do agree with the “20/20” host’s premise … that the dose of climate change disasters that have been dumped on the average citizen is designed to be overly alarmist and could lead us to make some bad policy decisions. (I’ve got a good story about the writers of the TIME cover piece a couple of months ago that proves they were not out to discuss the issue but to ignore science and influence government.)

Mike Mann’s response to this comment is only thinly veiled:

Your comments below remain disturbingly selective and myopic, and we have dealt with similar comments many times over… If the American Broadcasting Company is looking to do a hatchet job on the IPCC so be it (this doesn’t surprise me—”20/20” co-anchor John Stossel has an abysmal record in his treatment of environmental issues, from what I have heard), but I’ll be very disturbed if you turn out to have played into this in a way that is unfair to your co-authors on Chapter 2 of the IPCC Report, and your colleagues in general. This wouldn’t have surprised me coming from certain individuals, but I honestly expected more from you… July 2, 2001: email 0994083845 Ian Harris of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia writes to the Norwich Green Party mailing list, responding to a comment that natural events can

cause climate changes that swamp any effects of mankind:

We’re looking at an unprecedented acceleration in temperature … Even if it turns out to be naturally-occurring, who’s willing to take that chance? We should be trying to wean ourselves off of unsustainable energy generation and use anyway.

This is a remarkable admission: even if the scientists are completely wrong, we “should” force changes on mankind that could cost trillions of dollars, on purely ideological grounds.

December 17, 2001: email 1008619994 Following Phil Jones’s email of February 27, 2001 concerning referees of papers submitted to Science, Keith Briffa, a referee of a paper submitted to Science by Ed

Cook and Jan Esper, tells Cook:

I simply would not like to see you write a paper that puts out a confused message with regard to the global warming debate, leaving ambiguity as to your opinion on the validity of the Mann curve (“the hockey stick”) ….

Briffa is abusing his position of power as a reviewer of the paper, making it clear to Cook that he will block its publication if they deviate from the “party line”. He twists

the knife, using personal intimidation:

I would not like this affair to ruin my Christmas, as it surely will if it is the cause of our falling out.

In other words, change the paper, or you are no longer a friend and colleague.

Finally, he lays down his expectations:

I am totally confident that after a day’s rephrasing this paper can go back and be publishable to my satisfaction by Science.

March 22, 2002: email 1018045075 Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn issued a comment on the paper by Ed Cook and Jan Esper published in Science. Both papers question the work of Mike Mann and coworkers. Mike Mann admonishes all of them, copying the email to two staff of The

American Association for the Advancement of Science:

Sadly, your piece on the Esper and Cook paper is more flawed than even the paper itself. Ed, the Associated Press release that appeared in the papers was even worse. Apparently you allowed yourself to be quoted saying things that are inconsistent with what you told me you had said.

You three all should have known better. … In the meantime, there is a lot of damage control that needs to be done and, in my opinion, you’ve done a disservice to the honest discussions we had all had in the past, because you’ve misrepresented the evidence. Many of us are very concerned with how Science dropped the ball as far as the review process on this paper was concerned. This never should have been published in Science, for the reasons I outlined before (and have attached for those of you who haven’t seen them). I have to wonder why the functioning of the review process broke down so overtly here.

Keith Briffa replies, refuting Mann’s insinuations and rebuffing his intimidations:

Given the list of people to whom you have chosen to circulate your message(s), we thought we should make a short, somewhat formal, response here. I am happy to reserve my informal response until we are face to face!

… Finally, we have to say that we do not feel constrained in what we say to the media or write in the scientific or popular press, by what the skeptics will say or do with our results. We can only strive to do our best and address the issues honestly. Some “skeptics” have their own dishonest agenda—we have no doubt of that. If you believe that I, or Tim, have any other objective but to be open and honest about the uncertainties in the climate change debate, then I am disappointed in you also.

Mike Mann is demonstrating his need to be the unchallenged leader of the team, and his annoyance with anyone who does not toe his line.

March 11, 2003: email 1047388489 A paper by astrophysicists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas was published by Climate Research, which concluded that “the 20th century is probably neither the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.” Phil Jones writes a

number of emails to his colleagues. In the first:

Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore probably, so don’t let it spoil your day. I’ve not looked at it yet. It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in New Zealand. He has let a few papers through by (skeptics) Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere.

His conclusions are remarkable, given that he admits that he hasn’t even looked at

the paper as yet. His next email is sent after having read a small amount:

I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling … I’ll have time to read more at the weekend … The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper determine the answer they get. They have no idea what multiproxy averaging does.

In other words, because these astrophysicists don’t use the mathematically and statistically incorrect method of “averaging” the various temperature proxies to hide the variability of temperature in the past, they’re not members of the club!

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 5 | 6 || 8 | 9 |   ...   | 33 |

Similar works:

«Bernhard Hölzl und Franz Hilpold 5. Lesemotivation und Lernstrategien Im ersten Teil dieses Kapitels wird der Frage nachgegangen, welcher Zusammenhang zwischen dem Leseverhalten und den Leseleistungen besteht. Die Schülerinnen und Schüler werden also gefragt, wie gern sie lesen, wie viel Zeit sie dafür verwenden und welche Art von Lektüre sie bevorzugen und dann wird geprüft, inwiefern sich dies in der Lesefähigkeit niederschlägt. Im zweiten Abschnitt dieses Kapitels wird das...»

«BAUKULTURFÜHRER 81 HOCHBUNKER München HERAUSGEBERIN: NICOLETTE BAUMEISTER · BÜRO WILHELM. VERLAG Deutsch / English HOCHBUNKER MÜNCHEN-SCHWABING Bauzeit: Februar 2012 – Dezember 2013 Architekten: raumstation Architekten, Starnberg Bauherr: Stefan Höglmaier, Euroboden GmbH Transformation einer Trutzburg Es ist ein Bauwerk mit dunkler und beklemmender Vergangenheit. Wenn man einst den wie eine Trutzburg wirkenden Komplex über luftdicht verschließbare Schleusentore betrat, sorgten nur ein...»

«Z6P | Zanke & Partner | Ackerstraße 21| 30826 Garbsen Zanke & Partner Prof. Dr.-Ing habil. Prof. h.c. U. Zanke Ackerstraße 21, 30826 Garbsen Tel. 05131 53269 Fax 05131 54743 mobil: 0172 5417028 email zanke@aol.com Mai 2012 Gutachtliche Stellungnahme zu den Auswirkungen der Unterwasserablagerungen (UWAs) in der Medemrinne und auf dem Neufelder Sand im Zusammenhang mit dem Planfeststellungsverfahren zur Vertiefung der Unterund Außenelbe für 14,5 m tiefgehende Schiffe UST-ID DE 173550728 Bank:...»

«Ascent Capture The Operating System of Capture Advanced Features Guide 10300251-000 Revision AA Copyright Copyright © 2001 Kofax Image Products. All Rights Reserved. Printed in USA. The information contained in this document is the property of Kofax Image Products. Neither receipt nor possession hereof confers or transfers any right to reproduce or disclose any part of the contents hereof, without the prior written consent of Kofax Image Products. No patent liability is assumed, however,...»

«Suhrkamp Verlag Leseprobe Eliot, T. S. Vier Quartette Übertragung und Nachwort von Norbert Hummelt © Suhrkamp Verlag Bibliothek Suhrkamp 1493 978-3-518-22493-9 SV Band 1493 der Bibliothek Suhrkamp T. S. Eliot Vier Quartette Four Quartets Englisch und deutsch Übertragen und mit einem Nachwort versehen von Norbert Hummelt Suhrkamp Verlag Erste Auflage 2015 © der zweisprachigen Ausgabe Suhrkamp Verlag Berlin 2015 © Valerie Eliot Die Ausgabe erfolgt mit freundlicher Genehmigung von Faber &...»

«THE OPEN EDUCATION MOVEMENT IN AUSTRALIA: THE NEED FOR POLITICAL LEADERSHIP Dr Carina Bossu, University of New England, Australia, cbossu3@une.edu.au Mr David Bull, University of Southern Queensland, Australia. Professor Mark Brown, Massey University, New Zealand. Abstract This paper starts by exploring some of the most important OER initiatives in Australia, and then describes a centrally funded research project that investigates the state of play of OER in Australia. After that, the authors...»

«Seeber, Ursula / Douer, Alisa / Blaschitz, Edith: Kleine Verbündete / Little Allies. Vertriebene österreichische Kinderbuchliteratur. Wien: Picus 1997. Auszug: Edith Blaschitz: Illustratoren und Illustratorinnen im Exil (S. 64-71) Unter dem Einfluß der Jugendschriftenbewegung war Helene Scheu-Riesz als Herausgeberin der Konegens Kinderbücher (ab 1910) und ab 1923 der Sesam-Bücher nicht nur darauf bedacht, durch billige Produktion auch Unbemittelten den Zugang zu guter Literatur zu...»

«Beitrag “Der Geothermiekongress 2011” Bochum, 15.-17. November 2011 Relevanz der Sandsteinfazies im Norddeutschen Becken für die Produktivität von Geothermiebohrungen Markus Wolfgramm, 2Matthias Franz, 2Gregor Barth, 1Kerstin Rauppach, 1Kirsten Thorwart, Jens Zimmermann Geothermie Neubrandenburg GmbH, 2Technische Universität Bergakademie Freiberg Keywords: Norddeutsches Becken, Sandstein, Fazies, Dogger, Lias, Rhät, Schilfsandstein Zusammenfassung Gesamtziel eines durch das...»

«Inzest und Exogamie 1/ Lorenz G. Löffler In Anbetracht der bisherigen Theorien und deren Diskussion erscheint es dienlich, zunächst eine Begriffsklärung vorzunehmen. Weitgehende Einigkeit besteht über das Konzept der Exogamie. Murdock umschreibt es (1949:18) als «Heiratsregel, die es einem Individuum verbietet, den Ehepartner aus der Lokal-, Verwandtschaftsoder Statusgruppe zu nehmen, der es selbst zugehört». Inzest hingegen wird entweder generell gesehen als (1) der Bruch von...»

«Fir dech a fir däi Land Publication périodique de l’Administration des services de secours n ° 64/2006 SOMMAIRE Préface du Ministre de l’Intérieur et de l’Aménagement du Territoire 4 Campagne de sensibilisation à l’utilisation du numéro d’urgence européen 112 7 L’accident ferroviaire à Zoufftgen en date du 11 octobre 2006 11 Réunion des directeurs généraux de la Protection Civile en Finlande 17 Nouveau personnel de l’Administration des services de secours 19 Eulux...»

<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.book.dislib.info - Free e-library - Books, dissertations, abstract

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.