GameBanshee Forums

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/warm.htm]3. IPCC pseudoscience challenged (...) In support of its claim that the 1990s were the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year for a millennium wrote:see fig. 3.1[/url]). The graph shows fairly constant temperatures for the last millennium followed by a dramatic rise in the 20th century (the blade of the hockey stick). The accepted view before that, as embodied in a graph in the IPCC’s 1990 report (fig. 3.2), was that the world had undergone a Medieval Warm Period that was warmer than today.

In the 1990 graph, the current warming falls within the range of natural historical variation* [note by lythium: the graph is 17 years old and it does appear temperature rises above the medieval period now], whereas the hockey stick graph makes it look anomalous and alarming. The existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, and further back the Dark Ages Cold Period and the Roman Warm Period, had been accepted in textbooks for decades. But such natural climate fluctuations are an embarrassment to the hypothesis that mankind is mainly to blame for the present warming. Indeed, one global warming zealot, in an unguarded moment, stated: ‘We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period’ (see Deming, 1995, p. 249). That is exactly what Mann’s team did.

Statistical experts Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre published a critique of the hockey stick in the peer-reviewed journal Energy and Environment in 2003 and further critiques in 2005 ([url]http://www.climateaudit.org;[/url] McKitrick, 2005). They criticized MBH98/99 for inappropriate data selection and incorrect use of statistical methods. They had great difficulty getting the necessary information from Michael Mann, who put many obstacles in their path. He refused to release his computer code, saying that ‘giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in’ and that ‘if we allowed that sort of thing to stop us from progressing in science, that would be a very frightening world’!

The MBH temperature reconstruction was based mainly on bristlecone-pine datasets, even though the IPCC had recommended against reliance on bristlecone pines because 20th century CO2 fertilization accelerated annual growth, creating a false impression of exceptional recent warming. Moreover, their statistical model had given these datasets 390 times more prominence than the other datasets they had used. McKitrick and McIntyre found that MBH’s statistical methods nearly always produce a hockey stick shaped graph, even when random numbers are used. They also discovered that MBH had excluded from their calculations a dataset covering the later medieval warm period, which had been stored in a computer file marked ‘Censored-Data’. After correcting these various errors, they found that the 15th century contained an extensive warm period with a higher temperature than the late 20th century.

Prior to McIntyre and McKitrick’s work, no palaeoclimatologist had attempted to replicate MBH98/99. In fact, many climate scientists derided the very idea! The fact that the flawed MBH98 paper passed peer review for Nature magazine speaks volumes. So does the fact that Nature, along with other leading peer-reviewed scientific journals, refused to publish McIntyre and McKitrick’s 2003 article exposing the flawed graph. Only after prolonged pressure did the editors of Nature publish a correction by MBH, who falsely claimed that the flaws made no difference to their results.

The IPCC itself never made any attempt to verify the MBH98/99 findings. This may have something to do with the fact that the lead author of the chapter that gave prominence to the Mann study was none other than Michael Mann himself! Some senior climate scientists have severely criticized the system that allows such conflicts of interest. But it remains in place for the fourth IPCC assessment report, due out in February 2007. As reviewers of the next IPCC report, McIntyre and McKitrick (2006) write:

we have expressed concerns to the IPCC about prominent use of graphics and empirical results from the lead authors’ own freshly published papers, which have not been in print long enough to have undergone adequate, independent review and assessment ...

Independent review is also hindered by the unscientific practice of refusing to disclose datasets and calculations.

The US House of Representatives’ science committee asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to evaluate the criticisms of Mann’s work and assess the larger issue of climate reconstructions. In its report (July 2006), it accepted virtually all the criticisms of the hockey stick, and said that Mann’s data and methodology did not permit him to claim with confidence that 1998 was the warmest year of the millennium or the 1990s the warmest decade. But it still stated that his reconstruction was ‘plausible’ as studies by several other scientists had also concluded that the 20th century was warmer than the Medieval Warm Period.

Another analysis of the hockey stick paper was carried out by a panel of three independent statisticians appointed by the US House of Representatives’ energy and commerce committee. Its report (July 2006) states that the criticisms made by McKitrick and McIntyre are ‘valid and compelling’. Referring to the small band of scientists who dominate the field of climatology, the panel’s leader, Edward Wegman, says:

[T]here is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their own public positions without losing credibility. (Wall Street Journal, 2006)

‘In other words,’ says the Wall Street Journal, ‘climate research often more closely resembles a mutual-admiration society than a competitive and open-minded search for scientific knowledge.’

Regarding the claim that many other studies support Mann’s conclusions, the panel points out that the scientists concerned often work with Mann, and tend to use the same datasets. McIntyre and McKitrick (2006) comment:

We’ve attempted to replicate these other studies as well, only to run into one obstacle after another in identifying data and methods – similar to the problems that led to the original congressional questions about the Mann study. In one case, the authors even refused to identify the sites from which data was collected for their study!
Despite these pointless obstacles, we know enough about the ‘other studies’ to be confident that none of them meets the methodological standards now recommended by the panel. In fact, somewhat remarkably, two of the most recent studies even continue to use Mann’s discredited principal components series [bristlecone pines].

The hockey stick graph was featured six times in the IPCC’s 2001 report, and has been a key weapon in the campaign to convince the public and politicians of the dangers of human-caused warming. Although the graph has been convincingly discredited, the IPCC has not issued an apology or correction and continues to use it in its publications. The Canadian government circulated a copy of the graph to every household in the country, but it too has not circulated any correction.

Gore claims that global warming endangers polar bears even though polar bear populations are increasing in Arctic areas where it is warming and declining in Arctic areas where it is cooling. He states that polar bears ‘have been drowning in significant numbers’ – based on a report that four drowned polar bears were found in one month in one year, following an abrupt storm!

I suppose this debate on ABC points out that the swindle documentary is definitely not a scientific document and graphs and quotes were misused in order to make a point.

Then again, didn't the Gore documentary do a similar thing, presenting the audience with only suggestive material (namely the hockeystick graph but also the conclusion based on a set of overlaying graphs showing co2 and global temperature, that co2 causes warming when cause and effect are more subtly connected)?

That's apperently how these tv documentaries work.

One of the other problems that I've seen with this documentary so far (it's a problem for me, anyway) is that the issue of political leadership is not clearly defined. On the one hand, the focus of the film seems to be on U.K. politicians and scientists, who on the whole are accused of being "politically correct". But at the risk of sounding provincial, the United States political establishment seems to have a lot more effect on international policies than the U.K., just because the U.S. has more influence around the world. And when you talk about the U.S., you really have to acknowledge the way that the Bush administration has treated the issue of global warming. They have in fact suppressed evidence not just that global warming is caused by humans, but also that global warming is happening in the first place. And to suggest that the Bush administration's "skepticism" is founded on the noble intention to prevent harm to Africans is totally absurd. Therefore, to accuse the "opposition" of "dictating to Africa" seems completely off the mark to me. "You liberals are supposed to care about Africans, so why are you hurting them?" That's exactly the sort of argument I hear on conservative talk radio. "If you opposed the invasion of Iraq, then you support Saddam Hussein and mass murder and genocide." It's the same sort of argument to me.

I might watch more of the documentary so I can see exactly what sort of claims the documentary makes about the people who are "dictating to Africa"…

I'd really like to get to the bottom of this. Tell me who is dictating to the Third World, exactly how they are doing it, what sort of authority and enforcement mechanisms they have, and in the absence of any sort of meaningful, dictatorial power, why what a bunch of powerless people merely want to dictate to people over whom they have no actual power matters in the first place.

Curdis wrote:That global warming has captured the public/media eye is one thing, as far as I can tell there is lots of evidence which suggests that the earths current mean annual temperature is increasing. There is also some compelling evidence to suggest that CO2 is being deposited out of the atmosphere (in some areas)at rates well in excess of anything previously encountered. To add all this up and state that human CO2 production is causing a global temperature increase is probably misguided.

Many people have been stating this effect as fact for several decades and the historical record will show that the evidence which has been cited has unfortunately been shown to be erroneous on more than one occassion. e.g. Early studies proving the mean increase failed to take into account the change in landscape which accompanied city development at long term weather stations, this effect was what was driving the temperature increases.

This has now made the issue one which is an easy target for those people who have a vested interest in continued rampant energy consumption (read you and me). Because it is a media focus the whole issue of the ecology can be sidelined into this one place and whether we do anything to halt wholesale forrest clearance, coral reef bleaching, or any one of the many other environmental tragedies can all be decided on the evidence when it becomes scientifically irrefutable.

So in short. Whether it is happening or not should not be overshadowing, or forestalling the immediate and obvious problems which we as a society need to be addressing today.

1/Global Warming (Human CO2 input model)- as the evidence stands today - Fiction
2/Global environmental damage - as the evidence stands today - Fact

I think number one is serving as a distraction to the second. - Curdis !

dragon wench wrote:<SNIP> given that the evidence points overwhelmingly to the reality of Climate Change.

Incidentally..
To date, Martin Durkin, the "documentary's" director has also made:
Against Nature - which asserts that environmentalists threaten the economy and personal liberties.
Storm in a D-Cup- which claims silicone breast implants are beneficial to womens' health and actually help to prevent breast cancer.
Modified Truth - which argues in favour of genetic modification

and of course, this most recent film

Hmmm.. anyone else smell an agenda here?<SNIP>

Xandax wrote:<SNIP>Global warming is not a new phenomenon, and along side other inconvenient truths such as holes in the ozone layer and a decreasing amount of fossile fuels have been discussed and attempted countered for many years in many countries.

I don't know if you are old enough to remember the entire ozone layer debate which bears tremendously resembles to the current Global Warming in the USA. However there as well for a number of years, did the industry try to discredit all research into the cause and effect of the ozone layers holes, until conclusive evidence were found between the amount of CFCs gasses and the lack of O3.<SNIP>

And CO2 is at the highest percentage in several hundred thousand years as being charted by ice drilling on Greenland and the North pole (but I guess they are just Al Gore's manipulation). That alone should be a nice indicator of something amiss. And the only major thing happened over those years are human civilization.
<SNIP>

mr_sir wrote:As someone who has studied the evidence of climate change at degree level, I have to say that if you study records from the last 100 years or so together with geological evidence dating back as far as the times of the dinosaurs, there is a long history of climate change on this planet and all the evidence strongly suggests that the planet is currently heating up.

There are many theories regarding why, the most popular being that man-made "Greenhouse Gases" are causing global warming. Another is that the planet goes through cycles, the increase in Carbon Dioxide etc. is a natural process and that eventually we will reach a peak and then the temperature will fall again as we head towards another ice age, and then it will rise again ... and so on.

One thing I would like to point out though is that you cannot say that something is an "absolute truth" or a "real truth" as it is all theory. However some theories have a lot more evidence supporting them, and there is overwhelming evidence supporting Global Warming. The planet is heating up, the question is are we speeding up this process?<SNIP>

Kipi wrote:Actually, you don't even need to go that far back in history tofind evidences. At leas here, if I just look the temperature, rain and snow records of last ten years or so, I can clearly see the heating in those records. For example, last couple of years have been the dryest in long time. Coincident? Possible, if it was only that. But, as those couple of years have also been the hottest during summer, and least cold during winter times, it's rather obvious that the climate is warmer that before. And that's a fact no one can deny.<SNIP>

lythium wrote: By the way, are you a timetraveler or is Newsweek publishing a week ahead?

Naffnuff wrote: Sorry Vicsun, this does not count. We all know what the IPCC thinks, but if we are only going to direct each other to external sources, what then is the point of this thread?

Vicsun wrote:I don't have the time for a full-length reply, but while doing a vanity-namesearch, Naffnuff's post caught my eye, and I can't help myself.


You know, I was wondering the same thing My stance on the issue is that whatever the scientific consensus is, is what I'll consider to be true. What about critically evaluating scientific arguments on my own, you say? I've tried plowing through a paper or two, and unsurprisingly I found myself completely unqualified to judge their validity. Just like debating the legitimacy of the Standard Model of particle physics versus M-Theory would be a completely fruitless endeavor on SYM, I think that debating the issue of climate change here is futile. Hence my previous irritability.

lythium wrote:Then this debate has no real conclusion, which is a desirable conclusion to me. I consider this thread ended after, say, 24 hours of this post, in case anyone wants to add a last minute note...

Thank you all for reading and contributing.

fable wrote:This article is just politically motivated propaganda...

What is the political motivation, in your opinion?

Lady Dragonfly wrote:"...for the most part climate change has been a bitterly partisan issue."

There is no doubt what side of the aisle Ms. Begley favors.