Schakowsky: "a different source which our staff had confirmed with Al Gore"

Here is an interesting exchange at the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearings about the provenance of the hockey stick diagram in An Inconvenient Truth. Thanks to the reader who spotted this.

Rep Stearns took aim at the apparent use of Mann’s Hockey Stick in Inconvenient Truth (the methodology of which had been severely criticized by Wegman and North in the hearings), only to be assured that the diagram in Inconvenient Truth was based on Thompson’s ice core data. The congressmen cover some of the same debate being covered here and at Tamino’s. To rebut Stearns, Rep Schakowsky stepped in and stated that “[AIT] says “But as Dr. Thompson’s thermometer show,” and so it is not based on Dr. Mann. This is a different source which our staff had confirmed with Al Gore.”

Here’s a more complete excerpt of the exchange:

MR. STEARNS. Thank you. It talked about the hockey stick
hokum and it goes on to talk a little bit about Mr. Mann and
we all talked about it all morning but it says in 2001 the
IPCC replaced the first graph with a second in its third
report on climate change and since then this graph has cropped
up all over the place. In fact, I think it is in Vice
President Gore’s movie and I believe it is in his book,
“Inconvenient Truth.” On page 65 he has got the source as
the IPCC and then a little bit above it he talks about the
hockey stick, a graphic image representing the research of
climate scientist Michael Mann and his colleagues. So I
would just say to my colleagues and Ms. Schakowsky to that it
is important that if a graph suddenly becomes a significant
graph in all these publications and shows up everywhere and
is used in debate to make argument, I think it is important
for all of us to look at this graph and I think that is all
Dr. Wegman is doing is to say we are looking at this graph
and as it turns out in this book, “An Inconvenient Truth” by
Vice President Gore that he is using a graph as I understand
it that has been established this morning that the
methodology and the statistical analysis of it is incorrect
and–

MS. SCHAKOWSKY. No, that is not–will the gentleman yield
for a second?
MR. STEARNS. Well, let me ask–
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Just for one second.
MR. WALDEN. Just regular order.
MR. STEARNS. I will be glad to do that. Let me just ask
Dr. Wegman, if I have in his book the reference to the
hockey stick and I have reference to the IPCC, then we have
here a graph that you in fact are disputing because of its
methodology and the statistics. Would that be a fair
statement?
DR. WEGMAN. Well, I would like to be careful in that
regard.
MR. STEARNS. Sure. I know. Do you want me to bring the
book down and have the staff bring the book to you?
DR. WEGMAN. I have one.
MR. STEARNS. Oh, you have it
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Would the gentleman yield–
MR. STUPAK. Would the gentleman yield on that point
then?
MR. STEARNS. Well, let me just finish with my question
here because what I am trying to understand is, you have
a graph that suddenly goes everywhere and we have
established today that the methodology for Dr. Mann’s graph
is questionable, so the question is, if it shows up
everywhere, shouldn’t the American people understand that
some of the reference here in the book, the methodology is
in question? That is all I am asking.
MR. STUPAK. Would the gentleman yield on that point?
MR. STEARNS. Well, let me ask–
MR. STUPAK. Because if you are going to ask the
question–
MR. WALDEN. Regular order, please. It is the gentleman’s
time–
MR. STEARNS. I am not asking the question to you. I am
asking it to Dr. Wegman, so I think, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to have the question asked to him and not to my fellow
colleagues.
DR. WEGMAN. Let me be precise on the statement. There is
some ambiguity in this book because it talks about ice
cores and as I understand it, this particular–
MR. STEARNS. This is on page 65.
DR. WEGMAN. This particular picture–
MR. STEARNS. Yeah, that is right, the same one.
DR. WEGMAN. –was based on ice core studies–
MR. STEARNS. But it says below, it says source, IPCC, at
the very little, small little note there.
DR. WEGMAN. Right.
MR. STEARNS. Okay.
DR. WEGMAN. Higher on the same page in the text it talks
about Mann but I believe if one is going to be precise,
this is a piece of study based on ice cores, not on the
temperature reconstruction.
MR. STEARNS. So we just don’t know, and I think that is
accurate. I am glad you pointed that out so that the reader
or anybody looking at this would not necessarily say that the
source of the IPCC is indeed Dr. Mann’s hockey stick–
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Would the gentleman yield for just a minute?
MR. STEARNS. No, I am just asking Dr. Wegman–
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Please, I can read from–I am looking at the
same–
MR. STEARNS. You folks had your time. I am just–
MR. WALDEN. Regular order.
MR. STEARNS. When I complete my thing. So the question is,
he says IPCC here and he has got this graph that looks like a
hockey stick, you are saying that you cannot correlate that to
mean that it is Dr. Mann’s graph? That is what you are saying?
DR. WEGMAN. I believe that is true.
MR. STEARNS. Okay. All right. Yes, I will be glad to yield
to Ms. Schakowsky.
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. I just want to read to you from
that same–it says “But as Dr. Thompson’s thermometer show,”
and so it is not based on Dr. Mann. This is a different source
which our staff had confirmed with Al Gore.
I just want to
make–
MR. STEARNS. I respect that.
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. –that point. I know, but your question wanted
to reinforce the notion that this was based on this false or
inaccurate Dr. Mann study–

MR. STEARNS. Well, I think–
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. --and it is not.
MR. STEARNS. Okay.
DR. WEGMAN. And I responded that it was not.
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. No, I–
MR. STEARNS. Go ahead. You respond to that.
DR. WEGMAN. I responded exactly the same way you just did.
MR. STEARNS. And I think that is important to realize because
it is showing up not just here but it is showing everywhere
and so it is not precise that that is Dr. Mann’s graph here,
and that is what you have confirmed.

Link


87 Comments

  1. Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 5:20 PM | Permalink

    What’s the exact citation, or at least the day?

  2. Larry
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 5:23 PM | Permalink

    Click the link.

  3. Larry
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 5:27 PM | Permalink

    So Schakowsky said that Gore said that Thompson said that…and Gore is taken at his word.

  4. bender
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 5:39 PM | Permalink

    Ah – hate to parse – but it depends what you mean by “source”. The Thompson paper was the proximal literary “source” but Mann was the ultimate data “source.”

  5. Roger Dueck
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 5:46 PM | Permalink

    This is what Climate Change has become! Somebody, I’m not sure who, won a point!

  6. Larry
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 6:30 PM | Permalink

    Somehow, as a voter and citizen, I feel cheated when this kind of “I heard so-and-so say that so-and-so said that so-and-so said” becomes the public record, when it turns out to be demonstrably wrong. I don’t know if there are any remedies, but if nothing else, this is a case study in the imperfection of “finding of fact”.

  7. Duane Johnson
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 9:02 PM | Permalink

    Re: 4 by Bender
    Yes, in fact the proximal source could just as well have been Climate Audit, since Mann’s hockey stick has appeared here a few times as well. It would make as much sense as attributing Mann’s curve to Thompson.

  8. Roger Dueck
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 10:05 PM | Permalink

    “According to Mr. MacIntyre……..” hahahahh!
    The whole thing is so stupid!
    The sense of the statement is obvious and deviant from the political intent… Gore implies that the SOURCE is different, and that it CONFIRMS THROUGH INDEPENDENT RESEARCH the dis-reputed Mann Hockey stick. The politicians are spinning like a top.

  9. MarkR
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 12:45 AM | Permalink

    Bender and Johnson. At the Congressional Hearing, Schakowsky is denying that the Gore book graphic is based on Mann et al., and they say Gore personally confirmed that to them. In the text, the Democrats admit, that Mann et al is discredited:

    MS. SCHAKOWSKY….it says “But as Dr. Thompson’s thermometer show,” and so it is not based on Dr. Mann. This is a different source which our staff had confirmed with Al Gore. I just want to make…..that point…..your question wanted to reinforce the notion that this was based on this false or inaccurate Dr. Mann study….and it is not.

    The Hearing had accepted that the Mann et al Hockey Stick was discredited. Gore mislead the Committee Staff about what his graph was, and they mislead Members of the Committee, and the House. This is about a Trillion Dollar policy decision. I think the record should be corrected so the decision is based on correct information.

  10. PHE
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 1:27 AM | Permalink

    I suspect that Gore geninely believed it was from Thompson (beacuse it was in his publication), and never appreciated that it originally derived from Mann. As we know, Gore is not a scientist, and presumably relies on a bevvy of researchers who dig out and supply him with the evidence to support his ‘truth’.

  11. Paul G M
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 1:53 AM | Permalink

    I thought Hansen was the “scientific” adviser on AIT.

    Regards

    Paul GM

  12. Brooks Hurd
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 4:37 AM | Permalink

    After living for 8 1/2 years in DC, I am afraid that this sort of hogwash is typical.

  13. kim
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 4:47 AM | Permalink

    re Trillion Dollar Policy Question. snip
    ===========================================================

  14. MarkR
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 4:52 AM | Permalink

    …it’s only a matter of time till a lawyer finds someone who has a duty of care, and does a class action.

  15. kim
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 5:14 AM | Permalink

    And Mike and Ike can have discovery.
    =======================

  16. Nate
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 5:30 AM | Permalink

    It sounds likes they believe that if Thompson follows Mannian methods, except he dots his ‘i’s differently then disproving Mann, does not disprove Thompson. I suspect if you ever take the time to disprove Thompson they have another fervent follower, waiting for their 15 minutes of fame, that will gladly write a paper with the ‘t’s crossed differently.

  17. Papertiger
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 6:09 AM | Permalink

    Climate Audit the movie. I’m just saying.

  18. anotherjohn
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 6:16 AM | Permalink

    Since Hockey Stick = BCP, anything that ‘confirms’ Hockey Stick also = BCP, doesn’t it?

  19. MarkR
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 7:02 AM | Permalink

    #18 Another John. Bristlecone Pine were the original and best flawed Proxy, but since they were “outed”, the Hockey Team have scoured the world for any old Proxy that has an uptick in the 20th Century and used them as well. They have no shame.

  20. MattN
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 7:29 AM | Permalink

    Can someone offer an executive summary of that link? I just don’t have time to read War and Peace

  21. anotherjohn
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 7:36 AM | Permalink

    MarkR – thanks for your response.

    I have forgotten what the material (statistical) difference was between the hockey sticks, but I’m assuming they are pretty strongly correlated, since the latter is meant to confirm the former, hence New Hockey Stick = Old Hockey Stick = BCP, even if the BCP series were not in the new analysis (a statistical falsification of the new construction in itself, I would have thought).

    I realise I could answer my own question here by checking earlier CA posts – sorry about that, but I’ve just read CA for 28 hours solid and I need a break :)

  22. MarkR
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 7:55 AM | Permalink

    #21 anotherjohn. Juckes, see sidebar summarised a lot of dodgy Proxies, and Willis and some other peeps from CA went through all of them. See

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1230

    Also, none of the Dodgy Proxies correlate with each other outside of the recent instrumental period, and that is pure coincidence, as they all fail standard statistical tests for spurious correlation.

  23. HokeyStick
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 8:24 AM | Permalink

    I can only hope that a staffer of Joe Barton or Cliff Stearns (or anyone else on the committee who cares about the facts) would take the time to keep up with CA.

    “Dr. Thompson’s Thermometer” was administered to the public in the same manner a normal thermometer would be administered to a baby.

  24. Richard deSousa
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 10:22 AM | Permalink

    Re #23: Like up where the sun doesn’t shine?

  25. Andrew
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 10:24 AM | Permalink

    23
    You mean in the butt, or the ear?

    This is ridiculous! They aren’t checking to see that it’s actually verified, their just taking what was said about it as fact! Unbelievable. Apparently, as long as paper cites discredited information, but it’s not the discreted paper, the information isn’t wrong? What?

  26. anotherjohn
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 11:33 AM | Permalink

    #22 MarkR. Thanks for the link – I realise now that I had forgotten a bit too much of the detail, leaving me with a simplistic impression.

  27. Bill
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 1:14 PM | Permalink

    Steve:

    Thanks for linking to the entire transcript of the hearings. I hadn’t been able to catch much of the proceedings at the time. It’s long, but worth reading to catch a glimpse (as a non-CNN subscriber, it was unique) into the unctuous, senatorial atmosphere…

    MR. WHITFIELD. Dr. Christy, thank you. We are going to
    go vote. It is now 15 after 3:00 so we will reconvene
    about 15 till 4:00. Down in the basement there is a
    little snack center and if you go out the main first floor
    of the Rayburn Building and walk over to Longworth there
    is a wonderful ice cream shop so whatever you decide to do.
    [Recess.]

    …and to just read your entire testimony, which seemed concise and persuasive. Belatedly, well done!

  28. Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 2:51 PM | Permalink

    Has all the material used in the construction of the hockey-stick graph been verified in a full peer review and do other expert scientists agree that the methodology is sound (i.e. the proxies can be shown to be reliable indicators of temperature)? – Surely that is what the politicians should have been asking?

  29. Papertiger
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 4:25 PM | Permalink

    I am thinking of Barry Bonds, standing in the dock for saying something which might or might not be true before the agents of congress.
    Think of all the reams of evidences Al Gore has presented to congressional investigation.

    Is it conceavable that he could have perjured himself?

    I believe we have the missing link to the question, why would Al Gore train proxies to give his lecture in public/bar reporters from his own personal presentations around the world?

    Answer: To avoid the perjury charge.

  30. Walt Bennett
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 4:36 PM | Permalink

    And this has what to do with statistical analysis?

  31. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 5:33 PM | Permalink

    Not anything really. This has to do with replicability, openness, honesty and accuracy. Perhaps if there was more of that present, people wouldn’t have to wonder why about it.

    It’s not what’s you say, it’s what you do. And some odd behaviors are going on.

    Just sayin’

  32. Arturo Bandini
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 2:03 AM | Permalink

    One of the real disappointments in this whole Global Warming mess is the way scientists have decided that distorting facts is OK, if it is distortion for a good cause.

    That hurts. I don’t think I will ever look at the practice of science or scientists the same. Credit there goes, to Mann, Hansen and fellow toads.

    On the other hand, the willingness of truth seeking people to buck the trend, to stand up and be subjected to ridicule, if need be, in the name of finding the truth … is really an amazing blessing.

    Credit there goes to the Climate Audit group.

    Keep your stick on the ice.

    Oh, and for Pete’s sake keep your stick away from that Mann guy cause he will bend that stick in to shapes you never dreamed of.
    I’m not kidding.

  33. Walt Bennett
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 7:53 AM | Permalink

    So then it is not correct that multiple independent reconstructions supported the MBH conclusions?

    For all of Steve’s yeoman work (and I mean that), has AGW theory been overturned by any of Steve’s findings?

    In fact isn’t it accurate to state that Steve believes in the general principles of AGW? That he is not a “denier”?

    Wasn’t he quoted as saying the error he found in the US temperature data was “no big deal” statistically?

    Of course we challenge methods, of course we rigorously analyze other peoples’ results. That is good science, good math, and we commend those who do it.

    It takes a small mind indeed to use that good work as an excuse to accuse others of malfeasance. How about, they are guilty of imperfection? Can anybody here demonstrate a deliberate attempt to mislead? Has Steve ever uttered such a charge?

  34. kim
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 8:23 AM | Permalink

    I’ve wondered about this a lot, Walt. I believe the error started innocently. But, as they say, it is not the crime, it is the cover-up.
    =====================================

  35. Mike Carney
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 8:30 AM | Permalink

    #33 There was very little commending going on by climate scientists when Steve discovered year 2000 problem. In terms of good science think about what it means that Steve discovered this error seven years after the fact. What other errors are there? This error was found by reverse engineering and we don’t know what other errors there are. In many of these temperature studies the precise methodology and raw data are not public. Is that good science? When Phil Jones denies Steve access just because, as Phil says, Steve will just try to prove him wrong, is that good science? or is it malfeasance? It certainly is an affront to science. Would that it were so that climate scientists supported those who “rigorously analyze other peoples’ results”. You only need to browse this site for a while to find out otherwise.

  36. Walt Bennett
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 8:33 AM | Permalink

    No. It’s the science.

    Look at it this way: with all of the pounding Steve and others have done on the methods of some of the science, they have succeeded in revealing the occasional error – who among us would do better? – and have done nothing to overturn the underlying science nor the overall conclusion that the planet is warming and man is a factor.

    Where you all ought to be spending your time – I’m sure Steve would agree – is looking for cracks in the estimated climate sensitivity of 3*C ~1.5*C based on a doubling of CO2. As measured from pre–industrial levels of 270 ppm, a 3*C rise could be expected as we approach 540 ppm, after some lag time. We would expect continued warming (allowing for natural variability) until then.

    Hansen has estimated that above 450 ppm the rise will likely be 2*C. First of all, challenge that. What is the variance? What is the estimate based on? How reliable are the underlying estimates? What data are they based on? How reliable is the data? What observations are the data based on? How reliable are the observations?

    Here’s the thing: all over the web, and some in here, people are trumpeting this or that finding as PROOF! that AGW is somewhere between a lie and a hoax. Of course, rational people know that these findings do no such thing.

    Steve has said as much.

    So, if this sort of skeptical analysis is to serve any useful purpose, go after climate sensitivity. It is the foot on the accelerator, and a lot of policy decisions are being based on the validity of that number.

    Bristlecone pines are quite interesting, in an esoteric sort of way. Let’s get to the meat and potatoes.

  37. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 8:34 AM | Permalink

    Walt Bennett says:
    November 17th, 2007 at 7:53 am

    It takes a small mind indeed to use that good work as an excuse to accuse others of malfeasance. How about, they are guilty of imperfection? Can anybody here demonstrate a deliberate attempt to mislead?

    Here is an example of the rhetoric from James Hansen. How does his rhetoric relate to your question?

    The Real Deal: Usufruct & the Gorilla

    “What we have here is a case of dogged contrarians who present results in ways intended to deceive the public into believing that the changes have greater significance than reality. They aim to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I believe that these people are not stupid, instead they Figure 1. Global (a) and U.S. (b) before and after correction of flaw in computer program. seek to create a brouhaha and muddy the waters in the climate change story. They seem to know exactly what they are doing and believe they can get away with it, because the public does not have the time, inclination, and training to discern what is a significant change with regard to the global warming issue.”

    “The proclamations of the contrarians are a deceit, but their story raises a more important matter, usufruct. It is the most important issue in the entire global warming story, in my opinion. The players in the present U.S. temperature story, we scientists included, are just bit players. The characters in the main drama are big fish, really big fish. But before we get to that matter, I need to expose how the deceit works.”

    “Usufruct. The deceit behind the attempts to discredit evidence of climate change reveals matters of importance. This deceit has a clear purpose: to confuse the public about the status of knowledge of global climate change, thus delaying effective action to mitigate climate change.”

  38. kim
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 8:41 AM | Permalink

    That was disingenuous, Walt.
    ===================

  39. kim
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 9:01 AM | Permalink

    Bristlecone Pines are quite interesting in an esoteric way, until you understand that among the esoterica is the human tragedy and scientific travesty that Kyoto is. I’ll save Steve some work. Snip, snip, snip.
    ===================================

  40. Bernie
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 9:07 AM | Permalink

    Walt:
    You are obviously right that the sensitivity issue is important. However, an equally big deal and one that has driven many of the concerns at CA is the absence of expected transparency, the Thompson data being a case in point. It is hardly deniable that many on both sides of the AGW have their own agendas: Emotional comments do not move the discussion forward – whether they come from posters here or Nobel prize winners.

    Finally, a question: To what do you attribute the failure to provide requested data and documentation of methods by Hansen, Jones and Thompson?

  41. Bruce
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 10:15 AM | Permalink

    Walt,

    In the last 70 years, there has been more solar energy reaching the earth than at any time in the last 8000 years.

    Why don’t the AGW propagandists tell you that up front?

    Its the Sun.

  42. Walt Bennett
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 10:27 AM | Permalink

    Bruce,

    From all that I know, you are gravely misinformed.

  43. Walt Bennett
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 10:34 AM | Permalink

    Bernie,

    You and I are of one mind when it comes to “Emotional comments do not move the discussion forward – whether they come from posters here or Nobel prize winners”. In fact I take strong issue with Hansen’s efforts to drive social and political agendas. For one thing, he is dangerously foreclosing the concept that other alternatives might be more fruitful and more efficient. by pushing a single solution (reduce emissions) which may in fact be unattainable, he is taking an enormous gamble which is not his to take.

    He might want to ask the rest of us if we want him to be the spokesman for the science AND the solution. We might prefer separation of powers.

    As to your question, I am far too underinformed. I only come here when a finding makes news, and then I try to get caught up, but the trail seems to lead forever backward. I never really feel as though I understand the dispute. MBH is a perfect example. The more I read, the less I know.

    I will say this: you refute the science by refuting the science, not by accusing people of not being open enough. I am here for the science.

    Opinions about motives are utterly useless in the absence of evidence of deceit. I have seen no objectvie evidence of deceit, and we need only go back to post #37 to see that somebody is accusing Hansen of deceit with regard to the temp adjustments.

    That strikes me as absurd and agenda-driven. It is, in my phrase, white noise.

    So much damn white noise. Be careful not to contribute to it, while in the midst of a serious and necessary undertaking.

  44. Walt Bennett
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 10:38 AM | Permalink

    Kim,

    Please explain.

    I am guilty of many things on a regular basis, but lack of candor is not one of them.

  45. M. Jeff
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 11:10 AM | Permalink

    Re: #43 Walt Bennett November 17th, 2007 at 10:34 am,

    For one thing, he is dangerously foreclosing the concept that other alternatives might be more fruitful and more efficient. by pushing a single solution (reduce emissions) which may in fact be unattainable, he is taking an enormous gamble which is not his to take.

    When it comes to reducing emissions, some AGW proponents suggest erring on the side of caution. However, until the magnitude of the potential problem has been more accurately defined, partly by the contributions to science made on this site, erring on the side of caution might consist of doing nothing. Discussion on this site of cost-effectiveness aspects of various proposals might be useful?

  46. Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 11:13 AM | Permalink

    Where you all ought to be spending your time – I’m sure Steve would agree – is looking for cracks in the estimated climate sensitivity of 3*C ~1.5*C based on a doubling of CO2. As measured from pre–industrial levels of 270 ppm, a 3*C rise could be expected as we approach 540 ppm, after some lag time. We would expect continued warming (allowing for natural variability) until then.

    Walt in #36

    I would agree with the above. I have yet to see a cogent and straightforward (or even twisted) explanation for the above. Steve M has commented on this as well. The general question that springs from this one is why is it so difficult to actually find the arguments for the above that are laid out in a way that makes sense. Complexity is not an excuse. Albert Einstein specifically wrote books to explain the phenomenon related to general and special relativity. The explanations that I have seen on places like Tamino and real climate ignore some of the basic physics involved. They have not explained why CO2 lags the temperature rise at the last several glacial terminations. They have not explained the lag between temperature and CO2 during the transitions from the interglacial. Heck they have not even explained the ice core that Steve has recently referenced that shows that the Alaskan ice core found did not start accumulating ice until 1500 BC.

    Also, any scientist who does not fully and openly publish their findings should be banned from any future funding for climate research until such full disclosure is made. This sort of crap would not be tolerated in space science, nuclear physics, or biology, why is it tolerated and defended in this community. For a subject that is so important to our future such failure to provide data is unacceptable.

  47. Larry
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 11:15 AM | Permalink

    Let’s move the off-topic stuff to unthreaded, ok? This particular thread is a bit unusual, because it relates to a revelation in a thread a few days ago that the Thompson HS actually uses Mann data, but it is related to the ongoing battle over the hockey stick itself.

    Often on CA, you can’t tell what the big deal is without the context of earlier threads. Such is the case here.

  48. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 11:47 AM | Permalink

    Walt Bennett says:
    November 17th, 2007 at 10:34 am

    Bernie,
    I will say this: you refute the science by refuting the science, not by accusing people of not being open enough. I am here for the science.

    Opinions about motives are utterly useless in the absence of evidence of deceit. I have seen no objectvie evidence of deceit, and we need only go back to post #37 to see that somebody is accusing Hansen of deceit with regard to the temp adjustments.

    Well, Walt, let’s review for a moment what you have just communicated and see how it compares to your statement, “I am here for the science.”

    Walt Bennett says:
    November 17th, 2007 at 7:53 am

    It takes a small mind indeed to use that good work as an excuse to accuse others of malfeasance. How about, they are guilty of imperfection? Can anybody here demonstrate a deliberate attempt to mislead?

    In response to your question inviting a demonstration of someone deliberately attempting to mislead, I provided you with selected quotations in which James Hansen deliberately accused Steve McIntyre, the Climate Audit community, and everyone else who has been involved in auditing and criticizing the works of James Hansen of deceit and deliberate misleading of the public. Rather than expressing any opinions I may or may not have had, I asked you to express your opinion of the meaning of James Hansen’s statements in relation to your question about accusations of malfeasance and deliberate attempts to mislead.

    In response to my quotations of James Hansen and invitation to advise us whether or not the quotations served as an example of what you were talking about, you instead made an accusation against me for responding to your question.

    we need only go back to post #37 to see that somebody is accusing Hansen of deceit with regard to the temp adjustments.

    As anyone can see by reading what I wrote, I made no accusations at all of deceit with regard to the temp adjustments about James Hansen or anyone else. What I did do was ask you if YOU believed Hansen was making such claims of deceit against Steve McIntyre et al in his statements about deceit and deliberately misleading the public.

    Would you care to withdraw your false statement, or is it your intention to deliberately mislead?

    If you are here for the science as you say you are, don’t you believe it is more supportive of science to lobby for compliance with all existing disclosure laws, regulations, and rules? Don’t you believe that refusals to disclose data in compliance with the law, regulations, rules, and customs of scientific courtesy is less than fully honest and law abiding, courteous, and/or credible?

    Do you have some method to offer for the Climate Audit community and the general public to independently validate the science, methods, and data when such are deliberately withheld from disclosure in non-compliance or compliance with the relevant laws, regulations, rules, and customs of the scientific community and laws of the land? If not, how do you propose the general public can exercise due diligence as citizens in their responsibility as the final jurors in public policy matters?

    Inquiring minds here want to know how we are supposed to participate in the science when the science we are supposed to participate in is being deliberately withheld from full and honest disclosure?

  49. Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 1:27 PM | Permalink

    Re #36

    Walt,

    The HS is important in the sensitivity debate, as the HS has the smallest variation in temperature vs. other reconstructions (about 0.2 K). If there were only small variations in temperature in the pre-industrial period, that implies just a little influence of natural causes, and CO2 is the main driver of temperature in the past 1.5 century, with a high climate sensitivity.
    If you have a look at other reconstructions like Moberg (minimal influence of tree rings) and Huang (bore holes), then you have a variation of 0.8 K. In both cases, the average influence of volcanic eruptions is less than 0.1 K, leaving 0.1 K (Mann ea.) or 0.7 K (Moberg, Huang) for other natural causes (mainly solar). In the latter case, the influence of natural variation in the past 1.5 century is much larger, at the cost of the sensitivity for CO2. Or with the words of others:
    From J. Esper, RJS Wilson, DC Frank,A Moberg, H Wanner and J Luterbacher:

    “So, what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger (Esper et al., 2002; Pollack and Smerdon, 2004; Moberget al., 2005) or smaller (Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1999) temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future predicted scenarios. If that turns out to be the case, agreements such as the Kyoto protocol that intend to reduce emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, would be less effective than thought.”

    That implies that a change of 1 W/m2 more or less solar has a larger effect than a change of 1 W/m2 more or less CO2 forcing…

    But current GCM’s include an equal sensitivity (within +/- 10%) for all types of forcings. Raypierre at RC: Natural Variability and Climate Sensitivity is convinced of the equality of effects of forcings:

    The current picture of Holocene climate variations is based not just on tree ring data, but on glacial mass balance and a wide variety of other proxy data. If this state of knowledge were to be revised in such a way as to indicate that the amplitude of the climate variations were larger than previously thought, that could very well call for for an upward revision of climate sensitivity

    The outcome of this debate has a tremendous effect on climate “projections”: if the influence of CO2 is smaller, then the result of 2xCO2 will be smaller too…

    Further, Steve M. has been looking for any scientific base, more than a few pages long, for the attribution of 3 K/2xCO2 in the literature. It seems very hard to find…

  50. Mike Carney
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 2:03 PM | Permalink

    Walt, consider the connection between these two quotes from you:

    First of all, challenge that. What is the variance? What is the estimate based on? How reliable are the underlying estimates? What data are they based on? How reliable is the data? What observations are the data based on? How reliable are the observations?

    I will say this: you refute the science by refuting the science, not by accusing people of not being open enough. I am here for the science.

    How can you answer the questions you pose in the first quote if the scientists are not open? So yes, not being open is a damning comment about a scientist’s published work. Science is a process where methods and data are open and results are reproducible. If you are here for the science, then support the release of all the information around these studies so their value can be transparently judged.

  51. Bernie
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 3:35 PM | Permalink

    Walt:
    I guess my question was in part rhetorical about why Hansen et al are so reluctant to be as open as most scientists are expected to be. Alas in the absence of information to the contrary, the abnormal behavior has to allow for an abnormal motive. The way out of this unfortunate situation is a policy of openness with regards to data and methods.

  52. Papertiger
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 4:45 PM | Permalink

    I keep reading about other evidences besides bristlecone and bristlecone disguise as o18 ice cores – which presumably make the MBH redundant.
    Where are these redundant evidences?
    Their existence isn’t well established or obvious among the mounts of obscura I am asked to wade through on the pro AGW side.

  53. Walt Bennett
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 6:04 PM | Permalink

    Re: #49,

    I have re-read #37 and I will retract my original conclusion that Hansen was being accused of deceit. I think Hansen mis-characterizes Steve’s contribution, but I suspect Hansen is reacting more to the ruckus the denial community stirs up when things like this come up.

    Which as I have said is funny, because Steve is not a denialist and probably holds Hansen’s work in high regard.

    I will not compare Hansen’s comments with the point I was making. Which was: where is the evidence of deliberately misleading? I was referring to the work of Mann et al when I made that remark, and of course I would include Hansen. I have been following another thread regarding Wang and China, and perhaps there was some deliberate misleading there. And if so, I say fantastic to have uncovered it.

    I would say that we are still looking for anything to refute the general principles of AGW, and specifically to challenge climate sensitivity.

    With regard to some comments above, Hansen says this is evident from paleological evidence. I would say that it is incorrect to say that the estimate is incoherent or heavily based on assumptions. I would also say that it deserves rigorous examination.

    With regard to openness, I am in the dark on that one. I have read that Hansen et al are much more open with regard to data and methods than is typical in science. I have seen examples of what would seem preposterous requests if made in the pharmaceutical industry, for example.

    Gavin has made the point: “Do the science yourself, and compare your results to ours.” I have pointed out that not everybody has the access to data and computing power that he has, and that auditing of the processes is really a necessity. He disagrees.

    He also censored me the other day for asking CA bashers what their issues are with CA. He told me it would drag off into OT opinionating, but I told him I really wanted to know what their objections to CA are.

    Aside from the flock of knee-jerk denialists it draws, I consider the basic premise of CA to be essential and valuable. I think that climate science is better off with people like Steve in it.

  54. Mike Carney
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 11:52 PM | Permalink

    #54
    I would have to agree that you are in the dark on what constitutes open science. Saying:

    …Hansen et al are much more open with regard to data and methods than is typical in science

    is clearly wrong. Hansen was just recently forced to open up more because of the error Steve found. Being able to reproduce the results of a study using the methods and data identified by the study is the cornerstone of science. When someone comes up with a claim of cold fusion you expect to be able to examine the methods and reproduce the results. We didn’t have to wait seven years to discover that cold fusion wasn’t reproducible.

    Gavin has made the point: “Do the science yourself, and compare your results to ours.” I have pointed out that not everybody has the access to data and computing power that he has, and that auditing of the processes is really a necessity. He disagrees.

    Here is someone producing research with government money for a very important public purpose and yet denying that data and methods should be publicly available. That is both anti-science and contrary to the public welfare.

  55. Philip_B
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 4:36 AM | Permalink

    Aside from the flock of knee-jerk denialists it draws,

    You might as well have said, ‘the trailer park trash’ or ‘the redneck neocons’.

    Just leave your political preconceptions at the door. We like to concentrate on the evidence.

  56. Andrey Levin
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 6:11 AM | Permalink

    Re#56, Philip B:

    Aside from the flock of knee-jerk denialists it draws,

    Such kind of expression is quite common self-imposing dog tab to indicate unquestionable conformity and membership to the AGW clergy club. Like “Amen” in preaching.

    You know, posting on AGW heretic blog could be dangerous to career of AGWeever.

  57. Ron Cram
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 8:51 AM | Permalink

    re:#54

    Walt, I would like to point you to a number of researchers and papers published this year that address the issues you seem to be concerned about, but I am afraid of being deleted for being off topic. In the past, the most the skeptics could say was “You have not proven AGW will be catastrophic.” Now skeptics can say “We have shown AGW will not be catastrophic.”

    Steve’s work here is foundational. Many people were persuaded by the Hockey Stick and said they found it to be more compelling than any other data. But it is completely wrong. If temps today (with solar activity high) are not exceptional, then all the atmospheric CO2 is not having much affect. Pielke says the net feedbacks must be negative.

    Perhaps we should take this discussion to Unthreaded. I find myself wanting to go further off topic.

  58. MarkR
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 9:11 AM | Permalink

    #54 Walt.

    ….the point I was making. Which was: where is the evidence of deliberately misleading? I was referring to the work of Mann et al when I made that remark, and of course I would include Hansen.

    Mann did some work on the verification R2 statistic (IIRC) found that his work failed the spuriousness test, hid it in the Censored folder, denied he’d ever done the test, said in Public under questioning that it would be wrong and foolish to do the test. He lied all the way through.

    None of his or any of the Hockey Teams work has ever passed the R2 statistical check.

    They all know that, they all persist in alleging there is a real correlation between their cherry picked non temperature proxies, and temperature. It is difficult to believe that they are all stupid, ergo they must all be deceitful, even if that includes willfull self deception. Sorry, there is no way round that conclusion.

    Hansens work hasn’t been audited to the same extent, because he wouldn’t give access to his code until recently, and also recently completely changed the underlying database, as a result of SteveM’s work. But he has indicated in his personal website material that he is on some kind of Mission. There is no way anyone can read his outpourings and not realise that he has an agenda. His mind is made up, and anyone who points out that the Emperor has no clothes is villified. It is not a first time for Hansen, he was also on the Global Cooling nuclear winter type Mission in the 70’s.

    I look forward to a thorough forensic examination of Habsen’s works. Then we will be able to answer your question fully.

  59. Mike B
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 10:44 AM | Permalink

    Walt says:

    Gavin has made the point: “Do the science yourself, and compare your results to ours.” I have pointed out that not everybody has the access to data and computing power that he has, and that auditing of the processes is really a necessity.

    Walt, I find the implications your statement simply staggering. You can’t do the science without computing power? As in GCM’s? Is that what climate science has come to? Build complicated but incomplete models, run millions of iterations, and then recommend policy decisions with potentially draconian results? I find it depressing that it’s all about the GCM’s with some.

    With regard to BCP’s and other proxies, without some understanding of the Earth’s climate over the past 1,000 to 10,000 years (even
    then a brief catnap in Earth’s history), we have no basis for concluding whether or not the instrumental record of the past 125 years, or the projections produced by GCM models, indicate anything particulary unusual.

    May a glacier slowly advance upon us all.

  60. Walt Bennett
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 10:56 AM | Permalink

    Re: #58.

    Please, shock the world with your findings.

    Start with me.

  61. Walt Bennett
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 10:57 AM | Permalink

    Re: #60,

    Yes, the implications are quite staggering. That is why I disagreed with Gavin.

  62. Walt Bennett
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 11:34 AM | Permalink

    Re: #56,

    My response was censored.

  63. Larry
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 11:47 AM | Permalink

    63, can’t imagine why. Off-topic is enough reason, attitude doesn’t help.

    Your chances of not getting snipped are better on unthreaded, but even there, there are standards. And no, it’s not “censorship” when the sysop of a blog deletes a comment. Only governments can censor. And when they do, you usually aren’t around to complain about it.

  64. Walt Bennett
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 4:35 PM | Permalink

    Re: #63,

    Attitude? My response was something along the lines of “Do you deny the existence of {insert offenceive word here}? Do you deny they exist here?”

    And my point was, damn the white noise on both sides.

    I’m waiting for lesson 1 in the assertion: “Now skeptics can say “We have shown AGW will not be catastrophic.”” from #58.

    My attitude is: stuff the attitude on both sides.

  65. Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 5:34 PM | Permalink

    Re #54:

    Walt said:

    With regard to some comments above, Hansen says this is evident from paleological evidence. I would say that it is incorrect to say that the estimate is incoherent or heavily based on assumptions. I would also say that it deserves rigorous examination.

    Have a look at Hans Errens pages:

    http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/howmuch.htm

    There are different estimates for climate sensitivity, from 0.7 K/2xCO2 (Dietze and Hoyt) to 4 K/2xCO2 (Arrhenius)
    Hansen has an estimate of around 2.8 K/2xCO2, but that is based on his assumption that CO2 was helping for about 50% of the temperature change in ice age – interglacial transitions (and vv.), while that is very questionable. See the graph at the bottom of Hans’ page.
    Further, there is no measurable CO2 feedback on temperature at the end of the previous interglacial (minus 40 ppmv), the Eemian. See:

    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/eemian.html

    And there is no measurable feedback from CO2 in the LGM-Holocene transition (plus 80 ppmv), see:

    The latter graph with thanks to André van den Berg.

  66. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 6:13 PM | Permalink

    RE 65. Hey walt. I’m a regular here and I get snipped all the time. No worries.
    There are certain things that our host won’t tolerate. It’s his damn house.
    So, he will put up with silliness and banter for a while… THEN snip.
    No discussion of religion and allusions to it. That’s fair. C02, solar,
    etc etc.. are tolerated for while and then you get a bucket of cold water tossed on you.

    Off topic stuff is tolerated if a thread is dying, then you get snipped or tossed into unthreaded.

    So you get a nice balance of science and some smiles.

    I don’t know what you said, but Chances are he was fair.

    Funny, some night I go to bed and I think. ” dang I hope he snips what I just said”

    He’s a fair guy. You might consider that he did you a favor by snipping. Or not.

  67. Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 9:12 AM | Permalink

    Mike Carney wrote:

    “When someone comes up with a claim of cold fusion you expect to be able to examine the methods and reproduce the results. We didn’t have to wait seven years to discover that cold fusion wasn’t reproducible.”

    That is correct. It took only about a year to confirm that cold fusion is real. By September 12, 1990, 92 groups in major laboratories reported replications. See: Will, F.G., Groups Reporting Cold Fusion Evidence. 1990, National Cold Fusion Institute: Salt Lake City, UT.:

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGgroupsrepo.pdf

    In the years following, hundreds of world-class laboratories published over a thousand papers in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals of physics and chemistry, proving beyond any doubt that cold fusion is a nuclear effect.

    The scientific process does work. Peer-review and independent replications work. But, you have to read original source literature to know what is true and what is not. You can’t just guess or rely on Internet rumors. You will find a bibliography of 3,000 papers on cold fusion and the full text from over 500 papers here:

    lenr-canr.org

    Please read something about cold fusion before commenting on it.

    – Jed Rothwell
    Librarian, LENR-CANR.org

  68. Will C.
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 9:33 AM | Permalink

    Can someone give me a quick run-down describing “R2 statistic (IIRC)” tests?

  69. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 2:09 PM | Permalink

    Note that if researchers ever learn to control cold fusion, and if the political opposition can be overcome, cold fusion will rapidly eliminate the use of fossil fuel. It can also be used to remove the carbon dioxide already added to the atmosphere from fossil fuel. This could be done several ways. The most promising method, I believe, is with massive desalination and irrigation projects to sequester carbon dioxide in trees, which would then be converted to charcoal and buried underground to form what you might call artificial coal mines.

    This project would be surprisingly cheap, and it could begin quickly (10 or 20 years after cold fusion becomes practical). I estimated the amount of land and the number of desalination plants required in chapters 8 and 9 of my book “Cold Fusion and The Future.” See:

    http://lenr-canr.org/BookBlurb.htm

    This book was recommended by Arthur C. Clarke, who has written about cold fusion:

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeACthecominga.pdf

    He made quite a few comments about cold fusion in the revised Millennium Edition of “Profiles of the Future.” (This is only available in the U.K. for some reason. See http://www.amazon.co.uk)

    I think significant progress in controlling cold fusion has been made over the last year, especially with so-called lukewarm fusion. (This occurs in plasmas at thousands of degrees, rather than 400 million deg C, the temperature of a tokamak plasma fusion reactor.) See, for example, Claytor (Los Alamos); Rout et al. (BARC), who observed 10E16 tritium atoms where theory predicts only 10E9; and the latest paper by Storms. Storms can generate 10E8 particles per second on demand, instantly. He has confirmed this with a G-M counter and a silicon detector. The heat from the reaction is presently too low to measure with calorimetry, but indications are that the reaction rate will increase exponentially in upcoming versions of the experiment, when the voltage is increased.

    Whether the political opposition can be overcome or not is impossible to say. As I said in the book, it would help if educated, technically literate people (such as the readers here) would familiarize themselves with the experimental literature and the actual claims, rather than repeating spurious rumors.

    – Jed Rothwell
    Librarian, LENR-CANR.org

  70. Arturo Bandini
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 12:18 AM | Permalink

    Entrainment and you.

    Has anyone seen this paper?

    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/30/12259

    It indicates that the Entrainment Coefficient has a huge impact on climate models.
    (At least that what I get from it.)
    Set the coefficient low, and a huge number comes out the other end.

    It seems important to me. Some people have described it as a “Stealth Paper.”
    Any comments are welcome.

  71. kim
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 1:39 AM | Permalink

    Clouds…..convection. There is something wrong in the GCM’s and I can teleconnectedly smell it all the way over here.
    ==============================

  72. John M
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 7:14 AM | Permalink

    Steven Mosher #67

    No discussion of religion and allusions to it. That’s fair. C02, solar,
    etc etc.. are tolerated for while and then you get a bucket of cold water tossed on you.

    Looks like we’ll have to add cold fusion to the list.

    (Read this while you can folks!)

  73. Duane Johnson
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 8:45 AM | Permalink

    Re 71 “Entrainment and you”

    When I first read this, I read “Entertainment and you”.

    I think Climate models do contain entertainment coefficients! :-)

  74. Pierre Gosselin
    Posted Dec 13, 2007 at 4:54 AM | Permalink

    Spot the Hockey Stick
    I don’t know if this one qualifies

  75. Posted Jan 13, 2008 at 3:18 PM | Permalink

    On January 11, Lonnie Thompson gave a talk on Climate change at Ohio State. After his talk, I asked him if the graph identified by Al Gore as “Dr. Thompson’s Thermometer” in his book and film was really based on his ice core research.

    Thompson admitted that an error had been made, and even had a slide ready that showed the data of the Mann Hockey Stick plus Jones instrumental data that Gore’s figure was based on, alongside an average of dO18 z-scores from 6 of his Andean and Himalayan ice cores, similar to the 7-series graph that appeared in his 2006 PNAS article. He stated that he recognized the error right away, and even sent Gore (and Mann, I as I recall) an e-mail pointing out the mistake.

    When I pressed him if it wouldn’t be appropriate to make a more public announcement, given the high-profile nature of the error, Ellen Mosley-Thompson, his wife and co-author, stood up and offered that it was Gore’s error, not theirs, so that they had no responsibility for it, and that in any event there was no forum in which to make a correction.

    I suggested that since OSU’s Byrd Polar Research Center has a website with a News page, it would be trivial and virtually costless to post a press release clarifying the matter for the millions of readers and viewers of Gore’s book and film who are not on Thompson’s e-mail list.

    It will be interesting to see what, if anything, materializes.

  76. steven mosher
    Posted Jan 13, 2008 at 3:31 PM | Permalink

    RE 76 well done Hu.

    A while back RC had a post on alledged mistakes in AIT. Perhaps it’s time
    to revisit that

  77. Posted Jan 13, 2008 at 3:43 PM | Permalink

    I would suggest it was incumbent upon them to point out in a public statement the fact that it was an error and that Gore has been notified of such. Perhaps Thompson’s could be asked to make public their email to Gore?

  78. kim
    Posted Jan 13, 2008 at 3:48 PM | Permalink

    Cherchez la femme.
    ============

  79. steven mosher
    Posted Jan 13, 2008 at 3:51 PM | Permalink

    RE 78,, just post a question to RC on the AIT thread

  80. Tom Gray
    Posted Jan 13, 2008 at 3:57 PM | Permalink

    re 76

    Gore’s error in AIT was more than just the use of an incorrect diagram. Gore noted that the temperature chart had the same shape as the CO2 chart. The point wasn’t just hockey stick temperature but that the chats showed that temperature is directly correlated to CO2 and nothing else of significance affects this relationship.

  81. Yorick
    Posted Jan 13, 2008 at 5:46 PM | Permalink

    Isn’t Gavin’s position on the hockey stick that the only red noise in the climate record is due to CO2 and that his method is not robust for anything but white noise?

  82. steven mosher
    Posted Jan 13, 2008 at 7:02 PM | Permalink

    re 82 gavin’s position on the hockey stick?

    For a dead guy, yorick, you make a great straightman, albeit a might stiff.

    I refuse to make any jokes or insinuations about gavins position relative
    to the blade or the shaft of the aforementioned stick. It wouldn’t be cricket.

  83. Richard Tarlton
    Posted Jan 13, 2008 at 7:14 PM | Permalink

    I like this yorick fellow

  84. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Jan 14, 2008 at 5:56 AM | Permalink

    For the mother of all Hockey Stick precursors see

    Another original presentation by A. Gore, page 94 of “Earth in the Balance”. I have added the red for clarity. The length of the hockey stick blade makes the print too small on the axes. Perhps his advisors said to trim it a little for the movie. But we should have passed a temperature change exceeding 50 deg C between year 2000 and now.

  85. Posted Jan 14, 2008 at 12:58 PM | Permalink

    Re: 83: Silly point!

  86. doug
    Posted Apr 4, 2008 at 8:19 AM | Permalink

    re: 37

    This is the real rhetoric that stands out. Soooo typical and rather shameful.

    “Make no doubt, however, if tipping points are passed, if we, in effect, destroy Creation, passing on to our children, grandchildren, and the unborn a situation out of their control, the contrarians who work to deny and confuse will not be the principal culprits. The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters. They will always be present. They will continue to entertain even if the Titanic begins to take on water. Their role and consequence is only as a diversion from what is important.

    The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children. The court jesters are their jesters, occasionally paid for services, and more substantively supported by the captains’ disinformation campaigns.”

  87. Carlo
    Posted Aug 17, 2009 at 4:22 AM | Permalink

    Any update about the Hockey Stick?
    Is it true or wrong?

    Carlo

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,329 other followers

%d bloggers like this: