Thanks for the link.
It's getting a bit dated, though (2006). Here are some other excellent resources (a list which I maintain, on my site):
https://sealevel.info/learnmore.html
Uecker wrote, "The WMO is not supporting your argument, you just mentioned that they used Mann's graph. So I do not see any argument here in your favor."
Didn't you read what I wrote? I showed you that the WMO used the Jones/Mann fraudulent graph on the cover of their climate report.
I doubt they knew the graph was fraudulent when they used it, but AFAIK they've never condemned it or apologized for using it.
—
Uecker wrote, "The "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change" is a well known climate misinformation site founded by coal industry:" {cites Grauniad article by Suzanne Goldenberg}
You couldn't be more wrong. Of all the sources that I have cited, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is best. It is a 501(c)(3) charity, which accepts donations from many sources. It is led by two exceptionally fine scientists, and their work is of the very highest quality. You could learn a lot from them, if you were willing to.
The Grauniad, in contrast, is a leftist rag, with a long history of publishing misinformation. For instance, in a May 21, 2012 article by that same Suzanne Goldenberg, they published a fake news story claiming that FakeGate forger Peter Gleick had been cleared of forging the forged document smearing Heartland, which he & DeSmogBlog got caught disseminating.
The opening paragraph of her article reported: “A review has cleared the scientist Peter Gleick of forging any documents in his expose of the rightwing Heartland Institute’s strategy and finances, the Guardian has learned.”
If you read the article you might wonder “what review?” Or “by whom?” Or “how is a ‘review’ different from an ‘investigation?’”
The article answers none of those questions. Goldenberg didn’t give a source, because she didn’t have one!
Although Goldenberg didn’t admit it in the article, she got the information from Gleick’s own organization, the inexecrable Pacific Institute, and that organization didn’t say who created the “review” which supposedly cleared Gleick, and they never even released a copy of the report from that “review.”
It turns out there was no investigation at all. They just hired a lawyer named Gary Scholick, a specialist in labor law, with no apparent relevant expertise w/r/t forgery, to supposedly write a “review” of the documentation which they gave him.
I say “supposedly,” because that review was never released, and, to this day, Scholick is not mentioned anywhere on the Pacific Institute web site.
My guess is that the “review,” if it actually existed at all, was just a few sentences in a letter, saying that Scholick found no evidence in the material he was given that Gleick was the forger.
—
Uecker wrote, "I don't know why you cite the Pages 2K Network, the findings are in agreement with Mann"
Didn't you read what I wrote? Their purpose is to bolster the case for "disappearing" the MWP and LIA, i.e., "straighten the handle" of the "hockey stick." I cited them as the leading source of information on that side of the debate, though, frankly, I think their position is weak, and I don't think they are as credible as the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
Note, though, that it wasn't the "handle" of the Jones/Mann "hockey stick" that was fraudulent, it was the blade. The "handle" was just poorly supported. They faked the "blade" in their proxy reconstruction graphs, to "hide the decline," to hide the fact that their methods aren't reliable.
—
Uecker wrote, "Robert Muller is famous for being a climate change sceptic who admitted he was wrong"
Actually, Muller now calls himself a "lukewarmist." (So do I, but my definition of it is a bit different from his.)
Why don't you watch Muller's video, describing what Jones, Mann, Bradley, Hughes, Briffa & Osborn did wrong, to "hide the decline" in that infamous graph?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If you think the World Meteorological Organization, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, the Pages 2K Network, the GISS, HadCRUT & UAH temperature data graphed at WoodForTrees, and my own sealevel dot info, are all "random links" or anti-vaxxer conspiracy theory sites, you might want to check your prejudice.
Richard Muller gave a brief but clear explanation of what Mann, Jones et al did, here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Steve McIntyre went into much greater depth, here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There seems to be some confusion about what all the fuss was about, w/r/t Phil Jones' use of "Mike's Nature Trick" to "hide the decline."
The problem wasn't with their analysis of the data, Uecker, and it wasn't that they got the wrong results, Layzej. The problem was that they misrepresented the results which they got, to hide the weakness of their methodology, and create the hockey stick shape of their graph. Their own data, when graphed honestly, looked nothing like a "hockey stick."
Here's the background for that “trick.” It used to be that most scientists agreed that, over the last few thousand years, the Earth's climate has oscillated, on timescales of a few centuries, between warm “climate optimums” and unpleasant cold periods: The long Holocene Climate Optimum (when temperatures were apparently substantially warmer than now), was followed by a cooler period, then by the Minoan or Bronze Age Warm Period, then the Iron Age Cold Period, then the Roman Warm Period or Roman Climate Optimum (“RWP”), then the Dark Ages Cold Period (“DACP”), then the Medieval Warm Period or Medieval Climate Optimum (“MWP”), then the Little Ice Age (“LIA”), and finally the Current Warm Period (Modern Climate Optimum). However, that chronology represents a problem for climate activists, since it means that there's nothing particularly unusual about the warming which occurred during the 20th century.
In 1998 and 1999, Mann, Bradley & Hughes challenged that orthodoxy with a new temperature reconstruction, in their heavily-hyped “hockey stick” papers. They erased the MWP and LIA from history, to create a straight “hockey stick handle” from 1000 AD to 1900 AD, which was followed by a sharp “hockey stick blade” of rising temperatures in the 20th century.
The rising temperatures in the 20th century (the "blade") weren't the main issue; they're documented (within a factor of two or so) by measurements. The issue was the earlier temperatures, for which measurement data mostly does not exist.
Mann et al sought to deduce those earlier temperatures from so-called "proxies," like tree ring measurements, and marine sediments. The question was (and is) whether or not that actually works.
Fortunately, it was possible to test part of those reconstructions: the most recent part, because it overlaps with measured temperatures.
Unfortunately, they didn't match. In fact, they were extremely different. The measured temperatures rose, for the same time period that two of the three proxy-derived temperature estimates declined, and the third was essentially flat. (These days that's referred to in the literature as the "divergence problem.")
That obviously meant their methodology of deriving "paleo-temperature" estimates from proxies like tree rings was not robust. So, back to the drawing board, right?
Wrong! Instead of going "back to the drawing board," Jones, in collaboration with Mann, Bradley, Hughes, Briffa & Osborn, "hid the decline" in the proxies, by creating a fraudulent graph for the cover of the WMO climate report, a graph in which real (measured) temperatures were substituted for proxy-derived temperature estimates, where they diverged.
In his infamous email, Phil Jones credited Mann with the idea (calling it "Mike's Nature Trick"), but it was Jones who created the graph. The graph was labeled as depicting three different proxy derivations of temperature estimates, in red (from Jones), blue (from Mann), and green (from Briffa), but actually all three of the traces had real (measured) temperature data spliced on the ends, replacing the embarrassingly wrong proxy-based temperature estimates.
He actually drew the measured temperature data as three separate traces, in red, blue & green, but "bent" slightly, to make them line up with the three proxy estimates, at the splice points. The red (Jones) and blue (Mann) traces were spliced at 1981, and the green (Briffa) trace was spliced at 1961 -- but you couldn't tell that from the graph, because Jones rounded the splice points, to conceal them.
Of course that still leaves open the question of how the Earth's temperatures really behaved, over the last thousand years. That debate continues to rage.
On one side, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has compiled an extensive collection of studies and papers with evidence for the traditional view: that the MWP and LIA were real and global.
On the other side, the Pages 2K Network was created in 2008, to compile evidence for the merely “regional nature of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.”
Um hmm...
Seriously, though, I know you realize this, but many people don't: criticizing scientific corruption is not attacking science, it is defending science.
Trump has little to do with it, anyhow. Dr. Ioannidis is most famous for this seminal paper, published eleven years before President Trump was elected:
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, by John P. A. Ioannidis, 2005. PLoS Med 2(8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.
Yes, you read that right: the peer-reviewed literature says that most peer-reviewed studies are wrong!
Here's a more recent article by Dr. Ioannidis (but still predating Trump's election):
Not all science is created equal, by John Ioannidis, Chemistry World, 16 October 2014.
The corruption of science tends to be worst in very politicized fields, like gender studies and climate science. In fact, in quite a few fields, the peer-reviewed literature in top journals is dominated by utter crackpottery. Have you seen this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Yeah. Here in NC, the legislature has been mandating wind+solar, so our electricity prices have been going up. We're around $.11 / kw-hr, retail, now. So in 20 years that 20W panel would produce about $77 worth of electricity, valued at current retail price.
But, of course, the true value of intermittently supplied electricity is actually much LESS than the WHOLESALE value of reliable electricity.
Also, the panels diminish in output over their lifetime, AND they probably won't last 20 years, AND they don't include installation costs, AND they don't include the expensive inverter (which also won't last 20 years), NOR the extra expense when it comes time to replace your roof (if you mount the darn things on your roof), etc., etc.
The bottom line is that solar is nowhere near as cost effective as wind, which is nowhere near as cost effective as gas and coal fuels.
That's why Germany and Denmark, which have the highest wind+solar energy investments, have such affordable electricity. Oh, wait...
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/europeelectricprice.png
In Germany, where they now get 20% of their electricity from wind & solar, the extraordinarily high cost has driven the price of electricity there up to three times what I pay here in North Carolina. (Well, it also doesn't help that Merkel is shutting down their perfectly good nuclear plants.)
The truth is that the intermittency problem with wind and solar is so severe that when you get more than a few percent tied into the grid it actually has negative value. It is only "crony capitalism" (government mandates, tax incentives, etc.) which make wind & solar competitive with coal and gas except in very special circumstances.
Diverting resources to wind and solar boondoggles impoverishes people, not just in West Virginia, where huge numbers of them are now out of work, but also everywhere that it inflates the cost of energy. It causes people living "on the edge" to sometimes have to choose between eating and staying warm.
Either choice can be deadly. In Europe, where there have been enormous price hikes for energy because of "renewables" scams, "energy poverty" is killing tens of thousands of mostly-elderly people:
What's more, most of the energy used to PRODUCE solar panels, and much of the energy used to produce wind turbines, comes from soot-belching, coal-fired power plants in China, and most of the energy REPLACED BY these devices would have been produced in clean power plants with state-of-the-art "scrubbers" in North America, Europe & Australia.
So, Chinese workers get emphysema, American workers get to collect unemployment (until it runs out), and American & European environmentalists get to feel self-righteous.
Such a deal.
(null cookie; hope that's ok)
