For those who asked for the reference
David Deming ,Journal of Scientific Exploration
Book review of State of Fear
...An example is provided by revisionist efforts of some researchers to extinguish the existence of a Medieval Warm Period. The politicization of science is a threat to the process of free inquiry necessary for human progress.
The full text is not online, I got the direct quote from elsewhere.
lets see what the Global Warmongers make of that
The ever busy Mann has turned his hand to north atlantic hurricanes but this time the trick cyclist has two closely related papers
Sabbatelli and Mann 2007
Evidence for a modest undercount bias in early historical Atlantic tropical cyclone counts
Mann and Sabbatelli 2007
The influence of climate state variables on Atlantic Tropical Cyclone occurrence rates
As usual other peoples data are put through complex mathematical routines, not allways making the source available for checking( normal standards at some journals dont apply to Mann)
and various statistical rabbits are again produced but he ignores Wegmans recommendation to at least get a reputable statistician as co author and instead depends on the stats he learnt from a siesmologist.
The statistical model captures a substantial fraction R2 = 50% (i.e., half) of the total annual variance in TC counts
Just in case some missed that 50% is one half
I suppose he was sorely tempted to use the bristlecone pine chronologys to produce a hockey stick shape
as for the Hurricane predictions, they were a late in releasing their predictions this year, like the bettor who lays his wager when the horses are part way down the straight
but another view is Fewest Northern Hemisphere Hurricane Days since 1977. 3rd Lowest since 1958 (behind 1977 and 1973).
Russell says :...Pew is an excellent organisation with high standards, and I've learned to place trust in it. That's the point...
Oh really ?
Did you check out their credentials of the staff listed. Your meme seems to be if they are not scientists dont trust them
Well a few have first degrees in science but none are climate scientists, their main specialities are public policy and or economics
Senior Fellow for Domestic Policy at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change
She holds two Masters Degrees from Duke University with a focus on resource economics and policy and a BA from the University of Virginia with majors in Economics and Environmental Science.
THis is the best qualified scientist
Jay Gulledge is the Senior Scientist and Program Manager for Science and Impacts at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
Dr. Gulledge earned a PhD (1996) in biological sciences from the University of Alaska Fairbanks and M.S. (1991) and B.S. (1988) degrees in biology from the University of Texas at Arlington.
and NOT forgetting
Laura Fischer is the Administrative/Accounts Payable Assistant for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Ms. Fischer holds a Bachelor of Arts in Art History with a minor in Architecture from the University of Virginia
Sounds like Owen McShane would be right at home here but only 3 days ago you said this
Owen McShane is also listed as a "prominent scientist"
For fuck's sake... honestly...
Phillip, Ive done your research for you...
Nearly a decade later, more than a dozen studies using
alternative proxy data and reconstruction methods have,
moreover, independently reaffirmed earlier studies such as
MBH98, producing millennial or longer hemispheric temperature
reconstructions which agree with the those reconstructions
within estimated uncertainties.
J of Geophysical Research 2007
Oh and the authors!!
Michael E. Mann,1 Scott Rutherford,2 Eugene Wahl,3 and Caspar Ammann.
Its Mann and his crew some of which he was their PhD Supervisor.
This is how its done people, the conjuror and his assistants have new rabbits to pull out of the same hat
Kracklite, the Deeming report was in the Journal of Scientific Discovery 2005 as I pointed out.
I have quoted the DIRECT WRITTEN testimoney of Wegman.
Its says his statistical methods are incorrect and his conclusions cant be supported by his analysis.
And if you set a very high bar in requiring direct quotes with sources please play by your own rules
...Nor has it made any difference to the dozens of OTHER studies that have repeatedly arrived that the same result in the same decade since.
But you guys never do THAT do you
The interesting bit from the NY Times is ..
Today’s interpreters of the weather are what social scientists call availability entrepreneurs: the activists, journalists and publicity-savvy scientists who selectively monitor the globe looking for newsworthy evidence of a new form of sinfulness, burning fossil fuels.
as for the MWP
In 1995 David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, published a study in Science that demonstrated the technique by generating a 150-year climate history for North America. Here, in his own words, is what happened next...
With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.
Journal of Scientific Exploration 2005
Philip wants it spelt out bell, book and candle.
so lets go to the testimony of professor Wegman and his commmittee of the National Academy of Sciences(NAS)
Most of the proxy series show little structure, but the last two show the characteristic ‘hockey stick’ shape. The principal component-likemethodology in MBH 98/99 preferentially emphasizes these shapes
as we shall see.... page 3
...It is not clear that Mann and associates realized the error in their
methodology at the time of publication. Our re-creation supports the
critique of the MBH98 methods.
In general, we found the writing in MBH98 and MBH99 to be
somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms by
MM03/05a/05b to be valid. The reasons for setting 1902-1995 as the
calibration period presented in the narrative of MBH98 sounds
plausible, and the error may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence
that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimate studies
have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians....__page 6 & 7
..The MBH98/99 work has been sufficiently politicized that this
community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing
credibility. Overall, our committee believes that the MBH99
assessment that the decade of the 1990s was the likely the hottestdecade of the millennium and that 1998 was likely the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by their analysis....__page 8
This refutes the conclusions of his paper
And the first of the NAS panel recommendations..
It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.
This was the written testimoney of Wegman to the Committee, his oral answers to questions from the chairman are here
As for Complaining to the Press Council about a misleading article well the infamous Professor Michael Mann, of the discredited hockey stick fame did so back in 2004
.. Dr de Freitas’s change of viewpoint from being a scientist warning about global warming in Listener articles published in the 1980s to his present stance where he describes himself as “a global warming agnostic, not a sceptic.” This feature canvassed his views as he gave comparative examples of temperature studies which supported his conclusion that “global temperature has not risen appreciably in the last 20 years.”. The feature also quoted graphs produced by Professor Mann in the IPCC’s latest report in 2001 which showed by contrast a “sharp kick-up [in Northern Hemisphere temperatures] in the 20th century.” ..
The online PC decision , which didnt uphold the complaint, is here
The original herald articles are here
The passage of time has shown Mann to have published rubbish, I think the statistics he used was assesed by experts as being "graduate student level" and Mann used his influential position on the IPCC at the time to get his hockey stick into prominence .
Looking back at previous New years honours
http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/honours/lists/index.asp checking out the last one done by Jenny Shipley( in those days they actually got the moniker Dame/Sir for the top honours) we see
Selwyn John CUSHING, C.M.G., of Hastings. For services to business, sport and the arts.
This has political donor all written over it ( the CMG would suffice for his "contributions" to the areas listed)
This was an interesting one from that year
Dr Brian Finbar Myram EDWARDS, of Auckland. For services to broadcasting and journalism. (CNZM)
Another couple of national political donors from 1998/97 who got knighthoods
Rajeshwar (Roger) Sarup BHATNAGAR, of Auckland. For services to business and the community.
Robert Arthur OWENS, C.B.E., of Auckland. For services to business and the community.
I’m not dismissing these scientists because they aren’t climatologist's under a narrow definition.
Desmogblog listed them as PhDs in Climatology from Canadian universities. If they cant get that right what exactly is the point they are making ,that Ball is a fraud?
I find all this credential bashing pointless.
There should be far more disagreements then there are, and the scientific tradition is to encourage debate not shut it down.
Just picking a article from my desk, shows that the first comprehensive argument for continental drift was from Alfred Wegeners 1915 book The Origins of Continents and Oceans. but it notes that many specialists made nasty comments about his scientific method.
Continental drift evolved into the more accurate term plate tectonics
Wegener was kicked around because he wasn’t a trained geologist much like Ball and others seem to have their credentials attacked rather than the validity of their views.