News Scientists jumping off the warming train

  • Thread starter Thread starter wolram
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Train
Click For Summary
Over 650 scientists from around the world are challenging the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and Al Gore, as highlighted in a U.S. Senate Minority Report. This report adds approximately 250 dissenting voices in 2008 to the 400 who spoke out in 2007, indicating a significant rise in scientific opposition to mainstream climate narratives. Critics argue that many dissenting scientists lack expertise in climate science, with most being from unrelated fields. The discussion reflects a broader skepticism towards the consensus on man-made global warming, suggesting that the scientific community is becoming increasingly divided. The ongoing debate raises questions about the credibility of climate science and the influence of political agendas.
  • #91
Gokul43201 said:
I saw the name Ross McKitrick in that quote and decided not to read it
You saw his name on one sentence. :rolleyes: I suggest that you read it. You might learn something you didn't know.

BTW, Ross McKitric is one of the people responsible for successfully debunking Mann's Global Warming Hockey Stick.

Ross McKitrick is a Canadian economist specializing in environmental economics and policy analysis. McKitrick gained his doctorate in economics in 1996 from the University of British Columbia, and in the same year was appointed Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Guelph, Ontario. He has been an Associate Professor since 2001 and since 2002 Senior Fellow of the Fraser Institute, a Canadian free-market public policy think tank.[1]

McKitrick co-wrote the 2002 book Taken By Storm with Christopher Essex. It was a runner-up to the Donner Prize 2002 as the Best Canadian Book on Public Policy.[2] He has since published further research on palaeoclimate reconstruction. Some of these papers were cowritten with Stephen McIntyre, including "Hockey Sticks, Principal Components and Spurious Significance."[3] He continues to publish research in economics, usually in the area of environmental policy.

McKitrick has (1997-2005) authored or coauthored 16 peer-reviewed articles in economics journals, and four in science journals (as well as two in Energy and Environment). Outside academia, in addition to co-authoring Taken by Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming he has also written a number of opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, many of which have also written about McKitrick.[4] In his latest work, he is lead author of "Stationarity of Global Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions:Implications for Global Warming Scenarios." along with Mark Strazicich.[5]


[edit] Global warming related activities
Being active in the field of environmental economics and policy analysis, in addition to his role as a senior fellow with the Fraser Institute and co-authorship of Taken By Storm, has involved McKitrick in the debate over the subject of global warming. Below are some of the more contentious issues that have received attention, on a national scale in the mass media or involving government agencies and panels.


[edit] Criticism of Mann et al 1998
Main article: Hockey stick controversy
From a statistical perspecitve, McKitrick and McIntyre (MM) in the 2003 paper "Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) "Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series"[6] examined the Michael E. Mann, Ray Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes (MBH) 1998 paper, "Global-Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries."[7] As a result Mann et al. published a corrigendum[2]. McIntyre and McKitrick say the corrigendum failed to address some of their methodological concerns, and the two claim that Nature responded to their concerns about the corrigendum in an unsatisfactory way.[3]

A panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) endorsed, with a few reservations, the MBH paper. One of the panel's reservations was that "...a statistical method used in the 1999 study was not the best and that some uncertainties in the work 'have been underestimated,' and it particularly challenged the authors' conclusion that the decade of the 1990s was probably the warmest in a millennium." However, they also said that "'an array of evidence' supported the main thrust of the paper", leading to even more confusion on the situation.[4]

A subsequent investigation, undertaken at the request of Republican Senator Joe Barton and headed by prominent statistics professor and NAS member Edward Wegman of George Mason University [5] supported the statistical criticisms by McKitrick and McIntyre, saying "It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the paper. We found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling."[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_McKitrick
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Evo said:
You saw his name on one sentence. :rolleyes:
Let me quote it:
And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.

Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article - Dr Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada.

The article is at least partly based on the testimony of two "impartial" "experts", one of whom is McKitrick. :rolleyes:

I suggest that you read it. You might learn something you didn't know.
Odds are, if I read most anything written anywhere, I will learn something I didn't know. It still doesn't change my argument, which was about your descriptors of the quotes, and not about the behavior of the IPCC.

BTW, Ross McKitric is one of the people responsible for successfully debunking Mann's Global Warming Hockey Stick.
Thanks for the info.

Here are a few links about Ross McKitrick's level of expertise and impartiality (they include complete email exchanges with McKitrick):

http://timlambert.org/2004/04/mckitrick/
http://timlambert.org/2004/04/mckitrick2/
http://timlambert.org/2004/05/mckitrick3/
http://timlambert.org/2004/07/mckitrick5/

One such exchange:

Dear Mr. McKitrick,

I was referred to your web page on temperatures being affected by
economic variables. One question struck me forcibly as I read through,
and particularly after seeing the map of stations you selected. That
is, you mentioned using only about 10% of an already sparse data set,
but I could find no comments as to how it is you selected this small
minority. In looking at the map, it seems that 3 stations are from
Minnesota (or very close), with none from Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa,
Missouri, Indiana, or Michigan. Notably missing across the midwestern
US were Chicago, Detroit, Indianapolis, St. Louis, and Milwaukee.
Even odder is to see (as best the graphics conveyed) no stations in
Canada, particularly through Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, or upper
Ontario or Quebec. On the other hand, 7 stations it seems are from Sudan.

Climatology is an area with historic and serious problems of data
gaps and voids, so folks there do tend to treasure the few data points
they have. To take only 10% of an already small data set normally
includes an extensive justification discussion.

Could you explain? Or let me know when a fuller discussion is included
in your paper?

Thank you,
Robert Grumbine

-----------------

Dear Mr. Grumbine

I did not supervise the selection of stations, instead I instructed my
RA to pick at least one station from as many regions as he could. We are
limited by the availability of stations in continuous operation from
1979-2000. Starting from about 20N and 30E (east africa) there are very
few stations that meet this criterion over a large geographical spread.
Of those that do, most are in Sudan for some reason. However the site
that makes the data available
(http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/station_data/ ) does not
identify the station by country. I didn't even realize the role of Sudan
until you pointed it out. My RA had to look up in an atlas afterwards to
see where the stations were located for the purposes of identifying the
economic covariates, and I only worked with data stripped of country
identifiers.
...
We were talking about cherrypicking?
Ross McKitrick is a Canadian economist specializing in environmental economics and policy analysis. [etc, etc]
I couldn't care less.

And speaking of economists, here's an article you linked, earlier in this thread, in this post. It says:
Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, ...

Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him.
Dr. Pachauri has PhDs in Economics and Industrial Engineering. He taught Economics at NC State as an Asst. Prof. and then as visiting faculty.

But hey, he's a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, and McKitrick is an impartial expert.

It's easy to attach labels.

I don't want to spend any more time talking about someone who doesn't know what an RMS value does.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #93
Gokul43201 said:
Dr. Pachauri has PhDs in Economics and Industrial Engineering. He taught Economics at NC State as an Asst. Prof. and then as visiting faculty.

But hey, he's a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, and McKitrick is an impartial expert.
Except that McKitrick was successful at debunking the hockeystick through rigorous studying of the facts.

What has Pachauri done in this area?
 
  • #94
Gokul43201 said:
I saw the name Ross McKitrick in that quote and decided not to read it (not now, at least). Ross McKitrick is a nut, not that that means he can not have valid objections to stuff in the IPCC reports, but I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw the 2007 report.

Besides, what I was pointing out was only what appeared to me as a discord between the things you were quoting and what you were saying about them. I don't have any opinion I care to expound on about the overall conduct of the IPCC.

Evo said:
Except that McKitrick was successful at debunking the hockeystick through rigorous studying of the facts.
Even, if that's true (you'll see it's not, if you read what's in those links), it doesn't mean he's not a nut. And I said:
me said:
Ross McKitrick is a nut, not that that means he can not have valid objections to stuff in the IPCC reports...
Evo said:
What has Pachauri done in this area?
He's never eaten an animal? I don't know! I don't particularly care. I never said that Pachauri was an expert. I'm done with this discussion - you folks can carry on without me.
 
  • #95
All the IPCC stuff aside, I just want to say that it snowed in Seattle over the weekend. It's been really really cold up here in the NW as well as other parts of the US.

No matter what people theorize and conclude about the planet "incinerating" in the near future, I just don't see it. I don't even see a hint of it.

I imagine if you get enough scientists together and they are convinced (sincerely) that an eminent peril is a reality, enough evidence could be scrounged up to make it look like a fact. Even if it isn't. Human nature, really.
 
  • #96
Well, since you're using anecdotal evidence for your case, I should point out that we only just got snow here in Edmonton, Alberta a couple weeks ago. Most years we have snow by mid October and it's here to stay. Last couple of years we've had little snow and warm winters.

Get your head out of the sand and actually look at the data.

Evo, I pointed out that you took the quotation out of context, and misconstrued it's meaning (intentionally or not, I don't know), and you just quickly move along to the next article, without further comment. Not only that, your next article has nothing to say about the data's validity. All it says is that not every scientist reviewed each chapter, and a few of the recommendations were rejected. From what little of the comments I have read through (linked in my earlier post), the rejections were all understandable, and mostly on format issues (where to cover which topic, etc). Can you point to a single significant complaint about the science or conclusions in the comments I linked to which was ignored out of hand, with no reason given?
 
  • #97
NeoDevin said:
Well, since you're using anecdotal evidence for your case, I should point out that we only just got snow here in Edmonton, Alberta a couple weeks ago. Most years we have snow by mid October and it's here to stay. Last couple of years we've had little snow and warm winters.

Get your head out of the sand and actually look at the data.

Get your head out of the data and look out the window!

The weather is always changing! One year it's mild the next it's harsh. Over the course of a decade it's more extreme, the next it's less extreme. You can point the data any damn direction you want. Get the whole world in a damn crisis that never existed. When the data turns into EVIDENCE the rest of the freezing public will be interested.

Sensationalism and hype. Sure the climate is changing, it's always been changing...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #98
If you have a point to make, drankin, make it. Preferably with some evidence to back it up. Otherwise you're not contributing, you're just spamming.
 
  • #99
NeoDevin said:
If you have a point to make, drankin, make it. Preferably with some evidence to back it up. Otherwise you're not contributing, you're just spamming.

I just made my point!?

I'm contributing common sense. Evidence? That's what we are all asking for.

Is the planet warming due to human contribution? That would be a direct question. Do you have evidence to support an answer?
 
  • #100
  • #101
NeoDevin said:
If you have a point to make, drankin, make it. Preferably with some evidence to back it up. Otherwise you're not contributing, you're just spamming.

Actually, his point was valid. Last year we had a single 70º day here in Washington I think in February or early March. And then it snowed a few weeks later. Weather is pretty crazy sometimes.
 
  • #102
Global warming deals with climate change.

The climate is long term changes in the atmosphere.

Weather is short term atmospheric conditions.

At the very least, know what climate means drankin.
 
  • #103
About the McKitrick discussion, I understand, this is the political corner of course, not the scientific and linking to beligerent blogs is okay as well as ad hominem attacks of course, but it probably says more about the attacker rather than about the person under attack.

However, if you want to judge the science behind the hockey stick and the debunking, why not discuss http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #104
wolram said:
Phrak.
I am sure i agree with you, for an amateur at least ,to find information on how the ipcc works and it contributors is difficult, this organisation is not in any way transparent, may be the warmers can tell why this is so.

Edit.
Is there anyone here that can take us through the review process, from initial draft to final draft, and who had input?

Sorry, wolram, I cannot.
 
  • #105
Climate reasearch is a million dollar industry. No-climate change is not.

But I would like to hear from anyone with who has given thought to how advocating climate change benefits the UN powers-that-be. UN member nations have their own self interests, but the relatively long term bureaucrats have their own. I would like to know about these guys. The motivation seems straight forward to me, but I don't want to introduce bias before hearing others.
 
  • #106
Hello,

I have flicked through the pages of this thread. I don't think I am repeating anything, and would like to respond to this,

LowlyPion said:
I've seen that mentioned before, but haven't seen any actual scientific citations for the claims for a anthropogenic global cooling hypotheses from years past.

I believe it is difficult to find peer-reviewed papers of the cooling claims. However, I thought you might find this interesting,

NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who has publicly criticized the Bush administration for dragging its feet on climate change and labeled skeptics of man-made global warming as distracting "court jesters," appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age within 50 years.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/19/inside-the-beltway-69748548/

Matt.
 
  • #107
Phrak said:
Climate reasearch is a million dollar industry. No-climate change is not.

But I would like to hear from anyone with who has given thought to how advocating climate change benefits the UN powers-that-be. UN member nations have their own self interests, but the relatively long term bureaucrats have their own. I would like to know about these guys. The motivation seems straight forward to me, but I don't want to introduce bias before hearing others.

Hello,

A number of things spring to mind, not least the global control of energy!

Carbon has become a new currency (which is a shame, since it's CO2 that's causing the "problem"). The gold standard was removed I think by Nixon in '71, finally? Although the process started long before.

By denying less developed countries the ability to use the traditional infrastructure we built for them over the last 40 years - and got them into debt by building for them - are we not now telling those countries that they must buy renewable technologies from us, using a new system of debt?

Controversial, but since we know that all developed countries used CO2-intensive energy sources to "develop", I can't help thinking we are now trying to deny others that option!

Matt.
 
  • #108
TheStatutoryApe said:
Whether you accept it as a valid source or not I would not know but it appears to be the only posting on the topic that isn't a conservative blog.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/...es-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/

I'm not familiar enough with the metrics they're using on that blog to comment on it's accuracy, but I don't think blogs are acceptable sources on this forum. I'll look more into it when I have some free time.
 
  • #109
drankin said:
Is the planet warming due to human contribution? That would be a direct question. Do you have evidence to support an answer?

How about the IPCC report? If you disagree with what's presented in it, make your arguments. So far I haven't seen one valid argument against it.

Also, as Cyrus said: Learn the difference between weather and climate.
 
  • #110
NeoDevin said:
I'm not familiar enough with the metrics they're using on that blog to comment on it's accuracy, but I don't think blogs are acceptable sources on this forum. I'll look more into it when I have some free time.

Hello,

Interesting re: "acceptable" sources! Point taken.

That said, Anthony Watts has been reviewing the data for a long time, and his blog is certainly worth reading for anyone interested in balancing a sceptical view with that of the mainstream.

He is not the only contributor to "wattsupwiththat", and some of the contributors are practising climate scientists.

Matt.
 
  • #111
MattSimmons said:

Sorry Matt, but I don't consider the Washington Times as anything but a right wing agenda propaganda outlet like Fox. And Hansen is on the right wing hit list after having the temerity to articulate his findings that are counter to that agenda. (Kind of like Copernicus and Galileo were on the outs with the Vatican a few centuries back.) Whatever personal attacks the Washington Times would support about Hansen, I simply can't attach much weight if any at all.

Besides, 1971 ... ? Maybe he was smoking pot too? Maybe he had pimples? Whatever ... I think everyone can agree that in the last 37 years there is a wee bit more climatological data at our disposal. How prescient must Hansen have been 37 years ago to have his conclusions be considered seriously today?
 
  • #112
NeoDevin said:
MattSimmons, do you know if there is a peer reviewed article which backs up the claims made in the blog post you linked to?

Nope! Sorry - I did check. Just thought it was interesting, thought people here might find it interesting too, since there was a discussion going on.

Hope I didn't upset anyone or break any forum rules!
 
  • #113
NeoDevin said:
I'm not familiar enough with the metrics they're using on that blog to comment on it's accuracy, but I don't think blogs are acceptable sources on this forum. I'll look more into it when I have some free time.
Blogs are acceptable in P&WA.
 
  • #114
Gokul43201 said:
I couldn't care less.

And speaking of economists, here's an article you linked, earlier in this thread, in this post. It says:
Dr. Pachauri has PhDs in Economics and Industrial Engineering. He taught Economics at NC State as an Asst. Prof. and then as visiting faculty.

But hey, he's a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, and McKitrick is an impartial expert.

It's easy to attach labels.
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, is the friend of James Hansen, the Global Alarmist. Were you mistaking him as being a friend of McKitrick's?

I do agree with you that the chairman of the IPCC has no qualifications in climate science.
 
Last edited:
  • #115
LowlyPion said:
Sorry Matt, but I don't consider the Washington Times as anything but a right wing agenda propaganda outlet like Fox. And Hansen is on the right wing hit list after having the temerity to articulate his findings that are counter to that agenda. (Kind of like Copernicus and Galileo were on the outs with the Vatican a few centuries back.) Whatever personal attacks the Washington Times would support about Hansen, I simply can't attach much weight if any at all.

Besides, 1971 ... ? Maybe he was smoking pot too? Maybe he had pimples? Whatever ... I think everyone can agree that in the last 37 years there is a wee bit more climatological data at our disposal. How prescient must Hansen have been 37 years ago to have his conclusions be considered seriously today?

Hello,

Lol! Yeah I guess anything was possible back then :)

On the "right-wing outlet"... I personally think it's a little 20th Century to distinguish between right and left, but since we are, are you aware that Hansen has received money from a left wing "http://www.heinzawards.net/news/james_hansen_internationallyknown_climate_scientist_received_a_29th_annual_common_wealth_award_of_distinguished_service"" with political ties?

I also think his flying to the UK to support in a court of law the people who vandalised the Kingsnorth power station is a little excessive, considering the (peer-reviewed) evidence available from the likes of http://www.ukcip.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=322&Itemid=9#08" on the temperature record - compare 1934 and 1998). Also, is there any peer-reviewed evidence for his claim that Kingsnorth will be directly responsible for the extinction of up to 400 species?

Considering the Socialist Workers Party in the UK are behind most climate protests, and had at least a significant presence at Kingsnorth, one has to wonder what a NASA scientist was doing at this hearing.

Anyway I'm here to learn about physics, not debate climate change; I don't have a denier agenda, so let me just state that I'm not a "denier" (my position is, CO2 causes warming, but we have yet to determine how much, or what the effects will be) although I am sceptical, for the reasons outlined here, and more, but I'm not here to argue and I don't want to be branded. Perhaps it's best if I politely bow out of this conversation - I'm new here and don't want to upset anyone! :)

Matt.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #116
Evo said:
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, is the friend of James Hansen, the Global Alarmist. Were you mistaking him as being a friend of McKitrick's?

I do agree with you that the chairman of the IPCC has no qualifications in climate science.

He must be quite clever, though - he seems to have gotten a degree and two PhDs in around 6 years, see http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/bios/pachauri.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #117
Cyrus said:
Global warming deals with climate change.

The climate is long term changes in the atmosphere.

Weather is short term atmospheric conditions.

At the very least, know what climate means drankin.

I know what climate means, and the weather will reflect the climate on average, will it not?
 
  • #118
drankin said:
I know what climate means, and the weather will reflect the climate on average, will it not?
Yes, climate is weather over a period of time.

Merriam Webster

Climate - the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/climate
 
  • #119
That's good then. I'll look forward to seeing the politics of it and the ad hominem questions about those pointing out the science of it removed from actually considering the science of it.

The bandwagon premise of scientists clinging to or jumping off as regards to climate trends and AGW is a pale substitute for the real thing - convincing science.

As to the science of it, let's hope you grasp a better understanding of what you extract, if you are going to draw useful conclusions.
MattSimmons said:
(1mm sea level rise over 100 years, less than 1oC temp rise, no increased rainfall pattern since 1766;...)

I note that the 1mm is a yearly rate that you apparently confuse with a century long total and at that even this result is attenuated by the rise in land mass for northern England. Looking at the sea level trends at Liverpool for instance reveals a slightly steeper slope in sea level increases than at Aberdeen in Scotland, where land is rising along with sea levels.
 
  • #120
LowlyPion said:
I note that the 1mm is a yearly rate that you apparently confuse with a century long total and at that even this result is attenuated by the rise in land mass for northern England. Looking at the sea level trends at Liverpool for instance reveals a slightly steeper slope in sea level increases than at Aberdeen in Scotland, where land is rising along with sea levels.

Please forgive me for my error. A quote from the link I posted:

Global sea-level rise has accelerated between mid-19th century and mid-20th century, and is now about 3mm per year. It is likely that human activities have contributed between a quarter and a half of the rise in the last half of the 20th century.

I read from this that the UK Met Office and Hadley Centre, themselves also quoting IPCC AR4-WG1, believe that the SLR attributable to mankind has reached about 3/4mm to 1.5mm per year.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
12K
Replies
18
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 184 ·
7
Replies
184
Views
48K
  • · Replies 133 ·
5
Replies
133
Views
27K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K