Monday, March 5, 2012

2378.txt

cc: gschmidtatXYZxyzs.nasa.gov, rahmstorfatXYZxyzan-klima.de, p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk, t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk, anrevkatXYZxyzimes.com, hpollackatXYZxyzch.edu, gabi.hegerlatXYZxyzac.uk, santer1atXYZxyzl.gov
date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:07:11 -0600 (MDT)
from: quotableatXYZxyzus.net
subject: Re: RE: From the Wall Street Journal:
to: Anne.JolisatXYZxyzjones.com

and criticism and none Dear Anne,


There are great stories to be had on the unprofessional, hpahazard or amateurish
manipulation of data on climate science, but none actually feature Michael Mann. I would
bid you to look here
(http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre_had_the_data_all_alon.php), for example,
for some background on Steve McIntyre's own machinations in the way he has pursued his
criticisms of Mann's hockey stick.


For a greater sense as to the robust nature of the hockey stick analyses, you could also
look to a host of other reconstructions(you'll find a collection here:
http://www.desmogblog.com/this-is-not-a-hockey-stick), all drawn from different sources,
all by different people, all equally available to McIntyre for analysis and none of which
that have been contradicted in any way. You will notice as you look at them that they ALL
show temperature, graphed over the past many centurie, forms into the shape of a hockey
stick. So, even if Mann's data was corrupt (and McIntyre's arguments to that effect are
not, ultimately convincing), his conclusion has been confirmed and reconfirmed many times
over and by many different people. That, ultimately is one of the true tests of solid
science: can results be confirmed by different people using different methods in different
places.


In a case where the answer to that question is categorically: yes!, you have to wonder at
the motivations - and the professionalism - of people who continue to obsess about the
finest detail of what they presume to be the weakest link. I would further wonder why the
Wall street Journal, one of the most powerful and, in many communities, reputable
newspapers in the world, would also choose to invest its energies in the single tiny
controversy - this side show - rather than stepping back and getting a rather less blinding
look at the big picture.


To take this a step further, I have to acknowledge being co-author of a new book, Climate
Cover-up, which addresses the hockey stick� and many other manufactured elements of debate
in the imagined climate science controversy. The book documents evidence to the effect that
this entire argument is the work of a well organized, well-funded public relations campaign
of confusion. The American people are less convinced today of the realities of climate
change than they were two years ago. This is NOT a reflection of scientific reality - or
anything that one might call evidence. It is proof that when the energy industry invests $1
billion-plus in a well-documented effort to get people to question science that they may
well enjoy some success, especially if mainstream reporters get caught up in the details
and ignore the big picture.


I urge you first to check the links I have provided. Then, I commend the book. I also would
be happy to make myself available or to arrange an interview with lead author Jim Hoggan.
Your readers deserve a careful look at this issue. The very fate of the world may hang in
the balance. Leaving that fate in the hands of an amateur staistician - favoured over the
science academies of every major nation on earth - would seem a specific deservice.


Cheers,


r


Richard Littlemore


www.desmogblog.com


On Oct 23, 2009, Jolis, Anne <Anne.JolisatXYZxyzjones.com> wrote:

Dear All,

I see that Dr. Mann has CCd you on his reply to me, which is fine. Below you see my
original email and questions to him - I'm likely to file this weekend, but invite any of
you to weigh in with your own thoughts and responses on the issues on which I've queried
Dr. Mann.

All the best,

Anne Jolis

On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:41 AM, Jolis, Anne wrote:

Dear Dr. Mann,

My name is Anne Jolis, and I'm with the Wall Street Journal Europe, based in London. I'm
working on a piece about climate change, and specifically the growing questions that people
outside the field have about the methods and processes used by climatologists and other
climate-change scientists - and, necessarily, about the conclusions that result. The idea
came from the recent? controversy� � that has arisen� once again� over Steve McIntyre,� the
publication of� � the full Yamal data used in Keith Briffa's work. This of course raises
questions� among climate scientistis, and observers, about whether the so-called� "hockey
stick" graph of global temperatures, as produced by Dr. Briffa and originally by
yourself,� was drawn from narrow data which,� � and then� � -� when broadened to� include
a wider range of available� dendroclimatological data� -� seems to show no important
spike in global temperatures� in the last 100 years. I realize this is not exactly the
silver-bullet to anthropogenic� global warming� that some would like to read into it,� but
it seems to� me that it� does underscore some of the issues in climate science.
Specifically, the publication of the data, and the earlier controversy over your work,�
seems to illustrate that best practices and reliable methods of data collection remain far
from established, and that much of what is presented as scientific fact is really more of a
value judgment based on select data.� � Would you agree?


I'd love to get some insight from you for my article. I'll be filing this weekend, but I
can call you any time it's convenient for you on Friday - just let me know the best time
and number. Please note that if we do speak on the phone, I will email you with any quotes
or paraphrases that I would like to attribute to you, before publication, so as to secure
your approval and confirm the accuracy of what I'm attributing to you. Additionally, if
you'd like to correspond via email, that's fine too. I've listed below some of the
questions and assumptions I'm working on - if, in lieu of a phone call, you'd like to
answer and/or respond to these, as well as share any other thoughts you have on these
issues, I'd be most grateful. Feel welcome to reply at length!

I thank you in advance for your time and attention, and look forward to any of your
comments.

All the best,
Anne Jolis

- Given that methods� � in climate science are still being refined, do you agree with
policy makers' and advocates' use of data such as your own? Do you feel it is accurately
represented to laymans, and that the inherent uncertainties present in the data are
appropriately underscored? As a citizen, do you feel there is enough certainty in the
conclusions of, for instance, the� latest IPCC report,� to� introduce new economic
regulations? Why or why not?

-What methods do you feel are the most accurate for predicting� future� climate
change,� � for evaluatinag the causes of climate change and� � for predicting� whether or
what man can do to try to control� � or mitigate climate change in the future in the
future? Why do you feel these methods are the most accurate? Do you feel they're given
enough weight in the current debate?�

-What is your opinion of the value of Steve McIntyre's work? Clearly he is not� a
professional scientist, but� do you feel there is nonetheless a place for his "auditing" in
the climate science community? Why or why� not?�

-Do� you think McIntyre's work and findings are likely to change the way� leading climate
scientists operate? Do you think� his recent campaign to get Dr. Keith Briffa to publish
the� Yamal data he used is likely to make climate scientists more forthcoming with their
data? Do you think his work will make scientists, policymakers and advocates any more
exacting about the uncertainties in their procedures, methods and conclusions when they
present scientific data?� �

-How would you respond to the critique� that, as a key part of� the review processes of
publications in the field of climate science, as something of a "gatekeeper," you have
rejected and otherwise sought to suppress work that contradicted your work. Is this fair?
Why or why not? How would you characterize your selection process for work that is worthy
of publication?

-Do you stand by your� original "hockey stick" graf, even after the publication of borehole
data from Henry Pollack and Jason Smerdon that seems to contradict your conclusions? Or
work published in 2005 by Hans von Storch that seems to indicate that the predictive
capabilities of the method you used in your original "hockey stick" would not be able to
predict current temperatures?


No comments:

Post a Comment