DOCSLIB.ORG

Climate Scientist Told David Deming That We Have to ―Get Rid Of‖ the Medieval Warm Period, Including Speculation (E.G

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Climate Scientist Told David Deming That We Have to ―Get Rid Of‖ the Medieval Warm Period, Including Speculation (E.G There has been a considerable amount of speculation over the past few years about which ―leading‖ climate scientist told David Deming that we have to ―get rid of‖ the Medieval Warm Period, including speculation (e.g. ukweatherworld) that it was Jonathan Overpeck (recently one of two Coordinating Lead Authors of AR4 chapter 6). While the identity of Deming‘s correspondent remains uncertain, a Climategate letter from January 13. 2005, written as an instruction from Overpeck as Coordinating Lead Author to IPCC Lead Authors Briffa and Osborn (cc Jansen, Masson-Delmotte), states that Overpeck wants to ―deal a mortal blow‖ to the MWP (and Holocene Optimum) ―myths‖ (480. 1105670738.txt). Subject: the new “warm period myths” box Hi Keith and Tim - … In reading Valerie [Masson-Delmotte]„s Holocene section, I get the sense that I‟m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature. The sceptics and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for current warming too – pure rubbish. So, pls DO try hard to follow up on my advice provided in previous email. No need to go into details on any but the MWP, but good to mention the others in the same dismissive effort. “Holocene Thermal Maximum” is another one that should only be used with care, and with the explicit knowledge that it was a time-transgressive event totally unlike the recent global warming. Thanks for doing this on – if you have a cool figure idea, include it. Best, peck [Update - Apr 10, 2010. In an email on Jul 18, 2005 (551. 1121721126.txt), Briffa wrote Overpeck, Jansen and Crowley, expressing concern about a figure that Crowley had proposed observing: there are intonations in some of Peck's previous messages that he wishes to "nail" the MWP - i.e. this could be interpreted as trying to say there was no such thing.. To which Overpeck responded: 552. 1121869083.txt SORRY TO SCARE YOU. I **ABSOLUTELY** AGREE THAT WE MUST AVOID ANY BIAS OR PERCEPTION OF BIAS. MY COMMENT ON "NAILING" WAS MADE TO MEAN THAT ININFORMED PEOPLE KEEPING COMING BACK TO THE MWP, AND DESCRIBING IT FOR WHAT I BELIEVE IT WASN'T. OUR JOB IS TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT IT WAS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE DATA. IF THE DATA ARE NOT CLEAR, THEN WE HAVE TO BE NOT CLEAR. THAT SAID, I THINK TOM'S FIGURE CAPTURED WHAT I HAVE SENSED IS THE MWP FOR A LONG TIME, AND BASED ON OTHER SOURCES OF INFO - INCLUDING KEITH'S PROSE. THE IDEA OF A FIGURE, IS THAT FIGURES CAN BE MORE COMPELLING AND CONNECT BETTER THAN TEXT. ALSO, THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO LOOK AT THE MWP, AND AS LONG AS WE DON'T INTRODUCE BIAS OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT WILL DILUTE THE MESSAGE IN THE END, THE IDEA IS TO SHOW THE MWP IN MORE WAYS THAN TWO (THAT IS, THE EXISTING FIGS IN THE TEXT THAT KEITH AND TIM MADE). [end update] Oddly, given Overpeck‘s commitment to ―dealing a mortal blow‖ to the ―misuse‖ of the MWP, in another Climategate letter, he didn‘t like speculation about him being the one who wanted to ―get rid of‖ the MWP (see 868. 1206628118.txt in March 2008.) David Holland had written Overpeck, referring to speculation at ukweatherworld that Overpeck was the ―get rid of the MWP‖ scientist, and seeking a statement from Overpeck. Overpeck wrote to Jones, Mann, Santer, Susan Solomon and Keith Trenberth seeking advice on how to respond, telling them that he didn‘t remember any such exchange, but conceding the possibility that Deming is quoting ―out of context‖: I have no memory of emailing w/ him, nor any record of doing so (I need to do an exhaustive search I guess), nor any memory of him period. I assume it is possible that I emailed w/ him long ago, and that he‟s taking the quote out of context, since know I would never have said what he‟s saying I would have, at least in the context he is implying. Overpeck says that he is reluctant to publish a statement on the matter for fear that Deming would ―then produce a fake email‖. Any idea what my reaction should be? I usually ignore this kind of misinformation, but I can imagine that it could take on a life of it‟s own and that I might want to deal with it now, rather than later. I could – as the person below suggests – make a quick statement on a web site that the attribution to me is false, but I suspect that this Deeming guy could then produce a fake email. I would then say it‟s fake. Or just ignore? Or something else? Jones wrote back, informing Overpeck that Holland had been making FOI requests, mentioning that he was off with Mann to Tahiti the next week: I‟m away all next week – with Mike. PaleoENSO meeting in Tahiti – you can‟t turn those sorts of meetings down! To a third party, it‘s hard to understand why someone who wants to ―deal a mortal blow‖ to the ―myth‖ of the MWP would take exception to being labeled as someone who wanted to ―get rid of‖ MWP. The objective in each case seems pretty much the same. Maybe it‘s just a vocabulary thing. Perhaps Overpeck feels that the term ―getting rid of‖ is a little too Tony Soprano-ish for the ―Director of the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth‖, whereas the term ―dealing a mortal blow‖ has the right sort of Arthurian cadence for Overpeck, who would rather be cast as Sir Launcelot than Tony Soprano. Be that as it may, while Overpeck was concerned that Deming might produce a ―fake email‖ purporting to show Overpeck seeking to ―get rid of the MWP‖, Overpeck hasn‘t challenged the authenticity of the Climategate email in which he aspires to ―deal a mortal blow‖ to the MWP. Postscript: for the nth time, note that the position of the MM articles and many CA posts is that the multiproxy studies relied upon by IPCC do not prove that the modern warm period is warmer than the MWP. This doesn‘t mean that we‘ve claimed to have established the opposite or that some future scientist couldn‘t prove the point with better proxies. 86 Comments 1. George Posted Apr 8, 2010 at 8:22 AM | Permalink | Reply It seems pretty clear in his email that he only wants to ―deal a mortal blow‖ to the ―misuse‖ of the MWP, rather than deny its existence completely. Perhaps this was his objection to Deming‘s statements. o Al Gored Posted Apr 8, 2010 at 6:07 PM | Permalink | Reply Oh I think we know just what he meant by the term ―misuse.‖ That is, to use it in any that questioned the IPCC orthodoxy. Given the whole context here, there seems to be littl;e doubt about that. 2. Gerald Machnee Posted Apr 8, 2010 at 8:33 AM | Permalink | Reply He does not explain what ―misuse‖ means or whether the MWP was limited. Of course we are taking this out of context like everything else. 3. pgosselin Posted Apr 8, 2010 at 8:51 AM | Permalink | Reply Norfolk called… Little ol me, climate science spectator, sitting way up in the bleachers near the rafters, got a call from the Norfolk Police today. The detective constable was friendly and polite. But I couldn‘t help him in any way. I couldn‘t resist asking him why he had gone so far down the food chain as to question me. He said, ―We‘re leaving no stone unturned‖. I wonder how many other blog readers got such a call. 4. Barry Woods Posted Apr 8, 2010 at 8:58 AM | Permalink | Reply I‘m away all next week – with Mike. PaleoENSO meeting in Tahiti – you can‘t turn those sorts of meetings down!‖ Now there are 2 interpretations of this.. the meeting is very exciting. or I can‘t wait to jet across the world spewing CO2 everywhere, to have a lovely holiday, at someoneelses expense. and go to a meeting… in tahiti, minions, the poor will starve to death beacuse of agw delusion food poverty, but i will not lead my example.. harsh comment? the public, may not grasp the science, they will grasp this… following: 1700 limos at copenhagen 140 private jets, 15,000 delegates. half a dozen people in a room, decided what was going to happen (not a lot) 15,000 people on a little 2 week junket.. 114 official party (sic) from australia alone remind the public the politicians actions vs the rhetoric… I‘m still waiting for Gordon Brown to tell me how to prepare for planetary death.. after all 50 days to save the planet- he said, that was minus how many hundred days now? o Hoi Polloi Posted Apr 8, 2010 at 1:50 PM | Permalink | Reply Tahiti, aren‘t there beautiful beaches which could be spoiled in the coming rise of the sea level? I‘m sure there‘s plenty of coral around also. o ThinkingScientist Posted Apr 8, 2010 at 3:41 PM | Permalink | Reply I work in the oil industry and I have chaired a number of forums and workshops. When choosing a venue for future forums one of the strongest feedbacks I get from oil company staff is that holding the forum, conference etc in a location that is perceived as exotic or desirable is likely to result in their application to attend being declined by their employer.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Andrew Montford's the Hockey Stick Illusion Is One of the Best Science
    Andrew Montford‘s The Hockey Stick Illusion is one of the best science books in years. It exposes in delicious detail, datum by datum, how a great scientific mistake of immense political weight was perpetrated, defended and camouflaged by a scientific establishment that should now be red with shame. It is a book about principal components, data mining and confidence intervals—subjects that have never before been made thrilling. It is the biography of a graph. I can remember when I first paid attention to the ―hockey stick‖ graph at a conference in Cambridge. The temperature line trundled along with little change for centuries, then shot through the roof in the 20th century, like the blade of an ice-hockey stick. I had become somewhat of a sceptic about the science of climate change, but here was emphatic proof that the world was much warmer today; and warming much faster than at any time in a thousand years. I resolved to shed my doubts. I assumed that since it had been published in Nature—the Canterbury Cathedral of scientific literature—it was true. I was not the only one who was impressed. The graph appeared six times in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)‘s third report in 2001. It was on display as a backdrop at the press conference to launch that report. James Lovelock pinned it to his wall. Al Gore used it in his film (though describing it as something else and with the Y axis upside down). Its author shot to scientific stardom. ―It is hard to overestimate how influential this study has been,‖ said the BBC.
    [Show full text]
  • (November 12, 2011) Brought to You by SEPP ( the Science and Environmental Policy Project
    The Week That Was: 2011-11-12 (November 12, 2011) Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project ################################################### Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report S. Fred Singer, Craig Idso, Robert M. Carter – August 29, 2011 Published by Heartland Institute Summary: http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/FrontMatter.pdf Chapter Review and Full Report http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/2011report.html ################################################### Quote of the Week: “We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert.” J. Robert Oppenheimer. ################################################### Number of the Week: 20,000 ################################################### THIS WEEK: By Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) Trust but Verify: The above quote from Robert Oppenheimer highlights a desperately needed attitude in today’s society – including among academics and scientists. It is always too easy to go along and not question even when questions arise. Investigative reporting, such as Donna Laframboise’s exposé of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), needed to be done years ago. Often presidents of universities are chosen more for the business acumen than other qualities. They may treat certain programs as profit centers and may prefer to ignore issues arising within these programs. This week, the President of Penn State University was fired for failure to properly supervise one highly successful program, its football program.
    [Show full text]
  • SUPERIOR COURT of the DISTRICT of COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION MICHAEL E. MANN, PH.D., Plaintiff, V. NATIONAL REVIEW, INC., Et Al., D
    SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION ) MICHAEL E. MANN, PH.D., ) ) Case No. 2012 CA 008263 B Plaintiff, ) ) Judge Natalia Combs Greene v. ) ) Next event: Initial Scheduling Conference NATIONAL REVIEW, INC., et al., ) January 25, 2013 ) Defendants. ) ) DEFENDANTS COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE AND RAND SIMBERG’S SPECIAL MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO THE D.C. ANTI-SLAPP ACT Pursuant to the District of Columbia Anti-SLAPP Act of 2010, D.C. Code § 16 -5502(a) (“the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act” or “the Act”), Defendants Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg (“CEI Defendants”) respectfully move for an order dismissing the Complaint’s claims against them with prejudice. As set forth in the accompanying memorandum, the CEI Defendants’ commentary on Plaintiff Michael E. Mann’s research and Penn State’s investigation of his research is protected by the D.C Anti-SLAPP Act because it is unquestionably an “act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest,” D.C. Code § 16-5502(a), and Mann cannot demonstrate that his claims are “likely to succeed on the merits,” D.C. Code § 16-5502(b). In the event that this Motion is granted, the CEI Defendants reserve the right to file a motion seeking an award of the costs of this litigation, including attorneys’ fees, pursuant to D.C. Code § 16-5504(a). WHEREFORE, the CEI Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant their Special Motion to Dismiss and enter judgment in their favor dismissing the Complaint’s claims against Defendants Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg with prejudice.
    [Show full text]
  • Amicus Curiae Dr
    Nos. 14-CV-101 & 14-CV-126 IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS ________________________________ COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants, and NATIONAL REVIEW, INC., Defendant-Appellant, v. MICHAEL E. MANN, PH.D., Plaintiff-Appellee. ________________________________ On Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia Civil Division, No. 2012 CA 008263 B ________________________________ BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE DR. JUDITH A. CURRY IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS’ PETITIONS FOR REHEARING OR REHEARING EN BANC ________________________________ John J. Vecchione (D.C. Bar. #431764) Counsel of Record R. James Valvo, III CAUSE OF ACTION INSTITUTE 1875 Eye Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 499-4232 [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae January 25, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................ 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 3 I. SCIENTIFIC NORMS AND FIRST AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE BOTH EMBRACE THE VIEW THAT ROBUST DEBATE IS CRUCIAL TO TRUTH, PROGRESS, AND DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE. ................................................ 3 II. THIS COURT SHOULD NOT ALLOW DR. MANN TO USE LAWSUITS AS ANOTHER WEAPON TO HARASS AND SILENCE HIS
    [Show full text]
  • AN EXPLORATORY STUDY of SCIENCE BLOGGERS Degree Candidate
    ABSTRACT Title of Thesis: OPENING UP THE CONVERSATION: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF SCIENCE BLOGGERS Degree Candidate: Gregory Michael Masters Degree and Year: Master of Arts, 2013 Thesis Directed by: Dr. Carol L. Rogers Philip Merrill College of Journalism Over the past decade, science blogs have experienced tremendous growth and changes in organization, becoming an important part of what researchers have called the “evolving science media ecosystem.” This thesis explores the practices and perceptions of science bloggers through 20 in-depth interviews and through a review of the blogs themselves. The research suggests areas where this medium is having a unique impact on how science communication occurs. The interview results revealed that science bloggers are motivated mainly by enjoyment, have a wide variety of routines and reporting/writing processes, strive to incorporate a personal touch, and are very engaged with readers and fellow writers through social media. This research found that science blogs have important roles in complementing other forms of science communication, opening aspects of science to wider view, promoting conversations about science through blog comments and social media, and exploiting digital tools to enhance communication. OPENING UP THE CONVERSATION: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF SCIENCE BLOGGERS by Gregory Michael Masters Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts 2013 Advisory Committee: Dr. Carol L. Rogers, Chair Dr. Ira Chinoy Carl Sessions Stepp © Copyright by Greg Masters 2013 PREFACE As teenagers, my brother and I would often drive far into Western Maryland to escape the city lights, parking at the edge of fields in the middle of nowhere to lie on the hood and peer at the stars.
    [Show full text]
  • Ed Wegman, Yasmin Said and Milton Johns Sue Me for $2 Million but at This Stage a Motion to Dismiss Cannot Argue Matters of Fact, Just Legal Reasons
    Wegman, Said and Johns Sue Me For $2 Million Executive Summary MAS2015i 05/19/15 John R. Mashey1 The suits were badly written in many ways, rife with falsehoods and errors, Ed Wegman, Yasmin Said and Milton Johns Sue Me for $2 Million but at this stage a Motion to Dismiss cannot argue matters of fact, just legal reasons. On 04/17/15 my lawyers filed a strong, detailed Motion to Dismiss Executive Summary with Prejudice, which if accepted at hearing, would mean “don’t try again.” In December 2009, Canadian blogger Deep Climate (DC) started finding plagiarism in the 2006 Wegman Report (WR), which attacked the “hockey On 04/30/15, few days before the hearing, Johns filed voluntary stick” and authors Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcom Hughes. dismissals of their complaints, his last day at his own firm Day Johns, Based on those finds, in March 2010 Bradley lodged complaints against the where he had been since 2008. On 05/01/14 he joined Fluet Huber + Hoag. WR and a related paper with George Mason University (GMU). Later, I and At that stage, voluntary dismissal avoided “with prejudice” ruling and made others found more problems and reported them to GMU and journals. it harder to file a “frivolous lawsuit” claim. In March 2011, DC exposed pervasive plagiarism in a paper in Wiley’s Since court documentation is now public, that leaves on the record many WIREs:Computational Statistics journal. Soon after, similar or worse claims that I think are false, misleading or that fall far outside normal problems were found in a 2nd paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change: This Is the Worst Scientific Scandal of Our Generation
    Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker. CO2 emissions will be on top of the agenda at the Copenhagen summit in December Photo: Getty By Christopher Booker 6:10PM GMT 28 Nov 2009 A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed. The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
    [Show full text]
  • The People Versus the Climate Research Unit (CRU) by Willis Eschenbach
    The People Versus the Climate Research Unit (CRU) by Willis Eschenbach As far as I know, I am the person who made the original Freedom Of Information Act to CRU that started getting all this stirred up. I was trying to get access to the taxpayer funded raw data out of which they built the global temperature record. I was not representing anybody, or trying to prove a point. I am not funded by Mobil, I’m an amateur scientist with a lifelong interest in the weather and climate. I’m not "directed" by anyone, I’m not a member of a right-wing conspiracy. I’m just a guy trying to move science forwards. People seem to be missing the real issue in the discussion of the hacked CRU climate emails. Gavin Schmidt over at RealClimate keeps distracting people by saying the issue is the scientists being nasty to each other, and what Trenberth said, and the Nature "trick", and the like. Those are side trails that he would like people to follow. To me, the main issue is the frontal attack on the heart of science, which is transparency. Science works by one person making a claim, and backing it up with the data and methods that they used to make the claim. Other scientists then attack the claim by (among other things) trying to replicate the first scientist’s work. If they can’t replicate it, it doesn’t stand. So blocking my Freedom of Information request for his data allowed Phil Jones to claim that his temperature record was valid science, even though it has never been scientifically examined.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Audit
    First presentation of NMSU’s Climate “Education” Series: my analysis of Dave DuBois’ presentation of 17 April 2018 Bob Endlich [email protected] Cruces Atmospheric Sciences Forum 21 Nov 2020 Cover Slide, url, from Dave DuBois’ presentation. I put the NMSU logo on DuBois’ graphics. https://nmsu.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=e2a2af60-a7e8-437a-8199-a8c40146fee9 Conventions and notes for this presentation: I got Dave DuBois’ slides originally from https://nmsu.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=e2a2af60-a7e8-437a-8199- a8c40146fee9 This location is on some of my graphics; NMSU has since changed the location to: https://sustainability.nmsu.edu/nmsuccess/ scroll to the bottom to find his presentation. When, after challenge from other workers I distinguish between Dave DuBois’ slides and my graphics in this specialty, the principal author has to issue a statement that the main by putting the NMSU logo on DuBois’ slides. feature of the graphic “is not statistically robust”…it means that the data are not Right, how I present information taking issue with trustworthy. DuBois’ statements: That DuBois misses this confession speaks to poor scholarship on DuBois’ part. Editorial: NMSU, other Universities and Land Grant Universities, scientists, professional societies, and <deep state> government agencies are making a crisis out of the normal ebb and flow of natural climate cycles, in order to secure special funding channels and prestige, and attach crisis and emergency to the climate we have and have had for the past 10,000 years or so. In many ways the climate we have now is very beneficial.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientists and Sceptics: Blogs, Climate Science and Reproducible Research
    Scientists and Sceptics: blogs, climate science and reproducible research David Nichols Department of Computer Science University of Waikato Hamilton, New Zealand Scientists and Sceptics: blogs, climate science and reproducible research or Watching the sceptics attack the global warming consensus by accusing climate scientists of not being proper scientists or Blogs I’ve been reading for the past few years A longitudinal ethnographic observation of a networked community of practice Data Communities (TDCT) • Starbucks – 1. regular user, no talk, usual drink , not part of community – 2. meet colleague, use their infrastructure, not part of community, bring my own community, library-like • Cheers – Talk to customers and bartenders, serendipities • Gary’s Old Towne Tavern – Access same beer/data – Hate the Cheers community, think they are wrong Topic Overview • Global warming science • Sceptic Community: development & activities • Data and code access • Data quality detectives • Citizen scientists/sceptics: surfacestations.org • Who is in control of the data? • Reproducible research – Replicate or validate or verify or audit The start: MBH98 and MBH99 • Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K., 1998. “Global-Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries”, Nature, 392, 779-787. (GS: 815 cites) • Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K. 1999. “Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations”, Geophysical Research Letters, 26, 759-762. (GS: 811 cites) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report, 2001, Summary for Policy Makers, Figure 1b, pg 3 HS in An Inconvenient Truth http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/gore_a1.jpg AIT DVD Faulty y-axis labelling is corrected in the book version http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/gore_a2.jpg Gore, A.
    [Show full text]
  • Speakers at the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change
    12/10/2015 The Heartland Institute - Confirmed Speakers at the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change speakers last updated: March 5, 2009 The complete program for the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, including cosponsor information and brief biographies of all speakers, can be downloaded in Adobe's PDF format here. More than 70 of the world’s elite scientists, economists and others specializing in climate issues will confront the subject of global warming at the second annual International Conference on Climate Change March 8­10, 2009 in New York City. They will call attention to new research that contradicts claims that Earth’s moderate warming during the twentieth century primarily was man­made and has reached crisis proportions. Headliners among the 70­plus presenters will be: American astronaut Dr. Jack Schmitt—the last living man to walk on the moon. William Gray, Colorado State University, leading researcher into tropical weather patterns. Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the world’s leading experts in dynamic meteorology, especially planetary waves. Stephen McIntyre, primary author of Climate Audit, a blog devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data. He is a devastating critic of the temperature record of the past 1,000 years, particularly the work of Michael E. Mann, creator of the infamous “hockey stick” graph. That graph­­thoroughly discredited in scientific circles­­supposedly proved that mankind is responsible for a sharp increase in earth temperatures. Arthur Robinson, curator of a global warming petition signed by more than 32,000 American scientists, including more than 10,000 with doctorate degrees, rejecting the alarmist assertion that global warming has put the Earth in crisis and is caused primarily by mankind.
    [Show full text]
  • Climategate: "A Little Truth Repels Much
    CLIMATEGATE: "A LITTLE TRUTH REPELS MUCH A STORY OF INTRIGUE, DECEPTION AND SECRECY On November 17, 2009 some 3,000 e-mails, software files, and other documents from the University of East A Research Unit were covertly released onto the Internet. In his November 28, 2009 telegraph.co.uk article "Climate the Worst Scientific Scandal of Our Generation," Christopher Booker summarized the far-reaching ramificatio exposed in these documents: The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture reve documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, W looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Clim (IPCC). Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments re for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it. Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that pict temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.
    [Show full text]