There is a group of politicians, environmental groups and scientists who have committed to the idea that global warming must be halted, no matter the cost. The cost is proving to be too much, as I have written here and here.
To do this they have shown themselves perfectly capable of unethical and sometimes illegal actions. Politicians have exaggerated the extent of the problem, both in the present and as regards the future. Environmental organisations have done the same. Sadly, so have some scientists.
One of the tactics this group has used is by classifying all those who oppose them as 'denialists,' and claiming the existence of a 'climate denial machine.' The word 'denialist' or 'denier' is specifically meant to associate opponents with the skinhead lowlifes who got their 15 minutes of fame by denying that the Holocaust ever occurred. They have explicitly said this is so.
This allows them to demonise all opposition and to hide the fact that there is a wide range of opinion on global warming, from lukewarmer, to mild consensus holder, to slightly skeptical to extremely skeptical. The key point of this tactic is it allows the 'alarmists' to associate all opponents with the most extreme opinions.
Construction of an imaginary 'denialist machine' allows them to claim that the public actually supports their solutions, and when confronted with polls that demonstrate this is not so, to give them the chance to say the public would support them if they weren't being bamboozled by the 'climate denialist machine.'
Their tactics border on the despicable. But it isn't enough to label these tactics as despicable. We also much show that they are wrong. Sadly, we really need to do it every time, as 'alarmists' also use the sneak tactic of pretending that any allegation that is not immediately refuted is accepted as true. Which makes for a rather repetitious debate.
So 'alarmists' such as Joe Romm, Tim Lamber, Eli Rabett wander around the blog world making absurd accusations against people like Roger Pielke Sr. and Jr., Bjorm Lomborg, the Breakthrough Institute, and when they want to go after the small fry, people like myself. All of those named are not deniers--not even skeptics. In a sane world they would be recognised as the centrist position. They understand and accept the physics that show the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (mostly CO2) as a contributor to higher temperatures, they agree that this requires a policy response and they actively advocate action to combat global warming. But because they don't fall into automatic submissiveness to the 'alarmist's' truly radical policy demands, the 'alarmists' paint them as being as skeptical as someone like Lord Monckton.
They do this outside of the immediate debate on global warming. The 'alarmists' also have demonised people like Dr. Edward Wegman, who was appointed to investigate Michael Mann's work in constructing the Hockey Stick. Because his report was truly damning (and supported fully by the National Academy of Sciences), Wegman is now tarred with the 'denialist' brush.
Creating the myth of a 'denialist machine' allows institutions such as Greenpeace to exaggerate the threat and paint themselves as valiant underdogs fighting for humanity. But the funding of each of the environmental organisations on the world stage vastly exceeds all of the funding given to the institutes they demonise, and those evil institutes are in fact just conservative and libertarian think tanks that have a conventional conservative opposition to liberal policy--including global warming. So when Greenpeace says that the Koch Institute is funding a climate denial machine, what that means is that they contribute to libertarian think tanks that occasionally print reports that disagree with Greenpeace.
By classing all opposition as climate deniers, Greenpeace and their comrades in arms are adopting tactics that have worked--but not in situations we would approve of. Small parties struggling to achieve power in the past have used these tactics and won power. They then proceeded to construct totalitarian states that are now universally abhorred as being the worst humanity had to offer.
It is despicable. It is also wrong. People do recognise what is happening--public opinion regarding global warming shifts away from the alarmists when they act like Bolshevik agitators or Brown Shirted thugs. So far, their response has been to redouble their efforts. Which just speeds up the process.
Worse, after demonising the center they have no ammunition left to mount a conventional liberal response to a conservative agenda. Koch Industries is led by two very conservative brothers who offer very conservative policy solutions to the problems we face (including global warming). I think they're wrong on the facts and wrong in their presentation. But because the 'alarmists' have called progressive liberals such as myself and Bjorn Lomborg 'denialists' like Koch Industries, they have eliminated any chance of making common cause to mount a normal liberal defense--and it's not us that have shut the door on 'alarmists' for our demonisation. It is they who refuse to treat with us, because the label they have given us makes us taboo. Even if the label is wrong, and given to us because it was politically convenient, we are now officially unclean and cannot be approached.
It isn't working, folks. You need to change.
As was mentioned during the recent inquiry by the UK House of Commons, Steve Mosher and I have written a book about the leaked emails that have caused so much controversy. The title is Climategate: The CRUtape Letters. It is available on Create Space here, Amazon here, Kindle here and Lulu here. One Amazon reviewer wrote, "Mosher and Fuller do a good job putting the ClimateGate documents in context, and the book is a riveting read. I received my copy yesterday, and find the book to be faithful to the climate war events that I have followed over a period of years. It reports actual email communications of a small group of paleoclimatologists and their roles in perhaps the biggest scientific hoax since Piltdown Man."
Comments
*sigh* I've been unhappy with Greenpeace for a number of years, but in my mind I've always counterbalanced it with the good they did by sending divers into the east river to seal off chemical discharge pipes. Heroic stuff, that. An indisputable good.
Now I gotta ask... is it true?
Have we any proof Greenpeace divers actually sealed off any discharge pipes?
I mean, they lie so much, I obviously can't trust their word.
And underwater pipes aren't something visible - that's the genius of claiming to have gone after them.
I gotta go check snopes or something.
Thomas Fuller, you say, "after demonising the center they have no ammunition left to mount a conventional liberal response to a conservative agenda."
I think it's rather that they have no interest in such a conventional liberal response. Greenpeace's actions, even their rants, make perfect sense in this scenario: their strategic goal, their "vision" or "mission", is simply to reverse the Industrial Revolution. They may admit it openly or try to tone it down: it doesn't matter. It's what best explains their actions, words, and apparent mindset.
Of course, short of a global catastrophe or something like WWIII, they have no chance of succeeding. But nobody ever said that committed activists had to have realistic goals.
Duncan,
Blocking discharge pipes could have killed people.
But your new question- did they even do it in the first place, is very interesting.
My bet is they did, since it invlved sneaky crime, but I will not be surprised to find out they didn't even do it.
In the 3 Mile Island period, I got involvedin anti-nuke stuff. I noted even then, over 30 years ago, that the main thing these groups wanted was my money. and when I learned more about 3 Mile Island and nuke power, I realized they were off base. at one point I was getting multiple mailings per day. They only stopped when I called the office of the Congressman (a Udal?) and complained that I was getting harased, and that I considered him responsible since he was on the board of the front group pushing the fund raising. That got my name off, finally.
the stakes, and $$$ are much bigger today. I can only imagine the back room scamming going on.
Greenpeace says that 'You are few but we are many' which tallies with the 'denialist fringe' type of thinking.
Howwever a (very) few years ago it was the 'extreme right' and the 'right' that seemed to be the target. Then the 'slightly right-of-centre' and some of the 'centre' were added. Now it seems (as you say) that the 'centre' is targeted but with a spillover to 'slightly left-of-centre' as well as some of the 'left'.
I would have thought that when one is painting a majority of the political arena as 'fringe' that maybe, just might be, it could be a good time for some introspection
Tom - can you show us where Tim Lambert and Eli Rabett called Roger Pielke Sr a denier?
Hi BTW, not offhand, but I have seen them make 'absurd accusations' about him, which is fairly easy for you to find, and completely despicable for them to do.
BTW, a quick search of 'Pielke, jr. + denier' yields 18,300 hits. Perhaps it would be better for BTW to drop that particular line?
I especially like this one, penned by my favorite true believer, Joe Romm:
"Once again, the office of Denier-in-Chief (DIC) Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oil) has put out a press release riddled with misstatements. This one has a twist, though: a Valentine’s love letter to denier-eq. Roger Pielke, Jr."
climateprogress.org/2009/02/12/uber-denier-inhofe-misquotes-hadley-gives-big-wet-valentines-kiss-to-pielke-go-figure/
That is on page two of the 18300 results.
What was your point again, BTW?
Very good, Tom. A nice counter to Greenpeace.
I wandered over to the George C. Marshall Institute Web site. "What's New" items, numbering 11.
Seven of them are about climate change! Koch Industries gave GCM (oh isn't that fun, GCM
also stands for General Circulation Model) $210,000 between 2005-2008.
Now, about Koch Industries' funding in general and your reply to me. Yes, Koch Ind. is
conservative. Yes, they are funding conservative think tanks. Many of these think tanks
put out information that is consistent with the general litany of skeptical arguments and
dis/misinformation. Thus, some of their funding is devoted to those causes, which they
apparently believe in.
So the biggest question should be, what is Koch Industries attitude about climate change?
They want 'sound science'. I gave you that on April 1st, no foolin.' See next posting!
What is 'sound science', exactly?
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sound_science
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Advancement_of_Sound_Science_Coalition
Beware 'sound science'; it's doublespeak for trouble
//www.healthybuilding.net/pvc/wash_post_sound_science.html
"Frank Luntz wrote in a memorandum for GOP congressional candidates that "The most important principle in any discussion of global warming is your commitment to sound science." The choice of words -- as much as policy -- was the key to swaying public opinion, he suggested, providing a voter-friendly vocabulary list. On climate change, "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed," he added. "There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science." In this instance, "sound science" seems to mean undermining the robust consensus that has developed in the scientific community on climate change -- precisely the opposite of what you'd expect."
So, what's the verdict? Koch Industries funds conservative groups and thinktanks. Many of these groups put out mis- and disinformation on climate change. An emphasis on 'Sound science' is a hallmark of these efforts. Thus, Koch Industries supports such efforts and their money enables them.
Koch Industries funds organizations that promulgate anti-scientific (more accurately, pseudo-scientific) information about climate change, and calls it "an open and honest airing of all sides, not demonizing and silencing those with whom you disagree. We’ve strived to encourage an intellectually honest debate on the scientific basis for claims of harm from greenhouse gases."
By funding the organizations Greenpeace listed, which put out the types of skeptical bafflegab that they do, they aren't encouraging an 'intellectually honest' debate. They are encouraging lies and disinformation about climate change. That's what they're doing, no matter how hard they (and you) try to 'deny' it.
Oakden Wolf,
Greenpeace gets the IPCC to put untrue claims in their reports.
So does the WWF. These two organizations and their cohorts are vastly bigger, and spend much more of their budget on AGW fear mongering.
I understand that for a true believer it is important to keep fingers in ears and keep up the mantra of Koch, Koch, Koch, but you are looking silly and fooling no one but those who desperately want to be fooled.
AGW is an apocalyptic claptrap social movement, and you are a victim of those who were selling the apocalypse.
Get mad at those who have fooled you and so many others.
I only wish more with resources who see through the idiocracy at the heart of the climate swindle would put more money into busting it.
Oakden Wolf,
Last I checked is we live in a society where free speech is an important value. If Koch wants to fund groups that support a particular POV then it is entitled to.
In fact, I would like to see the likes of Exxon actively funding scientific research that seeks to debunk the consensus. If the consensus has any validity then it would survive such reviews.
The trouble is the consensus is not really supported by the scientific evidence which is whyoutfits like greenpeace spend so much time claiming that dissenters are deliberately lying for financial gain.
Oakden,
So let me get this straight... in YOUR worldview what's good for the goose is good for the gander, but only if the gander thinks like the goose??
I know that that probably was over your head so I'll break it down for you:
Coorporate science = bad
Activist science = Good
Privately funded science = bad (unless Soros funds it, then it's good)
Government funded science = good
Information put out by a conservative think tank = Dis/Misinformation
Information put out by an activist group (A la Greenpeace) = totally accurate.
Funding received from "big oil" = evil, vile, tainted... unless they are giving it to AGW folks, THEN it's ok.
Funding received from an NGO or activist organization = pure as the driven snow.
Skeptical science must be peer reviewed, totally transparent in methodology & data, must be reproduceable & falsifiable, must be supported by empirical observation, must adhere to common scientific practices.
AGW science; Not so much.
sound right?
Doc
Tom, I'm going to make two posts which respond to your last several columns.
If you have a lot of money and want to influence a debate which do you do?
1. Give the money to the side you agree with and hope to outspend the other side.
2. Give the money to the side you disagree with to either make them more malleable or to make them look foolish by funding the biggest idiots who disagree with you.
3. Give some money to both sides and control the debate. Use it to steer the debate so that your desired outcome looks like an unavoidable compromise.
The first approach is not very cost effective. The last is very effective. I don't think that we should jump to simplistic conclusions about motivations behind funding.
Tom:
I'm aware that Lambert and Rabett have said many unkind things about Roger Pielke Sr, but to the best of my knowledge they have never called him a denier. The point being that in naming them specifically and then in the very next sentence saying that "All of those named are not deniers--not even skeptics" you made the accusation that Lambert and Rabett called them that - you lack of evidence of them saying that shows that you are basically doing the same thing you accuse "alarmists" of doing.
hunter:
"'Pielke, jr. + denier' yields 18,300 hits": well,'nasa + denier' yields 1,840,00 hits thereby meaning what?
"I especially like this one, penned by my favorite true believer, Joe Romm" - I didn't ask about Romm, I asked about Tim Lambert and Eli Rabett (and Pielke Sr not Jr).
"What was your point again, BTW?": see my response to Tom above. You clearly came away from his piece thinking that Lambert and Rabett have called Pielke Sr a denier - not having read either doing
Got cut off:
hunter:
"'Pielke, jr. + denier' yields 18,300 hits" - well,'nasa + denier' yields 1,840,00 hits thereby meaning what?
"I especially like this one, penned by my favorite true believer, Joe Romm" - I didn't ask about Romm, I asked about Tim Lambert and Eli Rabett (and Pielke Sr not Jr).
"What was your point again, BTW?" - see my response to Tom above. You clearly came away from his piece thinking that Lambert and Rabett have called Pielke Sr a denier - not having read either doing so I asked for evidence of such. As we can see, such evidence is still lacking.
Do you not see the irony of Tom's in his complaint of alarmist tactics, he resorts to the same tactics he complains about?
Tom, Are me, you, and Pielke, Sr the center?
From one point of view, I might look that way, but I sure don't feel like it. Take the focus off co2 and AGW, and look at the whole climate change debate. There is very strong evidence that land use is changing the climate, but the debate is focussed somewhere else. Look at the governmental and societal changes necessary to tackle land use climate change versus AGW.
If co2 is the only problem, we can solve it by deregulating and subsidizing the nuclear and natural gas industries. The distribution of wealth and power stays the same.
To combat land use problems, we need a stronger society at all levels. We need more planning. We need an agricultural policy that favors smaller perreniel agriculture. Etc.
Most of the well funded players don't see that as the middle.
BTW, are you suggesting there's something wrong with the term 'denier?' Are you saying it's somehow disparaging and that Lambert and Rabbit need to be protected from allegations they misused it? Why is that?
Marty, as usual, you make a good point. I've written about misallocation of resources due to hyperfocus on CO2, but the way the debate is framed I keep falling into the wrong paradigm. I feel like Alice... Roger Pielke Sr. (hey--remember him BTW?) has the right one, focusing on resource constraints.
BTW in all seriousness, I did not say Lambert or Rabbit called Pielke Sr. a denier. I said they "wander around the blog world making absurd accusations against people like Roger Pielke Sr." Which they do. What's your problem with that?
BTW,
Not sure if you feel that silence is agreement. If I were to call you all kinds of nasty names, and print libelous things about you here on Tom's blog, and Tom says or does nothing about it, or even encourages other posters to do the same to you via inaction or subtle agreement... does that mean that it is the same as Tom saying the same thing as his commentors?
scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/pielke_srs_new_statistical_tec.php
And here is Rabbett posting a satire from an onion writer, who calls Peilke Sr a "denialist" in a sideways manner. Then makes encouraging statements to commentors who also use the term "denier". You argument will be that ~Rabbett~ never said these things, but my response would be that using that kind of logic exonerates anyone of the responsibility of quoting hate-speech (and the term "denier" IS hate-speech) or propaganda or misinformation...as long as they never actually said it.
rabett.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-yorkin-statement-posted-this.html
BTW,
You asked if your guys called Pielke, jr. a denier.
I posted a link and direct, in context quote where Romm called Pielke, jr. a denier.
for people with normal congnitive function, that is called 'proof'.
For someone suffering from true beleiver syndrome, like you for instance, it is just another road bump on the way to perfect blind faith.
Doc Navy;
No. You've got it way wrong.
Information and scientific achievement is judged by its quality and accuracy. Corporate science has done great things. So has privately funded science. But it has to be research, not
back-of-the-envelope "revelations" overturning "the foundation of anthropogenic global warming". Especially if that's the only reason it was done.
What the conservative thinktanks (CTTs) have done, and are doing, is to take bad science on climate (from whatever source it stems -- rarely peer-reviewed, or if it is, frequently refuted
quickly and definitively) and to promote it incessantly and repeatedly. The CTTs overstate the claims, they never publicize clear refutations, and their mouthpieces repeat archaic inaccuracies over and over and over again in op-eds and Web articles that are then echoed by blogs and forums. This influences the like-minded public. It works.
Big Oil has put a lot of funding into climate change disinformation. There are even letters showing that's where its going and that's where they intend it to be going!! If they fund scientists that do good research, more power to them, no matter what the research results indicates.
All scientific research should be conducted at the highest levels of methodology and transparency. It doesn't matter who does it.
(Sorry about pushing older comments off the page where they are irrecoverable. That's the way this place works.)
An example:
Marc Sheppard (note that Sheppard has been repeatedly invited to the Heartland Institute's climate change skeptics meetings):
www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html
"Indeed, it’s abundantly evident that since the last glacial period ended, over 14,000 years ago, the Earth’s climate has undergone multi-century swings from warming to cooling that occur often and with remarkable rapidity. And not one but three such radical shifts occurred within the past millennium."
Note: "Earth's climate". Not England's, not North America's, not New Zealand's, not Brazil's -- EARTH's climate.
www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html
Both Sheppard articles include IPCC 1990 Figure 7c. Second article:
"It’s important to understand that early analyses, and even many contemporary studies, of these “proxies” clearly demonstrate that three radical temperature shifts occurred within the past
millennium. Indeed, the years 900-1300 AD were labeled the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) ... Originally, even the IPCC accepted that pre-20th-century analysis. ... And opportunists who depended on the aberrance of post-industrial revolution warming in order to condemn and control mankind’s CO2 emissions soon recognized that perhaps the LIA, and most certainly the MWP, simply had to go."
Note: "pre-20th-century analysis"
What's the real story?
From ClimateAudit, no less:
//climateaudit.org/2008/05/09/where-did-ipcc-1990-figure-7c-come-from-httpwwwclimateauditorgp3072previewtrue/
"In Figure 7, IPCC 1990 used the CET [Central England Temperature] estimates as a “schematic” for the global temperature, even though, as shown above, it was an estimate for the CET, which is taken from only one location.
So for Marc Sheppard, a sketch lacking quantification of Central England temperatures is equivalent to Earth's climate.
THAT's misinformation. And Sheppard repeats it over and over and over... comparing it to the Mann hockey stick reconstruction, which at least had numbers ... and implying that this first schematic was a better reconstruction than anything since!
Which is propaganda, pure and simple. Misinformation intended to mislead and influence the reader. That's one example of what Heartland supports and what the Kochs fund. There are 100s more.
Oakden,
Mind if I rebut?
IPCC TAR has as it's showcase item this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg
You will note a couple of things about this particular graph (as you seem so fond of graphs and their origins, etc..)
1. This is a graph for the "Northern Hemishpere", particularly North America.
2. The paper that was originally written that sports this graph ~HAS~ been debunked at least 3 times.
3. All subsiquent "independent" papers purporting to support MBH 98/99 have some sort of a. unethical or unprofessional circumstances surrounding their publication or b. Are written by authors who co-authored MBH98/99 and use the exact same bad data, and the exact same non-standard statistical methods.
( ref: bishophill.squarespace.com/.../caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html)
YET... the folks in your camp continue, to this day, to use this graph as proof of manmade ~GLOBAL~ warming, and still claim it's valid.
But that's NOT "disinformation"??
Doc
Tom -
"Are you saying it's somehow disparaging and that Lambert and Rabbit need to be protected from allegations they misused it?"
Wow Tom, are you saying it's just fine to toss out allegations for which you have no supporting facts?
Isn't that what you're complaining about alarmists - and Lambert and Rabbet specifically - of doing?
Is that so hard to understand? Whether I think they need protecting has nothing to do with it (FWIW - I don't)
"I did not say Lambert or Rabbit called Pielke Sr. a denier. I said they "wander around the blog world making absurd accusations against people like Roger Pielke Sr." Which they do. What's your problem with that?"
Then why did you immediately follow that with "All of those named are not deniers--not even skeptics"? Especially when before you wrote that: "One of the tactics this group has used is by classifying all those who oppose them as 'denialists,'". Why did you not clarify that when I asked for examples?
hunter -
"You asked if your guys called Pielke, jr. a denier. I posted a link and direct, in context quote where Romm called Pielke, jr. a denier."
No, I specifically asked where Lambert or Rabbet called him a denier. I intentionally left Romm off because it wouldn't surprise me if Romm had called him a denier.
"for people with normal congnitive function, that is called 'proof'. For someone suffering from true beleiver syndrome, like you for instance, it is just another road bump on the way to perfect blind faith. "
Pretty funny seeing that your "proof" relies on something I didn't even write. As for the rest, well, you have no idea what I might believe (much as you apparently have no idea what I wrote) so you just make stuff up. Hmm.. that's the kind of stuff Tom is complaining that the alarmists do...
Doc_Navy -
"Not sure if you feel that silence is agreement. ... Tom says or does nothing about it, or even encourages other posters to do the same to you via inaction or subtle agreement... does that mean that it is the same as Tom saying the same thing as his commentors?"
No - and I didn't say that. I referred to hunter's reply because it indicated that he got the same impression as I did.
"You argument will be that ~Rabbett~ never said these things, but my response would be that using that kind of logic exonerates anyone of the responsibility of quoting hate-speech (and the term "denier" IS hate-speech) or propaganda or misinformation...as long as they never actually said it."
Like making up what someone else's argument will be so you could rebut it? I said that Lambert & Rabbett have said unkind things about Pielke and will say that Rabbett goes out of his way to provoke his readers.
are you now saying that Rabbett is responsible for the comments he provokes but Tom
BTW, okay, let's take this a bit more seriously. The reason I used different language about Lambert and Rabett is that I didn't have specific instances in mind of them calling Pielke Sr., Lomborg or myself deniers. However, here is why I classed them in the same category:
Lambert: "If Fuller is in the middle ground, then so is Inhofe -- they both think that climate scientists are a bunch of frauds."
"Pielke Jr wrote a viscous (sic) and dishonest attack on me. I wasn't even going to bother responding but he was getting links from a a bunch of right wing blogs." (I know, not P. Senior)
On Lomborg: "People have noticed that there was an advertisement for Bjorn Lomborg's Cool It! on ScienceBlogs. Seed's sales staff know not to accept ads for Creationists, psychics and pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo, so how did Lomborg slip through?"
The latest salvo from the Australian in their war on science is a column from Bjorn Lomborg.
(Cont.)
Rabett on Pielke Sr.: "Now Ho Chi Pielke Sr. is providing reinforcements by getting his irregulars to go out there and take pictures of stations in the Global Historic Climate Network (GHCN)."
"The most likely scenario is that Pielke Sr. was preparing a paper that had cherry picking written deep into it, as most of his recent output has."
Rabett again: "We need to put Pielke and Lomborg in prison until they rot!"
Seems to me this pretty much super overbalances the 32000 dentists, 500 guys who spent a fun week in Manhattan, and oh yeah, the full Lomborg.
Tom is also pushing the Superfreaks and the Breakdown Institute pretty hard as a charter member of the Roger Pielke Jr. Climate Blogging Delay and Bad Science Society***. Who could have guessed.
*** Alcolytes include the rebuilt mothership, Kloor-a-Mole, the Fuller nuts man and My Way featuring RP Sr. and the emeriti.
There's more...
The Rascally Rabett again: "Bart, if you even let closeted denialists like Fuller get away with that by being quiet, you are playing right into their tactic because its part of their strategy to get rid of anyone who is effective."
Doc_Navy,
I'll meet you here:
www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
Plenty of room for comments.
@Oakden
I'd love to meet you there, although if you had actually READ the comments on that page you'd see that there are a number of commenters that thoroughly debunk Cooks debunking.
For instance: you have the upside down tiljanders, the "Yamal" dataset problems, the ex post facto cherrypicked datapoints used by Briffa, Jones, Wahl, Overpeck, and Vinther.
Apparently you didn't follow the link to Bishop Hill's article entitled "Caspar (Ammann) and the Jesus paper".
Also, since you are fond of using someone elses website of "how to talk to a skeptic" type argument points rather than making your own... let's take this to the SOURCE rather than some tertiary list of debunked skeptic debunking talking points:
www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
data.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohio.pdf
and if you are REALLY interested in finding out both sides of the issue:
climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/
Good luck,
Doc
Doc_Navy,
I didn't comment here because the length of comments and the lack of comment retention make it difficult to. Furthermore, one of the great triumphs of the climate denial machine has been to make the Hockey Stick symbolic of the body of climate change science -- when anybody with reasonable intelligence can perceive that it isn't. (The IPCC did make it a target by featuring it, though.) Another triumph is that because the discovery of methodological missteps was made by someone who publicized the correction process, the normal progress of refinement was made to look unseemly. Finally, my insights within the 1000s of words devoted to this issue are unlikely to be useful.
RealClimate has brought up the Hockey Stick again:
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/04/climate-scientist-bashing/
And there's this:
pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html
So what is the correct time interval of the actual Medieval Warm Period?
So give me responsibility to work with you on hi-tech market
Justname I am russian gay . Inventors with clear brain. Want to friend anybody who can and wish to colloborate in really. my E-mail : mail@tdpo.ru
God bless the America
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!