Climate Change, 160 Spring 2011 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – Climate Change, 160 Spring 2011 PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 3d0d66-YjIzM


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

Climate Change, 160 Spring 2011


They are now being joined by Republican lawmakers who have parted ... which would have pleased lobbyists against the climate change consensus from the American ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:48
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 59
Provided by: sextonUcd
Tags: change | climate | spring


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Climate Change, 160 Spring 2011

Climate Change, 160 Spring 2011
  • Attribution, Kyoto Accord, Climate Skeptics
    Climate Obfuscation, Climate Gate

Power spectrum harmonics of the variation
Uncertainty, but trend and shape agrees
Dotted black line spectrum of observed global
mean temperatures after removing an independent
estimate of the externally forced response
provided by the ensemble mean of a coupled model
simulation (Stott et al., 2000b, and Figure
How do models do?
Gases only
Gases plus sulfates
Gases plus sulfates plus ozone depletion
Note the cooling in in the stratospher
Important Solar variability can warm the lower
atmosphere, but anthropogenic effects both warm
the lower atmosphere and cool the upper! (Pattern
in lower atmosphere is similar)
Attribution Re Munich, catastrophe re-insurer
  • The only plausible explanation for the rise in
    weather-related catastrophes is climate change.
  • Statement issued in 2010 that catastrophic
    weather events tied to climate change Munich
    Res natural catastrophe database, the most
    comprehensive of its kind in the world, shows a
    marked increase in the number of weather-related
    events. For instance, globally there has been a
    more than threefold increase in loss-related
    floods since 1980 and more than double the number
    of windstorm natural catastrophes, with
    particularly heavy losses as a result of Atlantic
  • Not just one - see also Swiss Re

Peter Hoeppe PhD of Re Munich
  • Peter Hoeppe I never said that 2010 is the year
    with the highest number of weather related loss
    events, it is the second highest after 2007.
    Currently (December 23) we have reached the
    number of 931 nat cat loss events, 849 of them
    being caused by weather related events. The still
    record year is 2007 with a total of 1043 events,
    943 weather related. For me the most convincing
    piece of evidence that global warming has been
    contributing already to more and more intense
    weather related natural catastrophes is the fact
    that while we find a steep increase in the number
    of loss relevant weather events (about tripling
    in the last 30 years) we only find a slight
    increase in geophysical (earthquake, volcano,
    tsunami) events, which should not be affected by
    global warming. If the whole trend we find in
    weather related disaster should be caused by
    reporting bias, or socio-demographic or economic
    developments we would expect to find it similarly
    for the geophysical events. By the way the
    assumption that climate change is increasing the
    risk of extreme weather events is backed by IPCC.

Kyoto Accord (see Wikipedia for next few slides)
  • The Kyoto Protocol is an amendment to the United
    Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
  • Kyoto ProtocolOpened for signatureDecember 11,
    1997 at Kyoto, Japan
  • Entered into forceFebruary 16, 2005.
  • Conditions for entry into force 55 parties and at
    least 55 CO2 1990 emissions by UNFCCC Annex I
  • Parties156 countries (as of Sep, 2005)

Kyoto Accord Continued
  • According to a press release from the United
    Nations Environment Programme
  • "The Kyoto Protocol is a legal agreement under
    which industrialized countries will reduce their
    collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2
    compared to the year 1990 (but note that,
    compared to the emissions levels that would be
    expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this
    target represents a 29 cut). The goal is to
    lower overall emissions from six greenhouse gases
    - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur
    hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs - calculated as an
    average over the five-year period of 2008-12.
    National targets range from 8 reductions for the
    European Union and some others to 7 for the US,
    6 for Japan, 0 for Russia, and permitted
    increases of 8 for Australia and 10 for
  • Sources Elephant Rock-
  • http//
  • Sleipner sequestration drawing
  • Induce increased uptake through catalyzing
    mineralization processes

Support for Kyoto
  • Advocates of the Kyoto Protocol claim that
    reducing these emissions is crucially important
    carbon dioxide, they believe, is causing the
    earth's atmosphere to heat up (see global
    warming). This is supported by attribution
  • The governments of all of the countries whose
    parliaments have ratified the Protocol are
    supporting it. Most prominent among advocates of
    Kyoto have been the European Union and many
    environmentalist organizations. The United
    Nations and some individual nations' scientific
    advisory bodies (including the G8 national
    science academies) have also issued reports
    favoring the Kyoto Protocol.
  • An international day of action is planned for 3
    December 2005, to coincide with the Meeting of
    the Parties in Montreal. The planned
    demonstrations are endorsed by the Assembly of
    Movements of the World Social Forum.17
  • Grassroots support in the US
  • In the US, there is at least one student group
    Kyoto Now! which aims to use student interest to
    support pressure towards reducing emissions as
    targeted by the Kyoto Protocol compliance.
  • As of November 15, 2004, nine Northeastern US
    states are involved in the Regional Greenhouse
    Gas Initiative (RGGI) 18, which is a state
    level emissions capping and trading program. It
    is believed that the state-level program will
    indirectly apply pressure on the federal
    government by demonstrating that reductions can
    be achieved without being a signatory of the
    Kyoto Protocol.
  • Participating states Maine, Massachusetts, New
    Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut,
    New York, New Jersey, Delaware.
  • Observer states and regions Pennsylvania,
    Maryland, District of Columbia, Eastern Canadian
  • As of June 22, 2005, 165 US cities representing
    35 million Americans support Kyoto after Mayor
    Greg Nickels of Seattle started a nationwide
    effort to get cities to agree to the protocol.
  • Large participating cities Seattle, New York
    City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, Denver,
    New Orleans, Minneapolis, Austin, Texas,
    Portland, Oregon, Providence, Rhode Island,
    Tacoma, Washington, San Jose, California, Salt
    Lake City, Utah, Little Rock, Arkansas, West Palm
    Beach, Florida, Annapolis, Maryland

Opposition to Kyoto
  • USA and Australia,
  • Some critics say there are problems with the
    underlying science (see global warming
  • Some critics state that the protocol will prevent
    or damage economic growth.
  • American Council for Capital Formation 19
  • United States Department of Energy 20
  • National Bank of New Zealand 21
  • The 1997 Leipzig Declaration called the Kyoto
    Protocol "dangerously simplistic, quite
    ineffective, and economically destructive to jobs
    and standards-of-living". However, most of the
    signers of the Leipzig Declaration were
    non-scientists or lacked credentials in the
    specific field of climate research.
  • Some argue that the protocol does not go far
    enough to curb greenhouse emissions (Niue, The
    Cook Islands, and Nauru added notes to this
    effect when signing the protocol 22),
  • Some theorists predict that even if the world's
    leading industrial nations agree to reduce their
    greenhouse gas emissions as mandated by the Kyoto
    Protocol, it is likely that there would be no net
    change in emissions worldwide. .
  • It is argued by many that Kyoto fails to address
    larger issues of sustainability. While one may
    agree with establishing an international
    precedent for regulation of greenhouse gasses,
    failing to address other sustainability issues,
    such as typically rapid population growth among
    "non-Annex I" countries, suggests to some that
    Kyoto represents an anti-industrial agenda rather
    than a fair attempt to mitigate climate chang

Emissions tradingpart of Kyoto
  • Notion a country with big emissions can pay a
    country with low emissions to offset the big
    emissions with a corresponding reduction of
    emissions by the low country. Because CO2 is
    globally distributed, this is indeed equivalent
    to an emissions reduction by the big country.
  • This has worked on some pollutants in the US (not
    good for mercury emissions, as advocated by Bush
    administration, because dispersal is not large

European Union Emissions Reduction Program
  • Europe is confident of meeting Kyoto goals by
    2010it is not hurting their economy.

old europe
Markets in US are eager to join
  • Eight NE states are setting up a regional
    reduction/trading compact their projections are
    that the economic growth will be unaffected while
    energy prices will rise a few percent.

Commodities markets are interested check out
  • The Asia Carbon Exchange
  • Climex
  • New Values
  • Commodities traders in NYC and Chicago would love
    to get involved, but are held back now by our
    lack of participation in Kyoto

So how are we really doing? Some progress
  • Numbers from the UN
  • Numbers from David Suzuki

UN Numbers I (LULUCF land use/land use
UN Report II - EIT economies in transition
former eastern bloc/USSR countries
From David Suzuki (Canadian environmentalist)
Good news EU overall, especially Germany and
UK. Bad news US, Japan, Australia, Canada
Ethics when do we speak out?
  • IF a boss wants to suppress the facts, do you
    speak out?
  • IF you see an official, even not at an official
    function, do you speak out?

IF your boss wants to suppress facts, what do you
do? I
  • Some facts from a report by Wired magazine (see
  • WASHINGTON -- Congress continued to probe
    allegations Wednesday that the Bush
    administration tried to muzzle government
    scientists on climate change and suppress
    scientific research, including a comprehensive
    report in 2000 on global warming's impact on the
    United States.
  • Rick Piltz, the director of the climate science
    watch program at watchdog group the Government
    Accountability Project, said the Bush
    administration effectively quashed official use
    of the 2000 National Assessment report on global
    warming in the United States.
  • Other witnesses testified that agency flacks
    had hindered their ability to inform the public
    about their research. In his written statement to
    the committee, Tom Knutson, a meteorologist and
    hurricane expert at NOAA, detailed several
    instances in which his media interviews were
    mysteriously canceled or language in his
    presentations was changed.Internal NOAA e-mails
    (.pdf) obtained by a Freedom of Information Act
    request last year suggest a plan to keep Knutson
    from discussing any evidence connecting global
    warming to stronger hurricanes.
  • James Mahoney, a deputy administrator of NOAA
    from 2002 to 2006, also said he had seen
    scientists discouraged from talking to the media
    during his time at the agency. Other witnesses
    bemoaned cuts in areas of funding at NOAA and
    NASA that would reduce the number of satellites
    and Earth-observing instruments in space by 35
    percent by 2010, making it harder to study
    climate change and predict natural disasters.

If your boss wants you to suppress facts, what do
you do? II
  • From an excellent on line report by Robert Rich
    and Kelly Merrick, U of Illinois and other
  • James Hansen, leading NASA scientist on climate
    change faced opposition from the Bush
    administration over his public statements
  • Officials at NASA headquarters had directed the
    public affairs staff to review all of Hansens
    upcoming lectures, papers, postings on the
    Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from
    journalists.28 There is no paper record of these
    directions to public affairs staff as Hansen
    stated that all such requests came through
    telephone conversations and not through formal
    channels, leaving no significant trails of
    documents. (A. Revkin, NY Times, January 29,
  • After a December 6, 2005 lecture given at the
    annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union
    in San Francisco, Hansen claims that further
    efforts were made to silence him. In this
    talk, Hansen stated that significant emission
    cuts could be achieved with existing
    technologies, particularly in the case of motor
    vehicles, and that without leadership by the
    United States, climate change would eventually
    leave the earth a different planet. Such
    statements directly contradict the Bush
    administrations official policy on climate
    change which would use voluntary measures, to
    slow, but not reverse, the growth of emissions.
    Of additional concern to NASA officials was the
    public release by Dr. Hanson on December 15, 2005
    of data that demonstrated 2005 was the warmest
    year in a century.

If your boss wants you to suppress facts, what do
you do? III
  • After this release of information, officials at
    NASA phoned NASA public affairs officers on
    multiple occasions, who then warned Dr. Hansen
    there would be dire consequences if he
    continued to make similar statements. Both Dr.
    Hansen and the public affairs officers have
    confirmed these occurrences in interviews with
    the New York Times. Dr. Hansen claims that after
    December 15, 2005 his interactions with the media
    were required to be filtered through Goddard
    press officers and some interviews were canceled
    as a result of this new process.
  • A key example of this type of cancellation was a
    rejection by NASA of a request for an NPR
    interview In one call, George Deutsch, a
    recently appointed public affairs officer at NASA
    headquarters, rejected a request from a producer
    at National Public Radio to interview Dr. Hansen,
    said Leslie McCarthy, a public affairs officer
    responsible for the Goddard Institute. Citing
    handwritten notes taken during the conversation,
    Ms. McCarthy said Mr. Deutsch called N.P.R. the
    most liberal media outlet in the country. She
    said that in that call and others, Mr. Deutsch
    said his job was to make the president look
    good.36 Mr. Deutsch has denied making these
  • As the controversy grew, Hansen characterized
    the Bush Administration as an administration
    whose involvement in the control of scientific
    information was unprecedented In my more than
    three decades in government, I have never seen
    anything approaching the degree to which
    information flow from scientists to the public
    has been screened and controlled as it is now.
    (from Rolling Stone, The Paul Revere Dr. James
    Hansen (November 3, 2005) http//www.rollingstone

If your boss wants you to suppress facts, what do
you do? IV
  • The controversy surrounding Hansens
    allegations resulted in the resignation of NASA
    spokesman George C. Deutsch, in February 2006.
    Deutsch was specifically alleged to have edited
    scientists reports to conform to administration
    positions on climate change, and also limited the
    access of the news media to Hansen, as in the
    aforementioned example of the NPR interview
    request. In an e-mail message to reporters
    Deutsch responded to these allegations, stating
    that There is no pressure or mandate, from the
    Bush administration or elsewhere, to alter or
    water down scientific data at NASA, period. He
    also claimed that Hansen had a partisan agenda,
    and that his allegations against the Bush
    administration were politically motivated.
  • Hansen refuted this claim in a public statement
    , where he states These claims are nonsense.
    Political inclinations should have no impact on
    science analyses, but in any case the above
    description of my inclinations is inaccurate. I
    can be accurately described as moderately
    conservative. I am registered to vote (in
    Pennsylvania) as an Independent.
  • Postscript Deutsch, who was 24 at the time of
    the dustup, claimed a Bachelor of Arts in
    Journalism from Texas AM (Hansen is a PhD in
    physics, National Academy of Science member, and
    research scientist for 30 years on climate
    change) - the university refuted his claim
    showing no record of his graduation which led in
    part to his resignation. Another ethics point-is
    it ever permissable to lie on your resume or
    curriculum vitae?

If you see an official/public person, even not at
an official function, do you speak out?
Laurie David, Sheryl Crow Laurie David,
Sheryl Crow, Karl Rove, at White

Correspondents Dinner, 4/21/07 Huffington Post
????Posted April 22, 2007 1039 PM At some point
during his ramblings, we became heartbroken to
think that the President of the United States
and his top advisers have partially built a
career on global warming not being real. We have
been telling college students across the country
for the past two weeks that government does not
change until people demand it... well, listen up
folks, everyone had better get a lot louder
because the message clearly is not getting
through. In his attempt to dismiss us, Mr. Rove
turned to head toward his table, but as soon as
he did so, Sheryl reached out to touch his arm.
Karl swung around and spat, "Don't touch me."
How hardened and removed from reality must a
person be to refuse to be touched by Sheryl
Crow? Unphased, Sheryl abruptly responded, "You
can't speak to us like that, you work for us."
Karl then quipped, "I don't work for you, I work
for the American people." To which Sheryl
promptly reminded him, "We are the American
See also Don Imus
  • When is it right to speak out?

Global warming obfuscation
  • Corporate efforts to delay the response
  • ?Global Climate Coalition (now extinctstarted
    to crumble as BP, Shell, GM, Ford all dropped
  • ?Follow the money! Hired guns (scientists with
    research support from fossil fuel companies)
    Richard Lindzen (MIT), Fred Singer, Pat Michaels
    (Virginia), Robert Balling (Arizona State), Fred
    Seitz (Marshall Institute, former president of
    National Academy of Sciences)-5 vs 2500! Exploit
    media tendency to balance
  • ?Grandiose sounding petitions the Leipzig
    declaration, the Heidelberg statement, the Oregon
  • ?Sound Science Web Sites eg the Junkman
    of Science Steven Milloy (law degree
    biostatistics master zero research experience
    no scientific publications, yet the judge of what
    is sound science)
  • ? Stress positives some enhanced crop
    yields! Boo-yah!
  • ? Ad hominem attacks on prominent scientists
    eg Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore labs, lead
    author of 1995 attribution study of IPCC directly
    attacked by Fred Seitz in the Wall Street Journal
    OpEd pages for this
  • The balance of evidence suggests a discernible
    human influence upon the climate

Skeptics vs. Mainstream Experts an objective
Notes Citation reference by another
scientific paper H-index papers having
h citations or higher. Spencer/Christy
benefit from being the chief authors of the NASA
satellite temperature data
which has been shown to be incorrectly
intepreted. Even wrong papers get cited.
Experts sample is very, very incomplete. Skeptics
sample is 80 complete. Conclusion (mine)
among skeptics, only possibly Lindzen has
comparable credibility to the Mainstream leaders

But the times, they are a changing!
  • Bush Faces Dissent From Republicans on Climate
    Change (Update1) April 24 (Bloomberg) 2006
  • Representative Bob Inglis, a South Carolina
    Republican, says he pooh-poohed'' global
    warming until he trekked to the South Pole in
  • Now, I think we should be concerned,'' says
    Inglis, who heads the U.S. House Science Research
    subcommittee. There are more and more
    Republicans willing to stop laughing at climate
    change who are ready to get serious about
    reclaiming their heritage as conservationists.''
  • U.S. companies including General Electric Co. and
    Duke Energy Corp. have come out in support of
    national limits on carbon dioxide and other
    greenhouse-gas emissions that scientists say
    contribute to global warming. They are now being
    joined by Republican lawmakers who have parted
    company with President George W. Bush on the
    issue. .
  • Includes Sens. McCain (AZ-R), Graham (SC-R),
    Domenici (NM-R), Rep. Leach (IA-R)

One reason for companies to sign on
  • Energy efficiency increases profits
  • Energy efficiency decreases emissions
  • Decreased emissions increased PR value
  • Not a bad thing!
  • Where can you put this stuff underground?
  • Caverns or mines
  • Not leakproof, not enough volume.

  • Comparison of skeptics and leading IPCC
    non-skeptic scientists
  • Issues raised by skeptics - example - pacific
    decadonal oscillation
  • Issues attacked in Climate Gate
  • Himalayan Glaciers
  • African Crops
  • Disaster impacts
  • Impact on Amazon rain forest
  • Conflict of interest for IPCC head Pachauri

I Preamble Quotes on McIntyre
  • "has no interest in rational scientific
    discourse. He deals in the currency of threats
    and intimidation." He believes McIntyre saw
    himself as the "self-appointed Joe McCarthy of
    climate science".(Santer)
  • Mann on McIntyre Science is made up of people
    challenging assumptions and other people's
    results ... What is objectionable is the
    conflation of technical criticism with
    unsupported, unjustified and unverified
    accusations of scientific mal-conduct." McIntyre
    rarely makes such charges personally but, they
    complained, he "continues to take absolutely no
    responsibility for the ridiculous fantasies and
    exaggerations that his supporters broadcast
  • In one week in the summer of 2009, he showered
    CRU with 58 freedom of information requests. He
    often made it clear that he did not have any
    particular reason for requiring the data. He just
    wanted to liberate it. It was a battle to break
    down the walls of the ivory towers, to blow apart
    the cosy world of peer review. It was a battle
    for the heart and soul of science, and for its
    lifeblood data.

Attacks leading up to leaked emails
  • Kevin Trenberth had suffered abuse for publicly
    linking global warming to the exceptional 2005
    Atlantic hurricane season, which culminated in
    hurricane Katrina. He told me "The attacks on me
    are clearly designed to get me fired or to
  • Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore laboratory
    in California, and formerly of the Climatic
    Research Unit at the University of East Anglia,
    was attacked for his role in writing the 1995
    IPCC report, which claimed to see the hand of man
    in climate change. He said "There is a strategy
    to single out individuals, tarnish them and try
    to bring the whole of science into disrepute.
  • Prof Mike Mann of Pennsylvania State University,
    fresh from his battle over the hockey stick in
    2001, said "There is an orchestrated campaign
    against the IPCC.

Follow the money
  • McIntyre - hobbyist
  • Pat Michaels received hundreds of thousands of
    dollars in "consultancy" fees from the
    Intermountain Rural Electric Association, a
    coal-burning electric company based in Colorado.
    A leaked letter from the company's general
    manager, Stanley Lewandowski, said "We believe
    it is necessary to support the scientific
    community that is willing to stand up against the
  • In 1998, I revealed in the Guardian leaked
    documents showing that the powerful American
    Petroleum Institute (API) was planning to recruit
    a team of "independent scientists" to do battle
    against climatologists on global warming. The aim
    was to bolster a campaign to prevent the US
    government ratifying the Kyoto protocol.

II What was in the emails
  • Misquote The most quoted soundbite in the
    affair comes from an email from Prof Phil Jones,
    director of the Climatic Research Unit at the
    University of East Anglia, to Prof Mike Mann of
    the University of Virginia in 1999, in which he
    discussed using "Mike's Nature trick" to "hide
    the decline". The phrase has been widely spun as
    an effort to prevent the truth getting out that
    global temperatures had stopped rising.
  • Sarah Palin, in the Washington Post on 9
    December, attacked the emailers as a "highly
    politicized scientific circle" who "manipulated
    data to 'hide the decline' in global
  • James Inhofe (R-OK)"Of course, he means hide the
    decline in temperatures.
  • Full quote-1999 "I've just completed Mike's
    Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each
    series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981
    onwards) and from 1961 for Keith Briffa's, to
    hide the decline.
  • The decline being referred to was an apparent
    decline in temperatures shown in analysis of tree
    rings, which have historically correlated well
    with changes in temperature. That relationship
    has broken down in the past half century. The
    reasons are still debated.

Emails Continued
  • The "trick" was a graphic device used by Mann in
    a 1998 paper in Nature to merge tree ring data
    from earlier times with thermometer data for
    recent decades. He explained it in the paper.
    Jones was repeating it in another paper. "This is
    a trick only in the sense of being a good way to
    deal with a vexing problem," Mann told the
    Guardian. Clearly, this problem with modern tree
    data raises questions about older data at least
    until the reason for the divergence is nailed
    down. But it is not clandestine data
    manipulation, or, as claimed by Palin and
    Inhofe, a trick to hide global cooling. That
    charge is a lie.
  • Inhofe in Copenhagen last year He said that "of
    course Jones meant hide the decline in
    temperatures, which caused another scientist,
    Kevin Trenberth of the National Centre for
    Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, to
    write 'The fact is we can't account for the lack
    of warming at the moment and it is a travesty
    that we can't.'
  • Statements 10 years apart! Meaning of
    Trenberths Trenberth had been discussing
    publicly his concerns about the inability of
    scientists to pin down the precise reason for the
    "absence of warming" since 1998. He had argued in
    the journal Current Opinion in Environmental
    Stability in early 2009 that "it is not a
    sufficient explanation to say that a cool year
    he had 2008 in mind is due to natural
    variability (pdf)". Such explanations "do not
    provide the physical mechanisms involved". This
    was the "travesty" he was referring to in his
    email. He wanted scientists to do better.

More misquotes
  • Michaels slamming Mann for an email quote
    about keeping sceptics' papers out of the IPCC
    report "even if we have to redefine what the
    peer-reviewed literature is Michaels is an old
    foe of Mann's, but this genuinely damaging
    statement was actually made by Jones
  • George Will Mann had said in an email that he
    wished to "delete, get rid of, the medieval
    warming period". No such words appear anywhere in
    the emails. What Mann said was that "it would be
    nice to try to 'contain' the putative 'MWP'". And
    an intellectual like Will should have known that,
    in this context, "contain" means to understand
    its dimensions how warm it was and how long it
    was. Mann explained as much to anyone who asked.
    Verdict not guilty.

III Hockey Stick Graph
  • Tensions between climate modelers and
    paleoclimatologists (Mann, Briffa) for 2001 IPCC
    diff cultures
  • Graph does NOT show warm period (Mann largely
    European, not global)
  • Simple graph for policy summary
  • Jones, Briffa fought Mann over warm
    period-eventually settled differences.
  • Hockey stick given pride of place in IPCC
  • Public record of spat gone

IV McIntyre v Mann
  • Santer "There are people who believe that if
    they bring down Mike Mann, they can bring down
    the IPCC,
  • Wally Broecker, Columbia "The goddam guy is a
    slick talker and super-confident. He won't listen
    to anyone else," "I don't trust people like that.
    A lot of the data sets he uses are shitty, you
    know. They are just not up to what he is trying
    to do.... If anyone deserves to get hit it is
    goddam Mann.
  • McKitrick and McIntyre published in what was
    becoming the house journal of the sceptics,
    Energy and Environment, McIntyre and McKitrick
    widened the attack on the hockey stick by calling
    into question the statistical methods employed by
    Mann to amalgamate his different data sets. They
    even suggested that the hockey stick was entirely
    an artefact of those methods.

IV M vM continued
  • MM complaints 1) noisy proxy data grafted onto
    real temp observations misleading 2) tree rings
    not reliable-dont reflect warming since 1960 3)
    analyzed wrt 20th cent mean and not 1000 year
    mean 4) tried to reproduce analysis and could not
  • Critique back 1) analysis wrt 1000 year mean not
    critical, doesnt change 2) MM cherry picked
    tree ring data - left out some key data
  • Ultimate saving grace for Mann Upwards of a
    dozen studies, using different statistical
    techniques or different combinations of proxy
    records, have produced reconstructions broadly
    similar to the original hockey stick. These
    reconstructions all have a hockey stick shaft and
    blade. While the shaft is not always as flat as
    Mann's version, it is present. Almost all support
    the main claim in the IPCC summary that the
    1990s was then probably the warmest decade for
    1000 years.
  • 2006 NAS report "There is sufficient evidence...
    of past surface temperatures to say with a high
    level of confidence that the last few decades of
    the 20th century were warmer than any comparable
    period in the last 400 years. Less confidence can
    be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of
    surface temperatures for AD 900 to 1600, although
    the available proxy evidence does indicate that
    many locations were warmer during the past 25
    years than during any other 25-year period since

V Fraud with Chinese stations?
  • 1990 Nature paper - Jones with Chinese-american
    colleague WC Wang of Suny Albany on urban heat
    effect-looked at dozens of stations in china
    where urbanization was occurring - concluded
    small influence "the urbanisation influence is,
    at most, an order of magnitude less than the
    warming seen on a century timescale"
  • Problem would not share station information on
    request - until 2007- accused of fraud by
    banker/climate hobbyist D. Keenan
  • Details 84 chinese stations - for 49 no info on
    location 40 of 42 rural stations. 19 had moved
    over time
  • Wang absolved by university of wrongdoing. But
  • He got data from colleague not on study.
  • colleague had lost her notes on many station
    locations during a series of office moves.
    Nonetheless, "based on her recollections", she
    could provide information on 41 of the 49
  • no fewer than 51 of the 84 stations had been
    moved during the 30-year study period, 25 had not
    moved, and eight she could not recollect.

V Fraud w chinese stations cont.
  • In 2008 paper, Jones concluded 40 of warming in
    western China between 51-04 caused by urban
    heating (!) - but this does not change global
    temp trend.
  • Comments from colleagues
  • Mann "This crowd of charlatans look for one
    little thing they can say is wrong, and thus
    generalise that the science is entirely
    compromised. The last thing you want to do is
    help them by feeding the fire. Best thing is to
    ignore them completely.
  • Trenberth "The response should try to somehow
    label these guys and sic lazy and incompetent
    and unable to do the huge amount of work it takes
    to construct such a database.

V Fraud? cont
  • But Tom Wigley, head of CRU in 1990
  • "It seems to me that Keenan has a valid point.
    The statements in the papers that he quotes seem
    to be incorrect statements, and that someone (W-C
    W at the very least) must have known at the time
    that they were incorrect.
  • "The buck should eventually stop with me.
  • "Wang had been claiming the existence of such
    exonerating documents for nearly a year, but he
    has not been able to produce them. Additionally,
    there was a report published in 1991 (with a
    second version in 1997) explicitly stating that
    no such documents exist.
  • "I have always thought W-C W was a rather sloppy
    scientist. I would not be surprised if he
    screwed up here Were you taking W-C W on trust?
    Why, why, why did you and W-C W not simply say
    this right at the start? Perhaps it's not too

VI The reality of peer review
  • Many emails show discussions about blocking
    publication of papers by skeptics. Position of
    CRU mainstream climate scientists shoddy work.
  • Gatekeeping happens - very clear in prion
    research Guardian cites stem cell example
    Cracks in the system have been obvious for
    years. Yesterday it emerged that 14 leading
    researchers in a different field - stem cell
    research - have written an open letter to journal
    editors to highlight their dissatisfaction with
    the process. They allege that a small scientific
    clique is using peer review to block papers from
    other researchers.

How does peer review work?
  • Unpaid you consider the work of your peers. Try
    to see if it is correct, consistent, includes
    proper references, is well written.
  • Must state any conflicts of interest (eg if you
    are a competitor)
  • Usually asked to keep confidential (we are human
    and this breaks down) -pluses and minuses to
  • Authors can request no review by scientists known
    to be hostile (editors do not have to honor that)
  • Paper goes to referees for a set period of time
    and is returned with review/rec to authors
  • IMO peer review is being stretched to its
    limits via busy people, too many papers,
    increased technicality of work (differentiation
    of knowledge)
  • In practice, increasingly market based -get the
    paper out somewhere if it is not in high
    impact journal, if the work is right and
    important it gets used, noticed, cited-if not it
    gets forgotten. In physics, preprint servers take
    the place of journal publication for establishing

What was done by mainstream climate scientists?
  • In March 2004, Jones wrote to Professor Michael
    Mann, a leading climate scientist at Pennsylvania
    State University saying that he had "recently
    rejected two papers one for the Journal of
    Geophysical Research and one for Geophysical
    Research Letters from people saying CRU has it
    wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews,
    hopefully successfully. If either appears I will
    be very surprised."
  • the Guardian has established that one was
    probably from Lars Kamel a Swedish astrophysicist
    formerly of the University of Uppsala. It is the
    only paper published on the topic in the journal
    or indeed anywhere else that year
  • Kamel - now out of research academia - argued
    that data from Lake Baykal undermined claim of
    signficant Siberian warming.
  • McIntyre "CRU's policies of obstructing
    critical articles in the peer-reviewed literature
    and withholding data from critics have
    unfortunately placed issues into play that might
    otherwise have been settled long ago." He also
    says obstructing publication undermine claims
    that all is well in scientific peer review.

More on peer review issues
  • Briffa (as an assoc. editor) emailed fellow
    tree-ring researcher Edward Cook, a researcher at
    Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York,
    saying "Confidentially I now need a hard and if
    required extensive case for rejecting an unnamed
    paper to support Dave Stahle's and really as
    soon as you can. Please." Stahle is a tree-ring
    professor from the University of Arkansas. This
    request appears to subvert the convention that
    reviewers should be both independent and
  • Cook replied later that day "OK, today.
    Promise. Now, something to ask from you." The
    favour was to provide some data to help Cook
    review a paper that attacked his own tree-ring
    work. "If published as is, this paper could
    really do some damage," he said. "It won't be
    easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears
    to be correct theoretically, but it suffers from
    the classic problem of pointing out theoretical
    deficiencies, without showing that their improved
    inverse regression method is actually better in
    a practical sense.

  • In March 2003, Mann discussed encouraging
    colleagues to "no longer submit papers to, or
    cite papers in" Climate Research. He was angry
    about that journal's publication of a series of
    sceptical papers "that couldn't get published in
    a reputable journal", according to Mann. His
    anger at the journal had evidently been building
    for some time, but was focussed in 2003 on a
    paper published in January that year and written
    by Harvard astrophysicists Willie Soon and Sallie
    Baliunas. The pair claimed that Mann's famous
    hockey stick graph of global temperatures over
    the last 1000 years was wrong. After analysing
    240 studies of past temperatures from tree rings
    and other sources, they said "the 20th century is
    neither the warmest century over the last 1000
    years, nor is it the most extreme". It could have
    been warmer a thousand years before, they

  • Harvard press-released the paper under the
    headline "20th century climate not so hot", which
    would have pleased lobbyists against the climate
    change consensus from the American Petroleum
    Institute and George C Marshall Institute, both
    of which had helped pay for the research.
  • Mann told me at the time the paper was "absurd,
    almost laughable". He said Soon and Balunias made
    no attempt in the paper to show whether the
    warmth they found at different places and times
    round the world in past eras were contemporaneous
    in the way current global warming is. If they
    were just one-off scattered warm events they did
    not demonstrate any kind of warm era at all. Soon
    did not respond to Guardian Requests to discuss
    the paper.

Climate Research
  • Mann after publication of what he considered
    poor quality paper by skeptics, where editor
    ignored referees, he argued this journal should
    no longer be considered a peer reviewed journal
  • About half the editorial review board resigned in

Geophysical Research Letters - Key journal of
Geophysics community
  • Published key and-in eyes of Mann et al-
    questionable papers by skeptics (including
    McKitrick) -2005
  • Complaints to journal rebuffed.
  • Key editor was Saiers of Yale, who had been at U
    of Va with Pat Michaels
  • He left in 2006 as his term was up. Despite
    comments from Michaels et al said he felt no
    pressure to leave. Denied being a skeptic.

  • Jones referring to Soon/Baliunas and McKitrick
    papers-"I can't see either of these papers being
    in the next IPCC report. Kevin TRENBERTH and I
    will keep them out somehow - even if we have to
    redefine what the peer-review literature is!
  • Trenberth said he never did any such thing
  • Jones admitted this was improper.

VII Ben Santer changes heart
  • As noted earlier, attacked for authoring 1995
    chapter on attribution
  • His work had been hit by Pat Michaels who claimed
    he omitted data in 1987 paper that would refute
    claims about warming (Santer said Michaels
    suggestion was reasonable and when he included
    the newer data it strengthened the conclusion)
  • Accused by oddball Arthur Robinson of Fraud
    (Robinson is skeptical about evolution and thinks
    you can survive nuclear war)
  • Was hammered on WSJ editorial pages-gt

Ben Santer (cont)
  • The narrow issue was achieving consistency
    between exec summary for pols and technical
    chapter. Claim was that Santer eluded the proper
    process to get in the famous sentence The
    balance of evidence suggests a discernible human
    influence on the climate
  • The most unpleasant and certainly for Santer
    most disturbing language came from the Global
    Climate Coalition, a body representing the
    interests of the American oil and automobile
    industries. It accused Santer of "scientific
    cleansing" a reference to the ethnic cleansing
    then going on in the Balkans. And for Santer, a
    Jew, it had another connotation. He told me in
    2000 "My grandparents were subjected to ethnic
    cleansing. They died in a concentration camp in
    the second world war.

Santer (cont)
  • Santer spent months attempting to defend his
    reputation. He said later "Nothing in your
    training prepares you for it. We are prepared for
    explaining our science, defending our science,
    and having scientists try to take your arguments
    apart. But we are not prepared for having our
    motives questioned and being accused of
    falsifying data. I think it is unproductive to
    engage with them directly. For many of them it is
    religious in a way. They are not rational. Don't
    waste our time they don't have the same value
    system." This experience has coloured Santer's
    world ever since. It contributed to the break up
    of his marriage.

Santer FOIA request from McIntyre
  • Concerned paper reconciling satellite data with
    ground based measurements.
  • Paper by Douglas and Christie had claimed that
    warming trend was bogus based upon their
    satellite data - publication took 3 years.
  • Paper by Santer et al-17 authors- took one month
  • They were published at the same time.
  • In science circles, Santer et al won.
  • In public discourse, Douglas paper got WAY more
    attention. Trumpeted by think tank industry

  • At first, Santer resisted FOIA request, "I'm
    damned and publicly vilified because I refused to
    provide McIntyre with the data he requested....
    Had I acceded, I am convinced I would have spent
    years of my scientific career dealing with
    demands for further explanations, additional
    data, Fortran codes a programming language
    etc... For the remainder of my scientific career
    I'd like to dictate my own research agenda.
  • Change of heart, with encouragement by Tom Wigley
    (his thesis mentor) But after a further two
    weeks he had changed his mind, notifying the
    co-authors that he had decided to published
    online much of the data requested by McIntyre. He
    now reasoned "This will make it difficult for
    McIntyre to continue making the bogus claim that
    he is being denied access to the climate model
    data necessary to evaluate the validity of our
    findings." Essentially he concluded that this was
    the path of least resistance, telling colleagues
    in January 2009 that "I agreed to this
    publication process primarily because I want to
    spend the next few years of my career doing
    research. I have no desire to be 'taken out' as
    scientist, and to be involved in years of

Important note Santer thinks the Guardian piece
was incorrect on some details
What now
  • Mann, Jones have been almost completely cleared
    (one remaining study of Mann at PSU)
  • The exposure of the emails raises questions about
    openness and peer review, but in no way
    undermines the science of climate change.
  • Mann is now the subject (May 3!) of inquiry by VA
    Attorney General.