Arguments over data and methods are the lifeblood of science, and are not instances of misconduct. However, here I document the gross misrepresentation of the findings of a recent scientific paper via press release which appears to skirt awfully close to crossing the line into research misconduct, as defined by the NRC. I recommend steps to fix this mess, saving face for all involved, and a chance for this small part of the climate community to take a step back toward unambiguous scientific integrity. --Roger Pielke Jr., 31 March 2013
Marcott et al have posted their long-promised FAQ at realclimate. Without providing any links to or citation of Climate Audit, they now concede: 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Otherwise, their response is pretty much a filibuster, running the clock on questions that have not actually been asked and certainly not at issue by critics. --Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit, 31 March 2013
This isn’t just a filibuster, they are defending themselves on the grounds that their paper made an incredibly subtle misrepresentation and it’s the reader’s fault for not noticing. Without the closing uptick, the main implication of their reconstruction is that, in the 20th century, we experienced the coldest conditions of the Holocene. With the uptick, we experienced nearly the warmest. By admitting that the uptick is not robust and cannot be a basis for any conclusions they have undermined their own findings, root and branch. –Ross McKitrick, 31 March 2013
Debate about the reality of a [16 year] pause in global warming and what it means has made its way from the sceptical fringe to the mainstream. In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity – the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels – would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded. Another paper published by leading climate scientist James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal. “The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations,” says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. “If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change,” he says. --Graham Lloyd, The Australian, 29 March 2013
The official watchdog that advises the Government on greenhouse gas emissions targets has launched an astonishing attack on The Mail on Sunday – for accurately reporting that alarming predictions of global warming are wrong. We disclosed that although highly influential computer models are still estimating huge rises in world temperatures, there has been no statistically significant increase for more than 16 years. Despite our revelation earlier this month, backed up by a scientifically researched graph, the Committee on Climate Change still clings to flawed predictions. --David Rose, Mail On Sunday, 31 March 2013
