By EPW Blog ——Bio and Archives--February 8, 2009
Global Warming-Energy-Environment | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
[Note: Also see this report for a thorough rebuttal to 'Hockey Stick' claims: - The increasingly "thin-skinned" RealClimate.org gang must have had a meeting over the past two weeks and decided to go on the offensive. Gavin Schmidt has spent his time recently expressing outrage any critiques and he has been throwing around terms like 'slander' and 'abuse' and demanding critical analysis be removed from websites. Not to be outdone, Antarctic co-author and Real Climate activist Eric Steig, like Schmidt, has also been recently throwing phrases as "fraud" and "libel" after receiving critical analysis of his work. See: First Author of 'Antarctic Warming Paper' Claims Libel - Here is a past email alert on the unfolding Gavin Schmidt/RealClimate.org comedy show. - Real Climate does not appear to like criticism. Schmidt understandably does not wish to do any more climate debates with his scientific critics, as he was beaten, and beaten badly, in 2007. Schmidt blamed his failure to win the debate on his team's lack of persuasive ability. "We were pretty dull," Schmidt wrote in 2007. [ See: Tough New York City Crowd Reverses opinion on man-made warming following debate -- March 2007 - -- Also see: See: Prominent Scientist 'Appalled' By Gavin Schmidt's 'lack of knowledge' -- 'Back to graduate school, Gavin!' -- Climate Science Blog ]
#
Michael Man Unleashed: Defends 'Hockey Stick' - Slams Writer as 'fuel industry shill' who 'repeatedly lies about my work' (Mann is referring to National Post'sLawrence Solomon, author of the book "The Deniers." )
"Fossil fuel industry shill Solomon continues to lie to public" - Comment by Michael E. Mann, Director, EarthSystem ScienceCenter, Penn State
Key Mann quote: How ironic that Mr Lawrence uses the word "shame" in his disinformation piece. For he is perhaps the most shameful and dishonest actors in the climate change disinformation machine. Some people indeed have no shame. Nonetheless, in Mr Solomon's case, the judgment of history will be his condemnation. [Morano note: Mann refers to Lawrence Solomon as "Mr. Lawrence."]
Mann Excerpt: In his latest piece in the tabloid the National Post, Mr. Lawrence Solomon, a widely recognized purveyor of fossil fuel-funded disinformation, continues to use the forum provided to him by the Post to spread lies about scientists and scientific research in the area of global climate change. Doing the bidding of the fossil fuel industry that financially supports his disinformation efforts, Mr. Lawrence repeatedly lies about my work, the work of my colleagues, the findings of the scientific community, and even the judgments of the world's leading scientific organizations and journals.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/02/06/tabloid-fossil-fuel-shill.aspx
Mann Claim: ...my own work on paleoclimate reconstructions from more than a decade ago has been reproduced by many groups, and vindicated in a report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and even more recently, in the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/02/06/tabloid-fossil-fuel-shill.aspx
Mann Accusation: Mr.Lawrence disingenuously implies otherwise by citing a partisan attack several years ago by Joe Barton, the leading recipient of fossil fuel industry money in the U.S. House of Representatives (and who is often referred to as "smokey Joe Barton" for his support of industry's right to pollute our environment). Barton's attacks were decried by newspapers editorials around the world, which likened it to a modern-day McCarthyism, using word's like "witch hunt" and "inquisition."
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/02/06/tabloid-fossil-fuel-shill.aspx
Mann Claim: The National Academy of Sciences responded by performing a legitimate scientific review of my findings and similar work by others in the scientific community, and the academy endorsed or key findings, noting that a host of additional studies since have confirmed them. The media reported the NAS findings as "Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate" (New York Times), "Backing for Hockey Stick Graph (BBC), and so on.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/02/06/tabloid-fossil-fuel-shill.aspx
Mann Defends Antarctic study in Nature: As described in detail elsewhere (e.g. the website "RealClimate.org" which I co-founded), our latest study is not contradicted by weather records at all, despite Mr. Solomon's dishonest attempt to imply otherwise by misrepresenting and cherry-picking anecdotal observations.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/02/06/tabloid-fossil-fuel-shill.aspx
Solomon concludes: How ironic that Mr Lawrence uses the word "shame" in his disinformation piece. For he is perhaps the most shameful and dishonest actors in the climate change disinformation machine. Some people indeed have no shame. Nonetheless, in Mr Solomon's case, the judgment of history will be his condemnation.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/02/06/tabloid-fossil-fuel-shill.aspx
#
Lawrence Solomon Responds to Michael Mann: February 6, 2009:
"Mann's conclusions not to be believed - Mann-made science does not support the hypothesis that global warming is man-made"- Feb. 6, 2009
Excerpt: Mann's article has two main thrusts. First, he attempts to discredit me and others who have criticized his work. Then, he attempts to defend his reputation by claims that distinguished authorities, especially the National Academy of Sciences, have endorsed his hockey stick graph. His graph is an icon in the global warming debate: It convinced the press and the public that 1998 was the hottest year of the hottest decade of the hottest century of the last 1,000 years, creating the belief that Earth was changing dangerously for the worse.Let me deal in chronological order with Mann's attempts to discredit those he perceives to be his critics.
Solomon Continues: Mann also attacks Joe Barton, in 2006 the head of the Energy and Commerce Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives. The "Barton attacks" he refers to concern hearings this committee held to discover whether Mann's hockey stick graph was the product of sound science, as Mann claimed, or a statistical sham, as his critics claimed. The person commissioned to ascertain the truth was Edward Wegman, one of America's finest scientists and, ironically, the past chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences, the very body that Mann cites as supporting his work. Wegman assembled a panel of blue-chip statisticians, all of whom worked pro bono for the Barton committee, and for good measure the panel subjected its work to top level reviewers, such as the Board of the American Statistical Association. The Wegman panel's findings? Mann's critics were entirely in the right, Mann lacked the statistical knowledge to do the work he had taken on, and Mann's work had not been subjected to a credible peer-review process.
Solomon reveals Reality Check on 'Hockey Stick': When Mann cites the support of the National Academy of Sciences, he is not referring to Wegman's findings but those of another NAS panel, this one headed by another top statistician, Gerald North. The so-called "support" that the NAS panel provided to Mann would mortify many in Mann's position. The NAS did find some of Mann's work "plausible" — that's the closest that it comes to actually supporting Mann's findings — but then it immediately states there are so many scientific uncertainties attached to Mann's work that it doesn't have great confidence in it. The committee then proceeds to further downgrade its view of Mann's work: "Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that 'the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.'" In short, Mann's main conclusions are not to be believed.
Why not? Because "Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions" and because he downplayed the "uncertainties of the published reconstructions." And, the NAS added, because of what Mann did not do — he did not let others examine his data for accuracy and he did not reveal his analytic methods. For this, the NAS rightly chastised Mann:
Solomon rebuts Antarctic Study: Conclusion about the new study on Antarctica: The verdict is not yet in, although since the time of writing last week, the prospects for Mann et al. have gone from bad to worse. An embarrassing data error has come to light with the study, charges of unethical behaviour involving Mann's supporters now appear all over the blogosphere, Mann's Web site, RealClimate.org, has acknowledged behaviour that many scientists consider unethical, and terms such as "slander" and "abuse" are flying around, along with demands for an apology.
End Solomon Rebuttal:
#
Background On Michael Mann's Latest "Scientific" Assertions -- Updated February 7, 2009
Comic Relief: Michael Mann Cites Mt. Kilimanjaro as evidence of man-made global warming - Providence Journal - September 25, 2008
Excerpt: He (Mann) showed pictures of the snows of Mount Kilimanjaro disappearing. They have been there for 12,000 years, and at the current rate of decline, Mann said they will be gone in two decades.
http://www.projo.com/news/content/URI_Honors_Colloquium_25_09-25-08_LUBN73R_v12.1607f3c.html
Reality Check: Mann's using years old Mt. Kilimanjaro talking points. Mann's "facts" on Kilimanjaro are woefully outdated.
See this report on the latest on Mt. Kilimanjaro.
NAS REPORT REAFFIRMS 'HOCKEY STICK' IS BROKEN -- June 23, 2006
Excerpt: The NAS report also stated that "substantial uncertainties" surround Mann's claims that the last few decades of the 20th century were the warmest in last 1000 years. In fact, while the report conceded that temperature data uncertainties increase going backward in time, it acknowledged that "not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented...' In addition, the NAS report further chastises Mann, declaring "Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that 'the 1990's are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium ...'" http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=BF2A375E-9FAE-46F3-92B2-F8EA005CD8F1
Mann's attempt to resurrect the "Hockey Stick" in 2008 has also been met with crickets chirping.
See: Multiple Scientific Reality checks on validity of Mann's New 'Hockey Stick'.
#
Background information on the warming partisans at RealClimate.org:
A rebuttal to RealClimate's latest attempt to smear a scientist was their attack on Meteorologist Joe D'Aleo. D'Aleo has just written a detailed response to RealClimate available here: Response to Gavin Schmidt -- Global Data Base Issues Are Real -- Also see:'Character Assassination" of By Real Climate Activists Exposed (By Roger Pielke Jr.) -- 2007
Atmospheric Physicist Ridicules RealClimate.org -- By Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh - June 24, 2008
Excerpt: Quoting RealClimate.org as a reliable source of information on climate science is like quoting Disneyland.com for reliable information on mouse behavior.
"Real Climate" is a staged and contracted production, which wasn't created by "scientists", it was actually created by Environmental Media Services, a company which specializes in spreading environmental junk science on behalf of numerous clients who stand to financially benefit from scare tactics through environmental fear mongering. [..] Real Climate has become the Alamo for folks like the highly discredited Michael Mann, whose original analytical blunder led to the famous "hockey stick" curve, which helped kick off the Great Global Warming Hoax after it was picked up by science illiterate Al Gore and proudly paraded around the globe. The hockey stick was proven to be an absurd blunder, but by then you couldn't put the genie back into the bottle, and today we are wasting billions of dollars on a cure for a nonexistent disease. Perhaps the best summary of "Real Climate" was given by a Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr. Richard Lindzen, who said, "This website appears to constitute a support center for global warming believers, wherein any criticism of global warming is given an answer that, however implausible, is then repeated by the reassured believers."
http://lostconservative.blogspot.com/2008/06/truth-about-realclimateorg.html
Prominent Scientist 'Appalled' By Gavin Schmidt's 'lack of knowledge' -- 'Back to graduate school, Gavin!' -- Climate Science Blog -- January 29, 2009
By Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes. Tennekes is featured in U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Excerpt: Roger Pielke Sr. has graciously invited me to add my perspective to his discussion with Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate. If this were not such a serious matter, I would have been amused by Gavin's lack of knowledge of the differences between weather models and climate models. As it stands, I am appalled. Back to graduate school, Gavin! [...] Gavin Schmidt is not the only meteorologist with an inadequate grasp of the role of the oceans in the climate system. In my weblog of June 24, 2008, I addressed the limited perception that at least one other climate modeler appears to have. A few lines from that essay deserve repeating here." [...] From my perspective it is not a little bit alarming that the current generation of climate models cannot simulate such fundamental phenomena as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. I will not trust any climate model until and unless it can accurately represent the PDO and other slow features of the world ocean circulation. Even then, I would remain skeptical about the potential predictive skill of such a model many tens of years into the future.
http://climatesci.org/2009/01/29/real-climate-suffers-from-foggy-perception-by-henk-tennekes/
Update: On February 4, 2009, Tennekes posted a follow up report on Schmidt's scientific views. Tennekes is a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes. Tennekes is featured in U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Tennekes wrote on Feb. 4: "I understand that Gavin Schmidt was upset by my essay of January 29. [...] So why should one base climate policy on forecasts made by climate models? Curiously, Gavin's text is conceptually vague. He should be able to do better. It is up to you, Gavin. I am waiting."
http://climatesci.org/2009/02/04/dissecting-a-real-climate-text-by-hendrik-tennekes
Update: Gavin Schmidt demands Pielke Jr. Pull Critical Blog!! -- Schmidt "Uses terms like 'slander' and 'abuse'" -- February 4, 2009 -- By Roger Pielke, Jr.
Excerpt: Gavin Schmidt at NASA has just now written an email to the director of CIRES and the Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research (but not to me), where I work at the University of Colorado, demanding that we take down this post and extend to him an apology. If Gavin wants, he is free to respond on this blog. I have not posted his email, though if he wants, I'd be happy to post that up as well. He does use terms like "slander" and "abuse." I think my comments in the posting are are a fair representation of the pickle Gavin has gotten himself into. When will these guys learn that bullying and bluster is not going to win them any respect or friends?
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/gavin-schmidts-demands-4931
Piekle Jr. added: "Gavin got caught out. I feel bad for the guy. But writing screeds to my superiors at the University won't help him move past this episode. He should just say 'whoops, my bad, learn and move on.'"
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/gavin-schmidts-demands-4931
Alert: Real Climate Woes: Pielke Jr.: 'Gavin Schmidt admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre' -- February 4, 2009
Excerpt: This is not a hypothetical example, but a caricature of real goings on with our friends over at Real Climate . . .Due to an inadvertent release of information, NASA'sGavin Schmidt (a "real scientist" of the Real Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a "real scientist" of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit for it. (Details here and here.) In his explanation why this is OK, Gavin explains that he did some work on his own after getting the idea from Steve's blog, and so it was OK to take full credit for the idea. I am sure that there are legions of graduate students and other scientific support staff who do a lot of work on a project, only to find their sponsor or advisor, who initially proposed the idea, as first author on the resulting paper, who might have empathy for Gavin's logic. [...] But lets be clear, in science, the ethical thing to do is to give full credit to the origination of an idea, even if it comes from your arch-enemy. Gavin's outing is remarkable because it shows him not only stealing an idea, but stealing from someone who he and his colleagues routinely criticize as being wrong, corrupt, and a fraud. Does anyone wonder why skepticism flourishes? When evaluations of expertise hinge on trust, stealing someone's ideas and taking credit for them does not help.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/alls-fair-in-love-war-and-science-4929
Gavin's "Mystery Man" Revealed - by Steve McIntyre on February 4th, 2009
Excerpt: On Monday, Feb 2, Gavin Schmidt explained some "ethics" to realclimate readers as follows: [Response: People will generally credit the person who tells them something. BAS were notified by people Sunday night who independently found the Gill/Harry mismatch. SM could have notified them but he didn't. My ethical position is that it is far better to fix errors that are found than play around thinking about cute names for follow-on blog posts. That might just be me though. - gavin] As readers know, I was interested in who was the scientist that, unbeknowst to me, had "independently" identified the problem with Harry - a problem overlooked by BAS, NASA GISS for a year or so anyway; and a problem which had been missed by his realclimate coauthors, Steig and Mann, during their preparation of Steig et al 2009, and which had been missed by the Nature peer reviewers. And remarkably this had been "independently" identified just after I had noted the problem at Climate Audit and Climate Audit readers had contributed ideas on it, even during the Super Bowl. Yesterday, I inquired about the identity of Gavin's "mystery man"? Today (Feb 4) the British Antarctic survey revealed the identity of Gavin's "mystery man". It was... GAVIN.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5093
Schmidt's Antics Prompts Laughter From Scientist '"How am I supposed to get any work done when I am laughing so hard?"
Reaction By Climate researcher Dr. Craig Loehle, formerly of the department of Energy Laboratories and currently with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvements, who has published more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers.
"How am I supposed to get any work done when I am laughing so hard?"
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5093#comment-324316
Report: Error in Antarctic Warming Paper? Warming trend 'arises entirely from the impact of splicing the two data sets together' -- Australia's Herald Sun -- February 4, 2009
Excerpt: But Steve McIntyre, who did most to expose Mann's "hockey stick", now notices a far more embarrassing problem with Steig's paper. Previous researchers hadn't overlooked the data. What they'd done was to ignore data from four West Antarctic automatic weather stations in particular that didn't meet their quality control. As you can see above, one shows no warming, two show insignificant warming and fourth - from a station dubbed "Harry" shows a sharp jump in temperature that helped Steig and his team discover their warming Antarctic. Uh oh. Harry in fact is a problematic site that was buried in snow for years and then re-sited in 2005. But, worse, the data that Steig used in his modelling which he claimed came from Harry was actually old data from another station on the Ross Ice Shelf known as Gill with new data from Harry added to it, producing the abrupt warming. The data is worthless. Or as McIntyre puts it: Considered by itself, Gill has a slightly negative trend from 1987 to 2002. The big trend in "New Harry" arises entirely from the impact of splicing the two data sets together. It's a mess.
Read this link and this to see McIntyre's superb forensic work. Why wasn't this error picked up earlier? Perhaps because the researchers got the results they'd hoped for, and no alarm bell went off that made them check. Now, wait for the papers to report the error with the zeal with which they reported Steig's "warming".
Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv's website on RealClimate.org:
Excerpt: "The aim of RealClimate.org is not to engage a sincere scientific debate. Their aim is post a reply full of a straw man so their supporters can claim that your point 'has been refuted by real scientists at ReaClimate.org.'" Shaviv, who calls the website "Wishfulclimate.org" noted that the "writers (at RealClimaet.org) try again and again to concoct what appears to be deep critiques against skeptic arguments, but end up doing a very shallow job. All in the name of saving the world. How gallant of them." ]
Support Canada Free Press
View Comments
Inhofe EPW Press Blog