HOCKEY STICK climate gate emails must be DISCLOSED. MICHAEL MANN IS A DISGRACE TO THE PROFESSION fudging history about Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age. Biased data distorts alarmist

1

ISSUE:WHYthelack of scientific rigor and ethics in climate science that has become a poster child for noble cause corruption? WINNING: Arizona Appellate Court decides Hockey Stick emails must be released Anthony Watts / 2 days ago

2

Original “hockey stick” temperature graph in Nature, 1998. The Y axis shows the Northern hemisphere

mean temperature, in degrees Celsius; the zero line corresponds to the 1902 – 1980 mean. Credit:

“Global-scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing over the Past Six Centuries,” by Michael E.

Mann et al. in Nature, Vol. 392, April 23, 1998

Press Release from FME Law July 3, 2018

Arizona Appellate Court Decides Hockey Stick Emails Must Be Released Despite the University’s Appeal. One thousand seven hundred and sixty-three days ago, on behalf of its client, the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic, PLLC (FME Law) asked the University of Arizona to hand over public records that would expose to the world the genesis of what some consider the most influential scientific publication of that decade – the Mann-Bradley-Hughes temperature reconstruction that looks like a hockey stick.

The University refused. [Emphasis added]

On February 26th of this year, and after submissions of legal briefings that now fill two banker’s boxes, and three trips to the Appellate Court, the trial court ordered release of the documents, giving the University 90 days to disclose the documents in a word-searchable form. Three days before the deadline, the University filed a motion asking the trial court to “stay” the disclosure of the public records while they appealed the case. In a 13 word decision, the trial court found “the requested relief is not warranted.”

The University then asked the Appellate Court for a stay, arguing that once the documents were released, “that genie could not be put back in the bottle,” in the event the trial court’s decision was reversed.

Yesterday, a mere six days after filing of the final legal brief on the motion for a stay, the Appellate Court issued a seven-word decision:

“Motion for Stay Pending Appeal is DENIED.”

3

The Appellate Court gave no explanation as to why it denied its motion, but it would likely be one of the reasons offered by FME Law in its brief to the court. A Copy of that brief is attached to this news release. Among other things, this order means the Appellate Court could not conclude that the University would have probable success on the merits of their argument. Nor could they conclude there were “serious questions” remaining to be addressed.

“This decision by the Appellate Court is much more than a small procedural action,” said Dr. David Schnare, the member-manager of the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic, PLLC, who is prosecuting this case. “We asked for the full history of the hockey stick graph and much more. We sought the history of the fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report and the discussions among the scientists as they discussed climate papers and the then burgeoning antagonism between climate scientists not of like mind.” Chaim Mandelbaum, Executive Director of FME Law explains, “This case is not over, but we appear to be at the beginning of the end.” The University may wish to now appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court for a stay, an effort attorneys familiar with the case believe would not change the outcome. “This decision does not end the appeal, however,” Mr. Mandelbaum stated.

Dr. Schnare described the status of this case and its importance. “We did not take this case only to obtain the history of a very controversial period of time in the climate wars. We also took this case to cast sunlight on how public universities work, how they contribute to the formation of public policy, and how professors behave within the policy arena. Core legal issues remain before the court – particularly about how to protect the research process while still allowing the public to learn how this sector of the government works. The University’s appellate brief is due on July 30th, our answering brief is due on September 7th and any reply from the University comes after that. We won’t have a final appeals court decision on the merits of this case until late in the year, and then it will be on to the Arizona Supreme Court.”

4

In the meantime, the documents will have to be handed over. Dr. Schnare and his staff will take the first look at those documents. With a doctorate in environmental management and decades of experience in policy formation, he, with the assistance of FME Law staff, will sort these documents, organize them for use by the public and prepare a report on what they contain – so to speak, a chronical of that historic time, based not on cherry picked emails but on the full history as available in the public record. They will then turn over the public records and their report to their client who is expected to make them available to the public.

FME Law is a 501(c)(3) public charity dedicated to be an honest, pro-environmental legal presence that represents clients seeking to hold state and federal governments to the ethical and legal requirements that protect and enhance free market environmentalism. For further information, Contact Chaim Mandelbaum (703) 577-9973, Executive Director of FME Law; or, Dr. Schnare (571) 243-7975, Member-Manager of FME Law, PLLC. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/03/winning-arizona-appellate-court-decides-hockey-stick-emails-must-be-released/

5

6

The truth about 'We have to get rid of the medieval warm period'

7

Anthony Watts / December 8, 2013

The MWP: Average temperature of the Northern Hemisphere during

the past 2000 years. The grey lines are the annual reconstructed estimates. The bold curve is the low frequency component (estimable between 133 and 1925). Colours indicate especially cold and warm periods. (Cold: Migration Period and Little Ice Age; warm: Medieval

Warm Period and the Present.) The thin lines are the 95% confidence intervals (uncertainty due to the variance among the different proxies

used). (Photo credit: Wikipedia) In the thread Intelligence and the hockey stickcommenter “Robert” challenged a well known quote about the MWP from 2006 by Dr. David Deming in his statement before the Senate EPW committee which is the title of this post. I thought it was worth spending some time setting the record straight on what the original quote actually was and point out that it has been paraphrased, but the meaning remains the same.

Robert says: December 8, 2013 at 9:50 am The quote is a fabrication. Jonathan Overpeck’s exact words are:

“I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature.”

Christopher Monckton, like Andrew Montford before him, alters the text to instead read:

8

“We have to abolish the medieval warm period.”

My reply: I checked for a citation, and the quote you state is correct: http://di2.nu/foia/1105670738.txt From: Jonathan Overpeck

To: Keith Briffa , [email protected] Subject: the new “warm period myths” box

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:45:38 -0700

Cc: Eystein Jansen , Valerie Masson-Delmotte

Hi Keith and Tim – since you’re off the 6.2.2 hook until Eystein hangs you back up on it, you have more time to focus on that new Box. In reading Valerie’s Holocene section, I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature. The sceptics and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for current warming too – pure rubbish. So, pls DO try hard to follow up on my advice provided in previous email. No need to go into details on any but the MWP, but good to mention the others in the same dismissive effort. “Holocene Thermal Maximum” is another one that should only be used with care, and with the explicit knowledge that it was a time-transgressive event totally unlike the recent global warming.

Thanks for doing this on – if you have a cool figure idea, include it.

Best, peck

–

Jonathan T. Overpeck

Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth

Professor, Department of Geosciences

Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences

Mail and Fedex Address:

9

Institute for the Study of Planet Earth

715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor

University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ 85721

As to this being a fabrication (as Robert claims), no, it’s a summation or a paraphrase of a long quote, something that happens a lot in history. Monckton and Montford aren’t specifically at fault in this, as the summed up quote has been around for a long, long, time and it appears to have originated with Dr. David Deming’s statement to the Senate. (see update, it goes back further than that- Anthony) The conversion to a paraphrase maintains the meaning. “Mortal blow” certainly equates to “get rid of” (as it is often said) or “abolish” as you (and Monckton/Montford) state it, and “we” equates to “I’m not the only one”.

The most important point is that Overpeck thinks the MWP (misuse) should be gotten rid of so that people that don’t agree with his view can’t use it (as citations).

And that, is the real travesty.

[Added] And, by eliminating citations, he effective kills the the existence of the MWP in science, relegating it to an unsubstantiated claim. As we see in related links below, that has not happened.

UPDATE: The room is often smarter than me, and many have more historical experience than I, and for that I am grateful. Dr. Tim Ball points out (as does David Holland) in comments: With the publication of the article in Science [in 1995], I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”

He later reiterated this in his presentation to the Senate on 12/06/2006 here

http://www.epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543

10

Notice he didn’t say who sent the email, but rumours developed that it was Jonathan Overpeck.

As I recall Overpeck denied being the author of the e-mail , which precipitated extensive commentary by Steve McIntyre;

http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/08/dealing-a-mortal-blow-to-the-mwp/ Steve McIntyre points out in his article:

Be that as it may, while Overpeck was concerned that Deming might produce a “fake email” purporting to show Overpeck seeking to “get rid of the MWP”, Overpeck hasn’t challenged the authenticity of the Climategate email in which he aspires to “deal a mortal blow” to the MWP.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/08/the-truth-about-we-have-to-get-rid-of-the-medieval-warm-period/

Big data finds the Medieval Warm Period – no denial here Jennifer Marohasy

Jennifer Marohasy

11

22 August 2017 7:49 AM

According to author Leo Tolstoy, born at the very end of the Little Ice Age, in quite a cold country: The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him. So, our new technical paper in GeoResJ (vol. 14, pages 36-46) will likely be ignored. Because after applying the latest big data technique to six 2,000 year-long proxy-temperature series we cannot confirm that recent warming is anything but natural – what might have occurred anyway, even if there was no industrial revolution. Over the last few years, I’ve worked with Dr John Abbot using artificial neural networks (ANN) to forecast monthly rainfall. We now have a bunch of papers in international climate science journals showing these forecasts to be more skilful than output from general circulation models. During the past year, we’ve extended this work to estimating what global temperatures would have been during the twentieth century in the absence of human-emission of carbon dioxide. We began by deconstructing the six-proxy series from different geographic regions – series already published in the mainstream climate science literature. One of these, the Northern Hemisphere composite series begins in 50 AD, ends in the year 2000, and is derived from studies of pollen, lake sediments, stalagmites and boreholes. Typical of most such temperature series, it zigzags up and down while showing two rising trends: the first peaks about 1200 AD and corresponds with a period known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), while the second peaks in 1980 and then shows decline. In between, is the Little Ice Age (LIA), which according to the Northern Hemisphere composite bottomed-out in 1650 AD. (Of course, the MWP corresponded with a period of generally good harvests in England – when men dressed in tunics and built grand cathedrals with tall spires. It preceded the LIA when there was famine and the Great Plague of London.) Ignoring for the moment the MWP and LIA, you might want to simply dismiss this temperature series on the basis it peaks in 1980: it doesn’t continue to rise to the very end of the record: to the year 2000? In fact, this decline is typical of most such proxy reconstructions – derived from pollen, stalagmites, boreholes, coral cores and especially tree

12

rings. Within mainstream climate science the decline after 1980 is referred to as “the divergence problem”, and then hidden. In denial of this problem, leading climate scientists have been known to even graft temperature measurements from thermometers onto the proxy record after 1980 to literally ‘hide the decline’. Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, aptly described the technique as a ‘trick’. Grafting thermometer data onto the end of the proxy record generally ‘fixes’ the problem after 1980, while remodelling effectively flattens the Medieval Warm Period. There are, however, multiple lines of evidence indicating it was about a degree warmer across Europe during the MWP – corresponding with the 1200 AD rise in our Northern Hemisphere composite. In fact, there are oodles of published technical papers based on proxy records that provide a relatively warm temperature profile for this period. This was before the Little Ice Age when it was too cold to inhabit Greenland. The modern inhabitation of Upernavik, in north west Greenland, only began in 1826, which corresponds with the beginning of the industrial age. So, the end of the Little Ice Age corresponds with the beginning of industrialisation. But did industrialisation cause the global warming? Tolstoy’s ‘intelligent man’ would immediately reply: But yes! In our new paper in GeoResJ, we make the assumption that an artificial neural network – remember our big data/machine learning technique – trained on proxy temperatures up until 1830, would be able to forecast the combined effect of natural climate cycles through the twentieth century. Using the proxy record from the Northern Hemisphere composite, decomposing this through signal analysis and then using the resulting component sine waves as input into an ANN, John Abbot and I generated forecasts for the period from 1830 to 2000. Our results show up to 1°C of warming. The average divergence between the proxy temperature record and our ANN projection is just 0.09 degree Celsius. This suggests that even if there had been no industrial revolution and burning of fossil fuels, there would have still been warming through the twentieth century – to at least 1980, and of almost 1°C. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, relying on General Circulation Models, and giving us the Paris Accord, also estimates warming of approximately 1°C, but claims this is all our fault (human caused). For more information, including charts and a link to the full paper read Jennifer Marohasy’s latest blog post. Illustration: Detail from Peasants before an Inn, Jan Steen,

13

The Mauritshuis Royal Picture Gallery, The Hague. Regardless of where you stand on man-made climate change, it is a huge red flag that when they go back to "adjust" past temp data, it almost universally results in cooling those temps. This alone is an indication that something fishy is going on.

James Matkin • YES. This study is right and well supported. See ‘More than 700 scientists from 400 institutions in 40 countries have contributed peer-reviewed papers providing evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was real, global, & warmer than the present’ http://www.climatedepot.com... It demolishes the fudged data for the infamous hockey stick graph of Michael Mann at the heart of the political movement led by Al Gore to demonize Co2 the elixir of life. The alarmist predictions have all failed making their hypothesis no more than pseudo-science. YES. walleyekiller tree207 • 2 days ago "CO2, the culprit which is deemed to be the driver of global warming (oh excuse me, climate change) is certainly not a "poison", in fact it is one of the fundamental building blocks of fife on earth. Spending trillions to limit the relative small amount of CO2 produced by man, something like 3.5% of the total. with 96.5% produced by natural processes, may well be the most idiotic policy ever contemplated." The false hockey stick graph of

14

Michael Mann is the only dissonance to base the false hypothesis of the alarmists that the climate is getting too warm. Natural climate variation is not unseated by fudged data and failing computer models and denials of left leaning politicians crusading for a non science agenda of world government control. https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/08/big-data-finds-the-medieval-warm-period-no-denial-here/

Jo Nova finds the Medieval Warm Period Publicado en diciembre 4, 2009 From Jo Nova a look at how the MWP looks when other data is used, not just a few trees in Yamal. These maps and graphs make it clear just how brazen the fraud of the Hockey Stick is.

Click to enlarge

It’s clear that the world was warmer during medieval times. Marked on the map are study after study (all peer-reviewed) from all around the world with results of temperatures from the medieval time compared to today. These use ice cores, stalagmites, sediments, and isotopes. They agree with 6,144 boreholes around the world which found that temperatures were about 0.5°C warmer world wide.

15

16

What follows is a sordid tale of a graph that overthrew decades of work, conveniently fitted the climate models, and was lauded triumphantly in glossy publication after publication. But then it was crushed when an unpaid analyst stripped it bare. It had been published in the highest most prestigious journal, Nature, but no one had checked it before or after it was spread far and wide. Not Nature, not the IPCC, not any other climate researcher. In 1995 everyone agreed the world was warmer in medieval times, but CO2 was low then and that didn’t fit with climate models. In 1998, suddenly Michael Mann ignored the other studies and produced a graph that scared the world — tree rings show the “1990’s was the hottest decade for a thousand years”. Now temperatures exactly “fit” the rise in carbon! The IPCC used the graph all over their 2001 report. Government departments copied it. The media told everyone.

But Steven McIntyre was suspicious. He wanted to verify it, yet Mann repeatedly refused to provide his data or methods — normally a basic requirement of any scientific paper. It took legal action to get the information that should have been freely available. Within days McIntyre showed that the statistics were so flawed that you could feed in random data, and still make the same hockey stick shape nine times out of ten. Mann had left out some tree rings he said he’d included. If someone did a graph like this in a stock prospectus, they would be jailed.

17

Astonishingly, Nature refused to publish the correction. It was published elsewhere, and backed up by the Wegman Report, an independent committee of statistical experts.

18

In 2009 McIntyre did it again with Briffa’s Hockey Stick. After asking and waiting three years for the data, it took just three days to expose it too as baseless. For nine years Briffa had concealed that he only had 12 trees in the sample from 1990 onwards, and that one freakish tree virtually transformed the graph. When McIntyre graphed another 34 trees from the same region of Russia, there was no Hockey Stick.

The sharp upward swing of the graph was due to one single tree in Yamal.

Skeptical scientists have literally hundreds of samples. Unskeptical scientists have one tree in Yamal, and a few flawed bristlecones…

It was an audacious fraud.

Climate models don’t know why it was warmer 800 years ago.

The models are wrong.

The so-called “expert review” is meaningless. The IPCC say 2,500 experts review their reports, but those same “experts” made the baseless Hockey Stick graph their logo in 2001.

19

Craig Loehle used 18 other proxies. Temperatures were higher 1000 years ago, & cooler 300 years ago. We started warming long before cars and powerstations were invented. There’s little correlation with CO2 levels.

Sources: Loehle 2007, Haung and Pollack 1997, See co2science.org for all the other peer reviewed studies to go with every orange dot on the map. McIntyre & McKitrick 2003 and 2005, and update, Mann et al 1998, Briffa 2006, read McIntyre at climateaudit.com, see “ClimateGate”, and Monckton “What Hockey Stick” (Science and Public Policy Institute paper)

20

https://snowtenis.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/jo-nova-finds-the-medieval-warm-period/

Paul Krugman shows why the climate campaign failed Guest Blogger / August 13, 2017 Guest essay by Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website. Summary: Like all of Krugman’s work, we can learn much from his latest column about climate change. See this annotated version to see how he shows why 30 years of climate crusading has produced so little policy action in the US. Paul Krugman’s op-ed

in the New York Times, 11 August 2017. Krugman is a brilliant economist, with a knack for explaining technical details to the general public. He is also an insightful political analyst, albeit of the left-wing hack kind. In yesterday’s column, he shows us the latter in action — and why three decades of climate activism has accomplished so little. “It’s Not Your Imagination: Summers Are Getting Hotter.” So read a recent headline in The Times, highlighting a decade-by-decade statistical analysis by

21

climate expert James Hansen. “Most summers,” the analysis concluded, “are now either hot or extremely hot compared with the mid-20th century.” Krugman starts with a look at the past. Hansen’s graphs in the New York Times are what Edward Tufte calls “chart junk” in his classic work about graphics/> — they lack a scale for the change in temperature. All we know is that summers have grown warmer. How much? The article does not say. For a wider perspective see this graph from the Executive Summary of the Third Draft of the Climate Science Special Report, part of the Fourth National Climate Assessment. (CCSR of NCA4). Oddly, it is not in the current Fifth Draft. It shows the hottest day in the 48 contiguous US States by year. The line has been rising since the 1960s, but remains below the levels during the long Dust Bowl. The real message here is that individual graphs can look spectacular, but no one graphic — no matter how animated — can capture the complexity of climate change.

22

“Extreme Hot Days Dominated by 1930s Dust Bowl.A still wider context shows another picture. America and Europe have been warming for two centuries, since the Little Ice Age ended. The IPCC’s AR5 Working Group I describes the anthropogenic part of that long warming: “It is extremely likely (95 – 100% certain) that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 {link}.” So what else is new? At this point the evidence for human-caused global warming just keeps getting more overwhelming, and the plausible scenarios for the future — extreme weather events, rising sea levels, drought, and more — just keep getting scarier. …

23

It’s fun to see climate activists make menacingly vague statements and support them by pointing to a voluminous reports, as Krugman does here — pointing to the 673 page-long draft CCSR. Let’s see if we can do better. The key relevant section is “4: Climate Models, Scenarios, and Projections.”

< “Over the next two decades, global temperature increase is projected to be between 0.5°F and 1.3°F (0.3°–0.7°C) (medium confidence). This range is primarily due to uncertainties in natural sources of variability that affect short-term trends. In some regions, this means that the trend may not be distinguishable from natural variability (high confidence). “Beyond the next few decades, the magnitude of climate change depends primarily on cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols and the sensitivity of the climate system to those emissions (high confidence). Projected changes range from 4.7°–8.6°F (2.6°–4.8°C) under the higher RCP8.5 scenario to

24

0.5°–1.3°F (0.3° 1.7°C) under the lower RCP2.6 scenario, for 2081–2100 relative to 1986–2005 (medium confidence).” So the report does not prophesize doom with the certainty Krugman implies. In fact, it does what activists seldom do — explicitly state the certainty of its conclusions (the IPCC’s reports also do this). We might get tolerable rise of 0.5°–1.3°F under RCP2.6 — the most favorable of the four scenarios in the IPCC’s AR5 report (it might be easy to do; see these details). On the other extreme, their worst-case RCP8.5 scenario is nightmarish but unlikely.

<img class="wp-image-94153" src="https://fabiusmaximus.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/paul-krugman1.jpg?w=244" alt="Paul Krugman" width="200" height="246" />

25

Paul Krugman. From Wikimedia Commons. What becomes clear to anyone following the climate debate, however, is that hardly any climate skeptics are in fact trying to get at the truth. I’m not a climate scientist, but I do know what bogus arguments look like — and I can’t think of a single prominent climate skeptic who isn’t obviously arguing in bad faith. A sensible person would stop reading with this pitiful attempt to delegitimize scientists who disagree with him. Only hard-core hacks write like this. Climate activists describe prominent climate scientists like Roger Pielke Sr. and Judith Curry as “skeptics”. Krugman’s description is quite mad applied to them. Take, for example, all the people who seized on the fact that 1998 was an unusually warm year to claim that global warming stopped 20 years ago — as if one unseasonably hot day in May proves that summer is a myth. With this science denial Krugman shows the brotherhood of the far-right and far-left. Here he vaguely refers to what climate scientists call the “pause” or “hiatus”. Hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals and reports have discussed this since the early ones in 2009. Scores discussed evidence showing the pause. After that was well-established, scores discussed possible causes of the pause (a debate still not resolved). Some discuss when the pause will end (with the 2015 El Nino either making a pause in the pause, or more likely ending it). Those links go to posts with citations, abstracts, and links to a

26

sample of 150 papers about the pause. Or all the people who cited out-of-context quotes from climate researchers as evidence of a vast scientific conspiracy. I agree with Krugman on this, and have written several posts about it (for example, here). Or for that matter, think of anyone who cites “uncertainty” as a reason to do nothing — when it should be obvious that the risks of faster-than-expected climate change if we do too little dwarf the risks of doing too much if change is slower than expected. This is a creative use by Krugman of the false dilemma logical fallacy to mischaracterize his opponents. The alternatives are not a binary do nothing or something. The world faces many serious threats in addition to climate change (details here and here). We have limited resources and must allocate them wisely among these threats. Krugman does the usual climate activist trick of focusing on the fringe that denies the reality of global warming — and ignoring the serious debate about how much warming, when, with what effects. Understanding those is necessary for effective policy action.

27

<img class="aligncenter wp-image-42371" style="margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:30px;" src="https://fabiusmaximus.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/20120822-propaganda-ministry.jpeg?w=300" alt="Ministry of Propaganda" width="250" height="188" /> Conclusions This is propaganda, characteristic of how activists have conducted their campaign to build support for massive public policy action to fight climate change. They’ve been at it since Hansen’s 1988 Senate testimony. It has not worked. • Why the campaign to warn people about climate change fail:

incompetence. • Focusing on worst case climate futures doesn’t work. It

shouldn’t work. • Manichean paranoia has poisoned the climate debate. It is not too late. Climate scientists can restart the climate change debate – & win. For more information about this see putting this proposal in a wider context of

28

science norms and the climate science literature. For More Information Hat tip to Michael Bastasch at the Daily Caller for locating the Third Draft of Climate Science Special Report at Internet Archive. For more information about these matters see the keys to understanding climate change, my posts about climate change, posts about the insights of Paul Krugman, and especially these with good news about the climate… Good news! Coal bankruptcies point to a better future for our

climate. Good news from America about climate change, leading the

way to success. Ignoring science to convince the public that we’re doomed by

climate change. Paul Krugman explains how to break the climate policy

deadlock. “Good news for the New Year! Salon explains that the global

climate emergency is over.“ Stratfor gives us good news, showing when renewables will

replace fossil fuels. The IPCC gives us good news about climate change, but we don’t listen.

SeSeptemptember 21, 2015

29

Steyn puts Warmists in the Dock By Richard Kirk September 21, 2015 A DISGRACE TO THE PROFESSION: The World’s Scientists – in their own words – on Michael E Mann, his Hockey Stick and their Damage to Science, compiled and edited by Mark Steyn, Volume I, Stockade Books, September, 2015 (320 pages, $19.95, Paperback) The final episode of "Seinfeld" involved a “Good Samaritan” court case that featured witness after witness testifying passionately about the moral misdemeanors perpetrated against them by the show’s protagonists: Elaine, George, Kramer, and Jerry. One segment simulated a TV newscast in which Geraldo’s onsite reporter summarized the testimony. The number of prosecution witnesses, she concluded, “just went on and on and on into the

30

night.” That’s the feeling one gets reading the negative evidence Steyn has amassed in A Disgrace to the Profession, his work about the litigious climatologist and “hockey-stick” inventor, Michael Mann. Steyn’s book is, in fact, a series of relatively short “testimony” segments by scores of “witnesses” to the shoddy science and shocking intimidation tactics employed by Mann and colleagues. The book also indicts various science publications and organizations for malpractice, especially the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- a bureaucracy headed till his resignation in 2015, following charges of sexual abuse, by Dr. Rajandra Pachauri, formerly “Indian Railways engineer at the Diesel Locomotive Works in Varanasi.” Steyn divides his work into 12 chapters which contain, in total, 120 testimony segments. Almost all focus on damning observations about Mann’s methods, conclusions, and harassment of dissenting scientists -- many of whom are still in the anthropogenic global warming camp. Thus, the book isn’t a broadside against apocalyptic climate change per se but rather a barrage against Michael Mann, the inventor of global warming’s most effective propaganda icon --- the “hockey stick” diagram of global temperature. (Note: The diagrammatic “hockey stick” is lying flat with only the blade projecting upward to represent an unprecedented temperature rise in the last century.) http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/steyn_puts_warmists_in_the_dock.html#ixzz3mRIyQcuS To obtain this ominous shape that Al Gore and the IPCC seized upon with orgasmic enthusiasm, Mann obliterated two mainstays of traditional climate science: the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. In the opinion of many eminent scientists, this feat was accomplished by employing dubious statistical analysis, by using and even manipulating scanty tree-ring evidence, and by tacking on actual thermometer readings for recent times to tree-ring proxy data that was largely employed to erase significant climate variations in the past. These methodological shenanigans resulted in the apocalyptic headline that summarized the Mann-dominated IPCC report of

31

2001, namely, that 1998 was “likely” the warmest year in the warmest decade in the warmest century of the past 1,000 years -- a headline gobbled up by lazy and politically-motivated climate journalists. Probably 5% of Steyn’s extended “brief” against Mann, et al. consists of extended résumés of Mann’s critics -- a procedure designed to show that scholars like MIT’s Richard Lindzen, NASA’s Roy Spencer, and renowned physicist Freeman Dyson are, indeed, expert witnesses and not the scientific JV team. Here’s a sample of those critiques: “The whole hockey-stick episode reminds me of the motto of Orwell’s Ministry of Information” (Dr. William Happer, Physics, Princeton); “The blade of the hockey-stick could not be reproduced using either the same techniques as Mann and Jones or other common statistical techniques” (Dr. David Legates, U. of Delaware, Climatologist); “The behavior of Michael Mann is a disgrace to the profession” (Dr. Henrick Tennekes, former Director of Research at the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute); “The work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies” (Dr. David Deming, Geophysicist, U. of Oklahoma); “That was a mistake and it made tree-ring people angry” (Dr. Gordon Jacoby, pioneer in dendrochronology); “Any scientist ought to know that you just can’t mix and match proxy and actual data… Yet that’s exactly what he did” (Dr. Philip Stott, Biogeography, U. of London). The damning critiques go on and on and on in detail. The above comments are only chapter headings, and the individual résumés all include a large number of professional achievements. Another swath of Steyn’s evidence concerns the University of East Anglia Climate Research emails that were hacked into and published in 2009, resulting in the “Climategate” scandal. These communications give credence to the claim that there is or was a “Big Climate” mafia headed by Michael Mann -- a group as eager to protect its fame and grant-producing turf as Michael Corleone was to defend his crime syndicate. Fortunately, Mann and company “only” employ stigma, blackballing, and control of peer-reviews to achieve their objectives. Two cases in point: In 2014 Dr. Judith Curry, former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology observed that her “challenge to the [climate change] consensus has precluded any further professional recognition.” She also mentioned that she worries about younger scientists without tenure protection. That same year the 79-year-old distinguished professor Lennart Bengtsson was forced by “enormous group pressure” to resign “for the sake of [his] health and safety” from the advisory board of a think tank that promoted rational skepticism about global warming.

32

As a closing bonus, Steyn explains the origin of the “97% of all scientists” mantra that Mann and President Obama confidently throw around whenever the “settled science” of climate change is at issue. Short story shorter: 97% comes from a survey conducted for a thesis by a University of Illinois graduate student who, having received 3,146 responses to a two-question online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, eventually identified 77 “experts” of which 75 (97%) were found to agree with the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. There’s no word as yet on the identity and views of the other 10,180. One might ask why Steyn is so hell-bent on exposing Michael Mann rather than broadly addressing the issue of climate change -- and why he structures his book so that it reads like the sequential testimony of a hundred different witnesses, interspersed with witty Steyn asides? The answer is that Steyn, National Review, et al. are being sued for defamation by the aforementioned Dr. Mann. In other words, true to form, Mann is using intimidation to silence critics. Specifically, the legal case concerns a National Review blog post dated July 15, 2012, in which Steyn quotes aerospace engineer Rand Simberg’s negative comments about the Penn State hockey-stick inventor, including the remark that Mann has become “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science.” Steyn proceeds in a mere 147 words to distance himself somewhat from Simberg’s metaphor, to identify Mann as “the man behind the fraudulent ‘hockey-stick’ graph,” and to note that the same college president who “declined to find one of its star names [Paterno] guilty of any wrongdoing” and who was forced to resign over the Sandusky scandal also oversaw the exculpatory investigation of Mann after the “Climategate” emails were made public. The fact that this speech-suppressing defamation suit in the D.C. courts has been going on for years without media outrage clearly shows that Steyn’s derogatory book title applies to American journalists and courts as much as to the now-greatly-diminished Penn State climatologist. Richard Kirk is a freelance writer living in Southern California.

33

COMMENT BY James Matkin• Steyn is right Michael Mann is "a disgrace to the Science profession" because he fudged the data on climate history to support his fear mongering HOCKEY STICK. He changed the data to fit his climate theory. "In many fields of science, this would have been considered fraud. In many fields of endeavour, Mann would have been struck off the list of practitioners." Professor Ian Plimer, University of Melbourne. Professor von Storch University of Hamburg's Meteorlogical Institute was one of the first climate scientists to be critical in public and on the record about Mann's hockey stick, going so far as to describe it as "quatsch" (nonsense or rubbish) in a story in Der Spiegel headlined "Die Kurve its Quatsch" or to retain the alliteration, "The curve is crap." Steyn page 143, Mann is repudiated Steyn proves in this fine book for his crappy pseudoscience by the vast majority of credible scientists - 100 and counting - on both sides of the debate about the theory of trace amounts < 4% of anthropogenic C02 wrecking the planet's climate.

34

"A Disgrace to the Profession"– September 1, 2015 by Mark Steyn (editor) (Author), Mark Steyn (Editor), Josh (Illustrator) The "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures is the single most influential icon in the global-warming debate, promoted by the UN's transnational climate bureaucracy, featured in Al Gore's Oscar-winning movie, used by governments around the world to sell the Kyoto Accord to their citizens, and shown to impressionable schoolchildren from kindergarten to graduation. And yet what it purports to "prove" is disputed and denied by many of the world's most eminent scientists. In this riveting book, Mark Steyn has compiled the thoughts of the world's scientists, in their own words, on hockey-stick creator Michael E Mann, his stick and their damage to science. From Canada to Finland, Scotland to China, Belgium to New Zealand, from venerable Nobel Laureates to energetic young researchers on all sides of the debate analyze the hockey stock and the wider climate wars it helped launch.

Reinventing History

35

This graph shows the fudge with the first IPCC report in 1990 including the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age and later removed after Mann’s research in 2001. Later IPCC removed it also.

AMAZON Editorial Reviews Review I recommend Steyn's book highly, because it really gets to the heart of the matter about that lack of scientific rigor in climate science that has become a poster child for noble cause corruption . - Anthony Watts --Watts Up With That At a time when the U.S. and the world's nations are trying to put together an agreement to tackle climate change (for better or for worse), Steyn's book reminds everyone of Climategate, why the public doesn't trust climate scientists and aren't buying their "consensus". - Judith Curry --Climate Etc. It's probably the longest, funniest, most savvily organized and meticulous "screw you" in the history of Western literature. - Laura Rosen Cohen --endofyourarm.com About the Author Editor Mark Steyn is the author of the international bestsellers America Alone and After America, and a contributor to the recent

36

Number One bestseller on Amazon's Climatology Hit Parade, Climate Change: The Facts. His latest CD is Goldfinger.

Whatwehavefound1.WearenotwarmingtheplanetForseveraldecadesnow,ithasbeenwidelybelievedthathumansarecausingunusualglobalwarmingbyincreasingtheconcentrationofcarbondioxideintheatmosphere.Ourresearchhasconvincedusthatthisman-madeglobalwarmingtheoryiswrong.Wewillexplainwhywehavecometothisconclusiononthiswebsite.Itistruethathumanshavebeenincreasingtheconcentrationofcarbondioxideintheatmosphere,becauseofouruseoffossilfuels.BeforetheIndustrialRevolution,carbondioxideseemstohavebeenabout0.03%oftheatmosphere,whileitisnowabout0.04%.However,ourresearchhasshownthat:Itdoesn’tmatterwhetherwedouble,trebleorevenquadruplethecarbondioxideconcentration.Carbondioxidehasnoimpactonatmospherictemperatures.Wecarriedoutnewlaboratoryexperiments,andanalysedthedatafrommillionsofweatherballoons,tocalculateexactlyhowmuchglobalwarmingcarbondioxidewascausing.Whenwedidthis,wediscoveredthattheanswerwaszero.Itturnsoutthatsomeoftheassumptionsusedinman-madeglobalwarmingtheory(andinthecurrentclimatemodels)hadneveractuallybeentested.Whenwetestedthem,wediscoveredthattheywereinvalid.Seethelinkbelowforadiscussionofwhy:• Summary:“ThephysicsoftheEarth’satmosphereI-III”Inaddition,wehavealsoshownthat:The“unusualglobalwarming”thathascausedsuchconcernisnotunusual,afterall.

37

Wefoundthattheworldnaturallyswitchesbetweenperiodsofglobalwarmingandperiodsofglobalcooling,witheachperiodlastingseveraldecades.Wealsoidentifiedanumberofseriousmistakesinthestudieswhichhadclaimedthattherehasbeenunusualglobalwarming.Thesemistakesmeantthattheamountofwarminginthelastglobalwarmingperiod(1980s-2000s)wasoverestimatedandtheamountofcoolinginthelastglobalcoolingperiod(1950s-1970s)wasunderestimated.Whenthesemistakesarecorrected,itturnsoutthatitwasjustaswarminthe1930s-1940sasitisnow.Seethefollowinglinksforourglobaltemperatureanalysis:Summary:“UrbanizationbiasI-III”Summary:“HaspoorstationqualitybiasedU.S.temperature

trendestimates?”Summary:“Globaltemperaturechangesofthelastmillennium”http://globalwarmingsolved.com/start-he

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

WHEN you are a man-made global warming alarmist prosecuting your case as “unprecedented”, you need to make sure that no recent climate

45

era was as warm or warmer than the present, even if that means having to rewrite the past to fit your theory. THE Medieval Warm Period, also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum (for obvious reasons) existed a short time ago in the climate record, from c. 950 to c. 1250., and has remained a thorn in the side for modern “global warming” catastrophists… IN the 1990 IPCC report, the Medieval Warm Period was much warmer than the late 19th century:

46

47

www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf THE IPCC’s 1990 report dives deeper into the reality of the Medieval Warm Period and provides an insight into the cause of these warming periods: “This period of widespread warmth is notable in that there is no evidence that it was accompanied by an increase of greenhouse gases.” IPCC WG1 Report 1990 (p202) BY the 2001 IPCC report, the Medieval Warm period disappeared and became much cooler than the late 20th century:

BY pure coincidence, in the year 1995 the IPCC made a decision to make the Medieval Warm Period disappear: YOUTUBE clip of Dr David Deming’s US Senate testimony on the “disappearance” of the Medieval Warm Period (see 01m:50s) : • On July 14, 1936 Illinois and Indiana were 114

degrees, Wisconsin and Iowa were 113 degrees, Ohio and Minnesota were 110 degrees, Missouri was 112 degrees ....

• If this happened now, @SenSanders and @SenWhitehouse would demand immediate world communism.

48

• • 7 replies 63 retweets 99 likes Reply 7 Retweeted 63 Like 99 Direct message • "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period!" video on www.youtube.com</a>, or enable JavaScript if it is disabled in your browser.</div></div>

Video of Dr David Deming’s statement to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works on December 6, 2006. Dr Deming reveals

that in 1995 a leading scientist emailed him saying “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. A few years later, Michael Mann and the IPCC

did just that by publishing the now throughly discredited hockey stick graph.

IN case you missed it… “I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval

49

Warm Period.”” The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be “gotten rid of.”” Statement of Dr. David Deming | U.S. Senate Committee * ACCORDING to ‘science’, the Medieval Warm Period was indeed ‘global’ and was as warm, if not warmer, than today’s current warming period… CLICK here for interactive map

Medieval Warm Period

H/t Paul Carfoot @PaulCarfoot

••• See also : • OUR Planet Has Enjoyed 10 Warm Periods During The Past 10,000

Years | Climatism

50

via @BigJoeBastardi | Twitter

••• MWP related : Peer Review studies that show the Medieval Warm Period was indeed global and as warm, if not warmer than todays temps… Evidence of the Medieval Warm Period in Australia, New Zealand and

Oceania | Climatism New paper shows Medieval Warm Period was global in scope | Watts

Up With That? Study: Earth was warmer in Roman, Medieval Times | The Daily Caller New paper finds more evidence the Medieval Warming Period was

global — Published in Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology

Latest Research: EU & Russian Scientists Confirm Medieval Period Warmer Than Modern Global Warming

Antarctic warmer than today – An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds Medieval Warming Period was ~1°C warmer than current temperatures

New Paper Finds Ocean Temps Were Warmer During Multiple Periods Over Last 2700 Years Than Today | GWPF

Medieval Temps warmer than today : Jenny Lake, Southwest Yukon Territory, Canada – CO2 Science

51

Medieval Warm Period was real, global, & warmer than the present’ – China & World – Chinadaily Forum

Evidence for a Global Medieval Warm Period | Watts Up With That? Medieval Warm Period Project | CO2 Science https://climatism.wordpress.com/category/climatism/ Medieval Temperature Trends in Africa and Arabia

A synthesis of paleotemperature reconstructions from published case studies suggests warm onshore temperatures persisted across most of Afro-Arabia between 1000 and 1200 CE. SOURCE: Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology

52

The Sahara in southeast Libya. The medieval land temperature history is still poorly known in large parts of Africa and Arabia, emphasizing the need for a systematic paleoclimatological research program. Credit: © Karsten Battermann By Terri Cook 9 February 2018 Reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures have repeatedly indicated the Afro-Arabian region experienced climate perturbations, including an extended period of anomalously warm conditions, during medieval times. Because this Medieval Climate Anomaly represents the closest analogue to modern warming, it defines a crucial baseline by which modern postindustrial climate trends can be compared.

53

Although the Medieval Climate Anomaly has also been documented in other parts of the world, its occurrence on the Arabian Peninsula and the African continent, which together comprise about one quarter of Earth’s landmass, is less certain. This is due to the lack of high-quality proxy records, such as ice cores and tree rings, in the region. To help fill this gap, Lüning et al. correlated and synthesized the findings of 44 published paleotemperature case studies from across the region and mapped the resulting trends of the anomaly’s central period, which lasted from about 1000 to 1200 CE.

To better characterize temperature fluctuations in Africa and Arabia

54

during medieval times, researchers synthesized paleotemperature records from across the region, including the Tanzanian portion of Lake Tanganyika (pictured here). A core from this lake represents one of the few medieval paleotemperature reconstructions that are available from the East Africa Rift. Credit: Andreas31, CC BY-SA 3.0 The results indicate that the majority of onshore Afro-Arabian sites experienced warming during the Medieval Climate Anomaly. The one exception was the southern Levant, which endured a cold phase during the same interval. From offshore records, the team also documented cooling in locations that currently experience cold-water upwellings but generally warmer conditions away from these upwelling zones during the same period. In some records, the researchers noted the presence of obvious cold spikes during intervals corresponding to decreased solar activity or declining ocean cycles. This, they argue, suggests that solar forcing and changing ocean circulation are the most likely causes of medieval era climate change. This study represents a step toward globally characterizing the Medieval Climate Anomaly, an improved understanding of which will help scientists refine global climate models and improve hindcasting. To date, however, very few paleotemperature data exist from Afro-Arabia; the authors note that all of West Africa is currently represented by a single data point. Systematic research will be necessary to adequately reconstruct medieval paleotemperature patterns and their causes across this vast region. (Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017PA003237, 2017)

55

—Terri Cook, Freelance Writer Citation: Cook, T. (2018), Medieval temperature trends in Africa and Arabia, Eos, 99, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EO092411. Published on 09 February

2018.

Post as James Matkin James Matkin • James Matkin•a few seconds agoYes this study is very important. It exposes a major flaw in the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) from fossil fuel emissions of C02. The reason is the AGW science and political crusade initially relied on an infamous hockey stick graph of Michael Mann to rub out the climate history of the Medieval Warming period. Mann wrongly fudged medieval climate history because he thought it was not global and only limited to Europe. With a distorted graph of climate history the result made the current moderate warming look very unprecedented like a real hockey stick. More than any other thing the Mann hockey stick graph helped Al Gore and other politicians marshal public opinion against fossil fuels in the early stages of the controversy. I agree therefore that ”This study by Luning et al "represents a step toward globally characterizing the Medieval Climate Anomaly, an improved understanding of which will help scientists refine global climate models and improve hindcasting. " The Greenhouse Gas hypothesis of forced warming from trace amounts of human generated C02 is a thought experiment with no physical observations. Doubt is rising about its validity, as it is too narrow like a one trick pony when there are so many other stronger forces driving the earth's climate.

56

Alarmism Takes A Big Hit…Flood Of New Scientific Findings Show Nothing Unusual Happening Climatically By P Gosselin on 25. March 2018 Two days ago Kenneth presented an impressive flurry of scientific, peer-reviewed charts published over the past 15 months (46 alone in 2018). Much to the surprise of alarmist scientists, global warming is weak at best. Lack of warming a global phenomenon