Saturday
Jul102010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill HSI in the National Post
Jul 10, 2010 Peter Foster has written a long and very supportive review of The Hockey Stick Illusion in Canada's National Post.
The Hockey Stick Illusion leaves no doubt about Mr. Montford’s reporting abilities. He tells a gripping detective story in which the star gumshoe is semi-retired Canadian mining consultant Steve McIntyre. Mr. McIntyre, unfortunately for his opponents, happens to combine mathematical genius with a Terminator-like relentlessness. He also found a brilliant partner in Ross McKitrick, an economics professor at the University of Guelph. Their story is one of intellectual determination in the face of Kafkaesque “peer review” and Orwellian “freedom of information.”
Reader Comments (164)
Excellent news - do I detect a Booker or Pullitzer or whatever?
Or a burning?
Bishop:Thank you very much for writing a great book about the hockey stick. Your gave just a hint of more to come with the chapter "Update the Proxies." Much of the data used in the MBH papers ended 20 or more years ago. It would seem that the hockey stick could be put out of its misery once and for all by including later data. What is delaying McIntyre publishing the results of his proxy update?
There seems to be a battle between two camps with one trying to show the Medeival Warm Period being warmer than present and one trying to make the present warmer than the MWP or make the MWP disappear completely. Has anyone addressed the question, why do tree rings vary in width? It appears that the tree ring series were selected based on their correlation with temperature-I am assuming that this was local annual temperature. Has anyone done studies on correlation of tree rings with moisture, length of growing season or temperature during the growing season? The description in your book of selecting based on temperature while ignoring all other factors does not seem very rigorous.
From the FT article:
"The U.K.-based Global Warming Policy Foundation, an influential skeptical institution, has now appointed Mr. Montford to run an inquiry into the three British inquiries."
Is that true, Bish? Wow!
In light of continual, ongoing exposes, plus inherent interest as global temperatures tip inexorably to a Maunder Minimum, mayhap a sequel slated for c. mid-2011?
You'll not catch my Phil, Bishop bloody Hill. He's too fly for you. 'e's a clever boy, 'e is.
Bishop
"has now appointed Mr. Montford to run an inquiry into the three British inquiries."
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Actually, all you have to do is to collect the thousand or so complaints listed in the various threads over the last few months, organize them, double check the references and you'd have an excellent report.
And even if you don't get that mandate from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, it would make an excellent sequel for the HSI.
HOT OF THE PRESS.
Letter No.7004-10/IPCC/AR5 from Dr Pachauri, Chaiman of the IPCC to AR5 working groups, "“I would also like to emphasize that enhanced media interest in the work of the IPCC would probably subject you to queries about your work and the IPCC. My sincere advice would be that you keep a distance from the media and should any questions be asked about the Working Group with which you are associated, please direct such media questions to the Co-chairs of your Working Group and for any questions regarding the IPCC to the secretariat of the IPCC.”
So the IPCC has learnt nothing from Climategate and all the other gates.
Openess and transparency arenot words in the IPCC's dictionary.
Re: Hot off the Press, above
I, too, have seen the letter from Pachauri in which he advises AR5 participants that the "IPCC is a unique family" but says that lowly members in the family hierarchy should avoid speaking to the press.
The letter is dated "Geneva, 5 July 2010" and is addressed: "To Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, and Review Editors for the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)"
The full text is as follows:
"Circle the wagons, boys!! The Indians -- err --- skeptics are attacking!" Pachauri.
"...a level of rigour perhaps not seen in previous reports."
Translation:
"...a level of rigour not seen since we began policy advocacy."
I just came across the Pachauri letter and that quote from it during a visit to this website of an IPCC scientist: http://www.edwardrcarr.com/opentheechochamber/?p=12
He expresses concern that Pachauri's 'bunker mentality' will harm the cause, not least because ‘some people still believe that there is something sinister going on’.
Let me reproduce here my comment to his site, currently awaiting moderation there:
'I guess I am one of them. My suspicion is that many decent people and honest scientists have been taken for a ride by the people who designed, launched, and manipulated the public face of the IPCC for their own prior political ends. Your quote from Pachauri’s letter does nothing to disabuse me of this suspicion.'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7883372/Amazongate-At-last-we-reach-the-source.html
I am a little confused over the reference to "Woods Hole" which is commonly used to refer to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. This is a very serious oceanographic institute with a long history of doing good research on the oceans of the world.
The Woods Hole Research Center appears to be a totally seperate group. I pray so. Does anyone know what the facts are?
In any case Shub, very nice reference. It is was most interesting and summarized Amazongate nicely.
Don Pablo
For the distinction between the two Woods Holes, see:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7550292/How-Amazongate-blighted-the-rainforest-harvest-for-WWF.html
rigour def
noun
1. (often plural) ordeal, suffering, trial, hardship, privation the rigours of childbirth
2. strictness, austerity, rigidity, firmness, hardness, harshness, inflexibility, stringency, asperity, sternness 'We need to address such challenging issues with rigour'.
3. thoroughness, accuracy, precision, exactitude, exactness, conscientiousness, meticulousness, punctiliousness, preciseness His work is built round academic rigour and years of insight.
Perhaps Pachauri favours senses 1 and 2 rather than 3
You'll not catch my Phil, Bishop bloody Hill. He's too fly for you. 'e's a clever boy, 'e is.
July 10, 2010 | Prof Jones's Mum
Mrs Jones, you brought your son up well!
He maybe fell into bad-company but, thanks to your tender ministrations, he's learning the error of his ways and is now on the road to recovery.
It is possible that bad influences may try to turn his head again but I am comforted by the iron of your will, the steel of your rectitude and, err, all your other maternal, metallurgical mechanisms!
Gawd bless you Ma'am
Pharos
Thank you. It is clear that the Woods Hole Research Center is ripping off the good name of the real Woods Hole. They should sue them.
Woods Hole Research Center is a advocacy/science post-normal type organzation. They have good scientists who publish very 'focused' research in high-profile journals.
This is what Lindzen had to say (h/t EuRef):
"It is, of course, possible to corrupt science without specifically corrupting institutions. For example, the environmental movement often cloaks its propaganda in scientific garb without the aid of any existing scientific body. One technique is simply to give a name to an environmental advocacy group that will suggest to the public, that the group is a scientific rather than an environmental group. Two obvious examples are the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Woods Hole Research Center."
http://www.ecoworld.com/global-warming/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions.html
You probably don't need another testimonial, but here goes anyway:
I received "The Hockey Stick Illusion" about three days ago, and have almost finished reading it.
It is VERY well presented and covers the whole sad story in enough detail, but at the same time in an approachable manner for people who are not too hot on statistics.
Congratulations on a very impressive piece of work.
Shub
I am very familiar with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, who have real scientists, doing real science like Dr. Robert Ballard, who, in his spare time, finds old ship wrecks.
I agree with Lindzen about what the Woods Hole Research Center is all about. It is a rip off of the WHOI's good name. Pure and simple. Even I got confused for a while.
Thank you for the URL. You are well informed.
From WUWT thread on Singer today
Bishop, looks like you could send Anthony a copy?
Lucy, it's all taken care of...Anthony's copy goes in the mail tomorrow.
Just a bit of info which could be surmised anyway but still confirms the truth:
The DECC which plots our low carbon future and financial destruction, does not require any of its employees to have read or understood any IPCC ARs.
Neither has the new minister (the lovely Mr Huhne) been briefed that he should read or understand any AR reports.
There is one Grade 6 Higher Scientific Officer who liases with the IPCC and nominates people from the UK as lead authors. I will shortly find out what he knows about climate change and how he decides which UK authors to nominate.
Dung:
I'm not surprised at the lack of knowledge of climate science or of energy within DECC. All correspondence i have received from them is just repeated propaganda. The only meetings I have been to where DECC officials were presenting information was attended by DECC PR people. I have pointed out to ministers that all senior people in DECC are scientifically/engineering illiterate. The only senior person with any scientific background (physics) is chief scientific adviser Prof David Mackay (Renewable Energy; without the hot air). It is very worrying that our future remains in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats who have no understanding of what they are doing.
Go the DECC website and check out the senior people. http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/about/governance/governance.aspx
Phillip Bratby
Excellent point. Bean counters all, without knowledge of what they are deciding. It would be laughable if it weren't so serious. Good examples of political sinecures for the faithful.
Many people post on this blog under silly names like mine but some give real names and today I looked up Phillip Bratby. I feel humbled and for those others who maybe did not know, Phillip has qualifications in Physics, a 1st class honours plus a doctorate no less.
I also just read a submission he made:
Evidence to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee inquiry into ‘The Economics of Renewable Energy’
which can be found here:
www.swatt.org.uk/documents/PhilipBratby.doc
Obviously many people fight this battle quietly and without fuss. All I can say is Grrrrrrrrrrrrats mate :)
Dung
There are, as far as I can tell, a large number of very talented people who post here. Without histrionics or self-promotion.
By and large, I think that this is both appreciated and respected by all who frequent - the Bishop's scissors are rarely seen.
Nice, ain't it?
andrew revkin has lots of updates and LINKS re the IPCC letter - too much to excerpt, read all:
NYT: Andrew C. Revkin: Climate Panel Struggles With Media Plan
[July 12, 1:01 p.m. | Updated The Columbia Journalism Review has posted a piece on " Mediaphobia." There are nice posts on the panel's communication efforts by Bryan Walsh at Time Magazine and Kate Mackenzie at the Financial Times.][3:37 p.m. | Updated At the bottom of this post I've linked to a three-page "media backgrounder" that the climate panel sent to assessment authors on Saturday. It's fascinating reading.]
On Friday, one recipient of the letter, Edward R. Carr, an associate professor of geography at the University of South Carolina who will work on the assessment of climate impacts and adaptation options, complained about the letter in a post on his blog under the heading “ Apparently we have learned nothing….”
He warned that the panel appears stuck in a “bunker mentality” that will do little to build its credibility after a trying year of attacks by foes of restrictions on greenhouse gases and skeptics of climate science. In an e-mail message alerting me to Carr’s post, Mickey Glantz, a University of Colorado specialist in climate impacts in poor regions who has been an author on previous panel reports, said he agreed with Carr, adding: “I think the I.P.C.C. is on the wrong path.”...
When I was sent a copy of the letter Friday morning by another climate researcher, I immediately forwarded it to Rajendra K. Pachauri...
Friday night, Pachauri sent this response...
I sent this followup question...
Here’s Pachauri’s reply:..
I sent Pachauri’s response to Edward Carr to get his reaction, and here it is:..
3:37 p.m. | Updated Here’s a link to the “Background and Tips for Responding to Media” sheet sent to climate assessment authors. It was produced for the intergovernmental panel by Resource Media, a nonprofit communication consultancy that in 2007 created a Web site explaining the panel’s last set of reports.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/10/climate-panel-struggles-with-media-plan/?emc=eta1
Dung:
Thanks, but there are disadvantages to posting under one's real name. At a recent wind farm public inquiry at which I was giving evidence, the QC for the developer (which was trying to steamroll a wind farm in an inappropriate location) asked me if I was a "climate denier" and produced copies of statements I had made about climate change on the internet. Of course at wind farm public inquiries objectors have one hand tied behing their back because they are not allowed to question government policy. Thus the need to "tackle climate change" is a fundamental government policy which cannot be challenged and is used as an argument by developers to justify the need for the development. Of course they wouldn't dream of mentioning that it is the enormous profits to be made via the subsidies available through the Renewable Obligation Scheme that they are after - in reality they are "saving the planet" by ruining our beautiful countryside, ruining the lives of many people who live there and damaging our future energy supplies and future economic prospects; all at our (the consuners) expense. What makes it even worse is that many of the developers are foreign owned companies that, having ruined a tract of our countryside, immediately take the fat profits out of the country.
And the previous and current government approve of all this.
Well I'm glad I got that off my chest this morning. But that example is just one of the reasons why I try top "fight this battle quietly and without fuss".
Corigenda:
consuners = consumers
top = to
It's too early in the morning.
Corrigendum:
corigenda - corrigenda
Phillip
Interesting topic- real v assumed name. The real name adds tremendously to gravitas and respect. The disadvantage I imagine most people succomb to is the risk- real or perceived- of unwelcome mail or worse from extremists. Many sceptics, in the recent past, even felt that some form of official sanction was on the cards to persecute them for scepticism, even though in that case, their identity would still be traceable. Some have heated family disputes on the subject, some have a justified fear for adverse repercussions in their jobs/careers.
Pharos:
I agree with you. I have no concerns with regards to career any more. Most of my friends and acquaintances are of similar opinion to me anyway.
I hope that people have also read Phillip's submission to the Russell Review - one of a very small number to seriously address the issues in the remit. It deals primarily with the (lack of) quality control and record keeping at CRU.
Unfortunately it contains a link to a climategate analysis that doesn't work - presumably, this is the John Costella analysis?
PaulM
Yes the link was to the John Costella analysis.
Pharos
The disadvantage I imagine most people succomb to is the risk- real or perceived- of unwelcome mail or worse from extremists.
Perhaps your extremists are less extreme, but that is not the case in California, sadly. Years ago I made statements in the local newspaper regarding some local issues that at least one individual disagreed with and took his displeasure out on my pet.
And I might add you run into the same sort of sick people in North Ireland and the rest of Ulster in ROI. I was in Omagh three months after what RIRA did there. As many Catholics as Protestants were kill and there was no Christmas there in 1998. It was mid November and although the rest of Ireland, north and south, was festooned in Christmas decorations, there wasn't even a single colored light to be seen in all of Omagh, and all those living there were scurrying around like nervous rats. That left a lasting impression on me.
Thus my nom de plume.
Kuddos, Huraahs, and Cheers!!
So well deserved!!!
PS: Pennames are like noses, most have one. For some, they're like ears. For others they're like fingers and toes. What matters most is what you do with what you have. To every thing there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven.
HSI is now showing up on Amazon.com - 25 reviews so far, including one from the token True Believer, entitled "Absolute and pure drivel"
....this book is mindless rubbish based on intentional falsehoods designed for uninformed ideological sycophants who care nothing about the truth. They will continue to believe that a fake exposé of an 11-year old graph and a fake "Gate" are somehow true even though they have been definitively shown to be false. Just like everything else the denialists have ever offered has been false.
One hopes the the true believer made his review using a real name and not an assumed name /tag. In which case sue his pants off Bish!
@Don P, Or even a 'nom de guerre' in some cases?
@Pascvaks, From statistics, I think we could apply the bikini comparison to pen names - what they reveal is interesting, but what they hide is vital?
nom d'ordinateur ?
Nom de clavier
Returning to the Hockey Stick Illusion, this incredibly bizarre saga clearly hammers home more than a nail in the alarmists coffin, but a stake through its heart. As lucidly summarised on page 390-
Quite apart from what the Hockey Stick tells us about the positioning of the IPCC in the global warming debate, the panel's need for a sales tool also suggests something important about the overall case for manmade global warming. None of the corruption and bias and flouting of rules we have seen in the course of this story would have been necessary if there is, as we are led to believe, a watertight case that mankind is having a potentially catastrophic effect on the climate. What the Hockey Stick affair suggests is that the case for global warming, far from being settled is actually weak and unconvincing.
bish - this is one to watch out for - what a nice bunch of people!
12 July: BBC: Global population study launched by Royal Society
It is led by Nobel laureate Sir John Sulston of Human Genome Project fame…
The burgeoning human population is acknowledged as one of the underlying causes of environmental issues such as climate change, deforestation, depletion of water resources and loss of biodiversity…
Jonathon Porritt, founder and director of the UK think tank Forum for the Future and a member of the Royal Society’s working group, suggested the review could shed some objective light on the issues under dispute….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10578484.stm
2007 Bali Climate Declaration by Scientists
This consensus document was prepared under the auspices of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia
The 2007 Bali Climate Declaration has been signed by the following scientists
(signatories) Dr. John Sulston UK
(along with Schneider, Trenberth et al)
http://www.climate.unsw.edu.au/news/2007/Bali.html
Wikipedia: Jonathon Porritt
Porritt acts as advisor to many bodies on environmental matters, as well as to individuals including Prince Charles and Stuart Rose, the chief executive of Marks & Spencer, advising on that company's forward strategy. He is a board member of Wessex Water.
Porritt is on the advisory board of BBC Wildlife magazine and actively supports the efforts of experts promoting renewable energy and sustainable development such as Walt Patterson. Since 2000, he has been chair of the Sustainable Development Commission, set up by the UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. He has however been critical of the Labour government for its environmental record and its pro-nuclear stance. He is a patron of the Optimum Population Trust
Quotes: “I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate..
"The trust (OPT) will release research suggesting UK population must be cut to 30m if the country wants to feed itself sustainably."...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathon_Porritt
at the same time, we have:
11 July: Grist: Fred Pearce: On World Population Day, take note: population isn’t the problem
A green myth is on the march. It wants to blame the world's overbreeding poor people for the planet's peril. It stinks. And on World Population Day, I encourage fellow environmentalists not to be seduced...
With half the world already at below-replacement birthrates, and with those rates still falling fast, the world's population will probably be shrinking within a generation.
This is good news for the environment, for sure. But don't put out the flags. Another myth put out by the population doom-mongers is that it's all those extra people that are wrecking the planet. But that's no longer the case.
Rising consumption today is a far bigger threat to the environment than a rising head count. And most of that extra consumption is still happening in rich countries that have long since given up growing their populations....
The carbon emissions of one American today are equivalent to those of around four Chinese, 20 Indians, 40 Nigerians, or 250 Ethiopians. How dare rich-world greens blame the poor world for the planet's perils?
Some greens need to take a long, hard look at themselves. They should remember where some of their ideas came from.
The granddaddy of demographic doomsters was Bob Malthus, an English clergyman who got famous by warning 200 years ago about population growth...
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-07-11-on-world-population-day-take-note-population-isnt-the-problem
and an immediate rebuttal:
12 July: Grist: Rebuttal to Pearce by Robert Walker: Of course population is still a problem
Robert Walker is executive vice president of the Population Institute
Yes, Fred, we must do something about consumption. Unless we in the developed world do more to curb our consumption of fossil fuels and scarce minerals, the world is headed for an ecological and humanitarian disaster. We need to lower our per capita consumption of fossil fuels and other scarce resources. A lot. But I don't see the G8 or the G20 putting their heads together right now in an effort to lower consumer spending. Really, I don't. Neither do I see anything happening with respect to climate change...
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-07-12-earth-fred-pearce-population-growth-problem-world-fertility/
Fred Pearce makes some good points, but he is grossly mistaken about Malthus. Here is an alternative view from Keynes. He is writing of the first edition of Malthus's Essay on Population:
"The book can claim a place among those which have had great influence on the progress of thought. It is profoundly ... in the tradition which is suggested by the names of Locke, Hume, Adam Smith, Paley, Bentham, Darwin and Mill, a tradition marked by a love of truth and a most noble lucidity, by a prosaic sanity free from sentiment or metaphysic, and by an immense disinterestedness and public spirit... It is in this company that Malthus belongs."
Important YouGov survey for Chatham House has just been released.
Titled, "British Attitudes Towards the UK’s International Priorities"
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/download/-/id/908/file/16965_0710ch_yougov_survey.pdf
It is a two-fold opinion poll of opinion formers and general public opinion. On climate change the findings are clear;
Quote, findings, "Significant minorities of both the general public (especially among Conservatives) and opinion-formers are sceptical about the need to take action to avert climate
change. In fact, just over one in four voters, and just under one in four of YouGovStone’s respondents (opinion formers), are unconvinced that climate change is a serious threat; they say that Britain should not take any action that makes it harder to sustain its standard of living."
The results of the poll are:
Which three or four, if any, do you regard as the GREATEST threats (International Priorities)? (Please tick up to four.) (OF - Opinion formers, GP - General Public)
Failure of major banks/failure of the international financial system: 61% (OF), 45% (GP)
Interruptions to our energy supplies, such as oil and gas: 54%, 39%
International terrorism: 49%, 56%
Climate change/global warming: 44%, 25%
More countries, such as Iran and North Korea, developing nuclear weapons: 39%, 52%
Cyber security, such as threats to computers, emails and the internet: 26%, 20%
Organized crime, including hard drugs, operating across borders: 23%, 42%
A 'trade war' with countries abandoning free trade in favour of protectionism: 19%, 10%
Fragile and broken states, such as Somalia and Yemen: 14%, 11%
Chinese assertiveness: 11%, 14%
Global pandemics such as bird flu: 9%, 9%
Russian assertiveness: 4%, 8%
None of them: 1%, 3%
Don't know: 0%, 4%
Opinion formers rank global warming 4th in international priorities. The general public rank global warming 6th in international priorities.
Finding - Which of these views comes closest to your own? (General Public)
37% - ‘It is vitally important to minimize climate change; the government should take tough measures here in the UK to reduce carbon emissions, whatever other countries do’
30% - ‘It’s important to tackle climate change, but the UK should ONLY take tough measures IF other countries take similar measures’
28% - ‘I am not currently convinced that climate change is a serious threat; the UK should not take any action that makes it harder to sustain our standard of living’
9% - Don’t know
Conclusion: There may be a scientific consensus on climate change but there is not a consensus amongst opinion formers and the general public.
Mac
Very interesting poll results.
But what do you mean "There may be a scientific consensus on climate change"? There certainly is no scientific consensus (not that it would matter if there was, as we all know that there is no such thing in science as a scientific consensus), except in the mind of certain propagandists.
That poll is interesting. However, what I would be curious about is the breakdown into genda.
And then one thing that is likely never to be asked, what are the views of your partner (if you have one)?
I have a sneaky feeling that much of Cameron's and Clegg's obvious belief in CAGW comes from their spouses.
I am curious if genda plays a role (due to women's natural risk aversion and nest protection instincts)? Children can starve and die uneducated in Africa, but that is not threatening the nest, but global warming does pose a threat. Hence its prominence in green issues.
Just a pet theory.