A couple of dates for your diary. As several people have noted, Judith Curry is to give evidence on uncertainty and science policy at the US House of Representatives on 17th November. This is at 10:30am EST, which makes it 3:30pm GMT by reckoning.
Not on quite the same scale of importance, but David Holland has been speaking to BBC Norwich about Climategate and the programme will go out on Monday 15th November at 19:30. Details here.
As soon as the global warming movement puts out the call, much of the press simply comes running, ready to repeat the mantra on request. The latest to involve themselves in the Mann media movement is MSN.
"They can threaten whatever they want," the Penn State professor told me on Sunday, after his talk at the New Horizons in Science meeting at Yale University. "I'm quite confident to fight those sorts of witch-hunt attempts."
Ross McKitrick has now posted up a back and forth between himself and the authors, Mary-Elena Carr, Kate Brash, and Robert Anderson. These three were joined by a fourth author, Madeleine Rubenstein, for the subsequent responses to McKitrick. McKitrick uses the shorthand "CABR" to refer to the four, and I've adopted the same style here.
- Ross's reply to the Deutsche Bank paper.
- CABR's response - Part 1, Part 2.
- Ross's subsequent response.
There's quite a bit of reading, but it's certainly worth investing the time. The work of the CABR team is, quite frankly, extraordinary. It is so bad I'm going to refrain from further comment.
Michael Mann is rapidly developing a full-time career as a media personality. After the WaPo article, the BAS article and the Britannia Blog interview comes an appearance at the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing meeting.
After running through the evidence supporting human-caused climate change, Mann concluded that “there’s not just a hockey stick — there’s a hockey league.” Some scientific uncertainties do remain about climate change, such as the precise effects of clouds in a changing climate. “There are legitimate uncertainties,” Mann said, “but unfortunately the public discourse right now is so far from scientific discourse.”
Michael Mann in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:
I’ve been the subject of attacks by climate change deniers for more than a decade now, because of the prominent role that the “hockey stick” temperature reconstruction has played in the public discourse on climate change. This doesn’t mean that I’m numb to the outrageous attacks against me and other climate scientists. But I’m not surprised by anything anymore. There is nothing, it would seem, that the climate change denial industry isn’t willing to do in their attempts to thwart policy action to combat human-caused climate change. While the attacks have been tough to deal with at times, I’ve had a huge amount of support from my colleagues, other scientists, and ordinary citizens who have come out of the woodwork just to thank me for my contributions.
Michael Mann in Britannica Blog
I’ve been the subject of attacks by climate-change deniers for more than a decade now, because of the prominent role that the “hockey stick” temperature reconstruction has played in the public discourse on climate change. This doesn’t mean that I’m numb to the outrageous attacks against me and other climate scientists. But I’m not surprised by anything anymore. There is nothing, it would seem, that that the climate-change denial industry isn’t willing to do in their attempts to thwart policy action to combat human-caused climate change. While the attacks have been tough to deal with at times, I’ve had a huge amount of support from my colleagues, other scientists, and ordinary citizens who have come out of the woodwork just to thank me for my contributions.
H/T Shub in the comments.
Another day, another Michael Mann interview. This is very much in the vein of other recent Mann appeareances, with much griping over "deniers" and whatnot.
It is odd to see all these "journals" - WaPo, New Scientist, and now the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - come running when Mann has a message to convey.
(H/T Shub in the comments)
There are quite a few interesting links and snippets around this morning, so here, without further ado, is the latest instalment of Climate Cuttings.
Ars Technica uses CRU data difficulties to kick off an article about the problems academics have in storing their raw materials. I'm not sure that this excuses CRU, who of course had access to plenty of data repositories.
Also on the subject of openness, John Graham-Cumming returns to the subject of code availability, knocking back some of the arguments that are made against such transparency.
The recent Scientific American survey on climatology issues has been widely criticised, and the powers that be at the magazine must be regretting ever launching it now that the results are out. As Climate Change Dispatch reports, 81% think that the IPCC is corrupt and 65% think we should take no action over climate change.
I am told that there have been sightings of waxwings in the village this week.
Waxwings are what is known as an irruptive species, which is to say that they appear in the UK when food is in short supply in their normal, more northern feeding grounds. Their arrival is therefore traditionally taken as evidence of an impending cold winter.
(Weather, not climate, of course.)
The normal pattern of waxwing irruptions is for sightings to extend gradually southwards across the UK, but this year seems to be rather different, with the birds arriving all at once.
This graph (source) tells the story. The red line is this year, with the peak both earlier and higher.
Better lay some firewood in.
I've just picked up this excerpt from Sir John Beddington's evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. This formed part of the panel's inquiry into the Goverment Office for Science's work in 2009. The session came just after the Russell/UEA hearings. It looks as though Graham Stringer still had UEA on his mind.
Q26 Graham Stringer: What do you think the implications for the Freedom of Information Act are from the reviews into the University of East Anglia affair? Apart freedom of information, are there any other things that you would like to say about that?
Matt Ridley is taking aim at the ocean acidification scare again.
Before I started looking into this, I assumed the evidence for damage from ocean acidification must be strong because that is what the media kept saying. I am amazed by what I have found. Make no mistake: there are lots of threats to the ecosystems of the ocean, from over-fishing to nutrient run-off, but acidification is way down the list. The attention is deflecting funds and action from greater threats. It is time scientists had the courage to admit this.