May 10 2016

Criminalizing Climate Change Denial

Temp_anomalyHere is a non-controversial topic – some attorneys general in the US are exploring the idea of criminal charges against certain climate change deniers. This round of the climate debate was triggered by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman who issued a subpoena to ExxonMobil for financial records, e-mails, and other documents. This was followed by Attorney General Claude E. Walker of the U.S. Virgin Islands who issued a subpoena to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) for their documents related to their climate research and policy activity.

Investigation of oil companies is partly financial, did they mislead investors and overvalue their companies by ignoring the financial costs of climate change and the potential of having to leave fossil fuel assets in the ground?

Investigation of the CEI has a different focus, are they engaged in a conspiracy to mislead the public and affect public policy by knowingly manufacturing false doubt about the science of climate change?

Bill Nye was dragged into this conflict when he was askedto comment. He said:

“Was it appropriate to jail the guys from Enron?” Mr. Nye asked in a video interview with Climate Depot’s Marc Morano. “We’ll see what happens. Was it appropriate to jail people from the cigarette industry who insisted that this addictive product was not addictive, and so on?”

“In these cases, for me, as a taxpayer and voter, the introduction of this extreme doubt about climate change is affecting my quality of life as a public citizen,” Mr. Nye said. “So I can see where people are very concerned about this, and they’re pursuing criminal investigations as well as engaging in discussions like this.”

In my opinion, that is a pretty soft response. He is asking questions and saying, “We’ll see what happens.” You can conclude from this that he is open to the idea, but he is not taking a strong stance. (As an aside, I will have an opportunity to ask Bill about this at NECSS this weekend.)

Pro and Con

Here are what I see as the arguments for and against this approach to the climate debate, starting with the con side. Essentially the arguments against criminal investigation for climate change denial come down to free speech. People have a right to be wrong, to advocate for whatever position they wish, no matter how misguided.

Scientists also need to have the freedom to pursue whatever ideas or notions they feel are worthy (and for which they can find funding). They certainly should be free to express their opinions on their area of expertise.

In addition the right to lobby the government for your own interests is protected in the Constitution.

Bringing the debate about climate change to the level of a criminal investigation will have a chilling effect on open debate. Whichever side or nuanced position you feel has the most merit, we should let the free marketplace of ideas sort it out.

In favor of such criminal investigations is the possibility that some companies or organizations have been acting in bad faith. The tobacco industry is the obvious historical example – it was demonstrated in court that certain tobacco companies knew that their product was both addictive and a health risk, but they engaged in a deliberate campaign to deceive the public and manufacture doubt about the science in order to continue to sell their harmful and addictive product.

I don’t think anyone can reasonably argue now, given all the information that has come to light, that criminal and civil cases against tobacco companies were wrong because they had a chilling effect on tobacco research or that legal action violated the free speech of tobacco company executives, or even private citizens who for whatever reason doubted the connection between smoking and cancer.

At this time no criminal charges have been filed, only subpoenas for information. If there is a smoking gun showing similar bad faith, that oil company executives hid scientific information from their investors and the public, or engaged in a deliberate campaign of deception to protect their interests, I think the analogy to the tobacco industry is fairly solid.

If, on the other hand, they just honestly disagree about the science, they should have nothing to worry about.

I also have to point out that it is massively hypocritical to complain about subpoenas having a chilling effect, after those FOIA requests harassing climate scientists by trolling through their e-mails looking for anything that could be twisted into the appearance of a conspiracy.

Conclusion

People are generally adept at defending their “tribe.” For those who doubt climate change, the FOIA requests were reasonable and the subpoenas a travesty. For those who accept the consensus on climate change, the reverse is true.

For the record, I completely accept the scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels and other human activity (making cement, for example, is a huge contributor) are releasing green house gases into the atmosphere and forcing a warming of the planet. And yes, there is a robust consensus.

I have looked carefully at the arguments of those who do not accept this consensus, and in my opinion they clearly follow a pattern of dedicated science denial. They do not have any compelling arguments on their side, they distort the science, and make invalid arguments. They also are clearly aligned with an ideological agenda.

I would not advocate pursuing any sort of civil or criminal charges against people just for being wrong on the science, and I don’t think anyone else is either.

Right now there is just an investigation, with clear questions – did these companies deliberately mislead investors, did they deliberately mislead the public? Were they acting in bad faith to cover up the science, to cast doubt on the science, and to essentially put their thumb on the scale of transparent science and open debate in order to protect their corporate interests?

It is more than a little ironic that those criticizing the investigation are citing transparency and open debate as the reason. They appear to be missing the point entirely.

I think Bill’s response, “We’ll see what happens,” was perfectly reasonable.

85 responses so far

85 Responses to “Criminalizing Climate Change Denial”

  1. BillyJoe7on 10 May 2016 at 8:28 am

    Agreed that anyone who deliberately hid, distorted, or misrepresented the science for financial gain like the tobacco company executives should be prosecuted, but those like Ivan should be left alone. They have a right to be wrong.

  2. daedalus2uon 10 May 2016 at 11:20 am

    It is my understanding that the case by New York State against Exxon Mobil is quite strong. It isn’t about “climate change denial”, it is about financial fraud by not telling shareholders of Exxon Mobil about “materially adverse events” which is required under NY law.

    If releasing CO2 into the atmosphere would have effects that affected the value of Exxon Mobil stock, the company had an obligation to disclose that to the shareholders.

    They had an obligation to disclose, and instead they funded denials of the science and coverups of the science.

    If the internal company records show that they did know that AGW was “real” and lied to cover it up, that makes the case for deliberate fraud very strong.

    I hope they put Exxon Mobil executives in jail for fraud over this.

  3. Ivan Groznyon 10 May 2016 at 11:26 am

    Billy Joe,
    it’s very assuring to know that I should be (for now) “left alone” i.e. not put in jail for delict of opinion. But your more radical comrades beg to disagree. They don’t even think that children should be “left alone”.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR73mcZW7B4

  4. Ivan Groznyon 10 May 2016 at 11:26 am

    I meant “reassuring”.

  5. Ivan Groznyon 10 May 2016 at 11:33 am

    Steve,
    it’s not clear what’s exactly the difference between somebody liek Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen or John Christy, world class climtologists who don’t believe in the “consensus science” and a CEO of a big oil company who does not believe in it. That CEO may read both pro and con science and conclude that Lindzen and other are right. Are you going to forbid business people to think for themselves? Billy said that I should be left alone? If so, why not the CEO of Exxon? A private corporation has a fiduciary duty to their shareholders and has an obligation to follow the law and respect regulations. There’s zero evidence that Exxon broke any laws. This is a political witch hunt by environmental fanatics, pure and simple. It’s sad that the guy so staunch in his devotion to the 1 amendment now supports a blatant attempt at criminalizing free speech.

  6. Steven Novellaon 10 May 2016 at 12:39 pm

    Ivan,

    First, that video proves nothing. It is a poor attempt at humor.

    More importantly, I did not write anything that could reasonably be interpreted as criminalizing free speech. Nothing. I specifically said that dissent itself should not be targeted.

    This is also not about not believing in the scientific consensus.

    As I clearly stated this is about bad faith – deliberately lying in order to defraud investors or the public.

    Attacking a blatant strawman, one that requires willfully misreading what I wrote, does not reflect well on you.

  7. Lukas Xavieron 10 May 2016 at 1:44 pm

    it’s very assuring to know that I should be (for now) “left alone” i.e. not put in jail for delict of opinion.

    Must be hard to type when you’re nailed to that cross.

  8. Steven Novellaon 10 May 2016 at 1:48 pm

    The melodramatic strawmanning from the denial side is truly entertaining. All nuance is lost in the name of absurd accusations, Godwin fallacies, talks of fascism, etc. Again – very revealing.

  9. BillyJoe7on 10 May 2016 at 5:09 pm

    “Must be hard to type when you’re nailed to that cross”

    All your cryin don’t do no good
    Come on up to the house
    Come down off the cross
    We can use the wood
    Come on up to the house

    Tom Waits.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GugzLSbOQE

    😀

  10. BillyJoe7on 10 May 2016 at 5:26 pm

    Ivan,

    “It’s sad that the guy so staunch in his devotion to the 1 amendment now supports a blatant attempt at criminalizing free speech”

    Why do you always have to end up lying to make your point?

    Ivan: “it’s not clear what’s exactly the difference between somebody like Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen or John Christy, world class climatologists who don’t believe in the “consensus science” and a CEO of a big oil company who does not believe in it”

    Steven Novella: “If…executives hid scientific information from their investors and the public, or engaged in a deliberate campaign of deception to protect their interests, I think the analogy to the tobacco industry is fairly solid…If, on the other hand, they just honestly disagree about the science, they should have nothing to worry about”

  11. tmac57on 10 May 2016 at 8:15 pm

    it’s not clear what’s exactly the difference between somebody liek Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen or John Christy, world class climtologists who don’t believe in the “consensus science” and a CEO of a big oil company who does not believe in it. That CEO may read both pro and con science and conclude that Lindzen and other are right.

    But what is alleged, and seems apparent on the face of it, is that the CEO DID believe (at least accept as the head of EXXON, the company’s own internal excellent research) that AGW was a problem, and then later embarked on a secret disinformation campaign to sow doubt and uncertainty on other climate research which paralleled their own internal research.
    Now the question is : What internal documents (other than the already damming ones that have been found) say about the corporate mindset and actions taken regarding their own research, which clearly showed that CO2 release was a problem that would have consequences for their business model, and future profits. And which were, and are, the basis for the valuation of the company, and thus should have been disclosed to their stockholders.
    If EXXON internally knew, or even strongly suspected that AGW would lead to a situation globally, that resulted in a reduction in their product demand, and the possibility of stranded assets, then they had a legal responsibility to disclose those facts to their share holders.
    You can well imagine that they are loath to give up that data voluntarily, so legal action is probably the only way that investigators can proceed.

  12. michaelegnoron 10 May 2016 at 9:12 pm

    Steven,

    Should climate scientists who conspire to evade FOIA requests, to rig peer review, to destroy data rather than share it with skeptics, and to use tricks to “hide the decline” be criminally prosecuted?

    Should climate scientists who massage data and misrepresent the temperature record for the past 18 years in order to secure government funding for their fraudulent research be criminally prosecuted?

    Should scientists at the NOAA be criminally prosecuted for refusing to turn over documents and data to Congressional committee that has subpoenaed them?

    I have no objection to criminalization of the AGW debate. Much of the climate science “profession” belongs in prison.

    Bring it on.

  13. Steven Novellaon 10 May 2016 at 10:14 pm

    Michael,

    All of those accusations, however, are bullshit: http://www.c2es.org/blog/gulledgej/sixth-independent-investigation-clears-climategate-scientists

    I do think public scientists have to just suck up the FOIA requests. It is now part of the job. They should assume their work e-mails are public. And yes, they should be appropriately disciplined if they commit any fraud or deception.

    But 11 independent investigations cleared those scientists. But I guess, once you believe in ridiculous conspiracies, facts become irrelevant.

  14. steve12on 10 May 2016 at 11:30 pm

    When I was first reading more about the safety of GMOs, my bias was probably toward GMO worry as someone who cares about environmental issues. One of the first signs that something was wrong in the anti-GMO tent was the constant lying and misrepresenting. While obviously not dispositive of anything in and of itself, it was the first sign that I was dealing with bullshit

    Reading Egnor and Ivan here reminds me of that. Ivan can’t tell the truth about the words he has just read. As someone who’s politically obsessed, Egnor knows damn well that those accusations have been discredited.

    But I guess the need to bend the world to one’s ideology allows the rationalization for flat-out lying.

  15. Ivan Groznyon 11 May 2016 at 12:29 pm

    billy Joe
    Steven Novella: “If…executives hid scientific information from their investors and the public, or engaged in a deliberate campaign of deception to protect their interests, I think the analogy to the tobacco industry is fairly solid…If, on the other hand, they just honestly disagree about the science, they should have nothing to worry about”

    This is just plain stupid. Exxon is not in the business of “saving the planet” but of providing money for its shareholders. They do not have any regulatory requirement to propagandize for “climate change” (at least not yet). The distinction between hones and dishonest advocacy does not make any sense, unless you assume that the judges or someone else a monopoly in proclaiming what is the truth and what is honesty. On the other hand, it’s really ludicrous that he speculates whether Exxon “hid scientific information” from the public. First, Exxon does not have the fiduciary duty to the “public” but to its shareholders, and second – Exxon does not have a duty to “reveal”any kind of information about climate to anyone. Because Exxon is a private corporation selling oil. This is just a politically motivated witch hunt by environmentalist Talibans and their enablers, nothing more. And Novella is simply clueless as ever when it comes to this issue.

  16. Ivan Groznyon 11 May 2016 at 12:35 pm

    And if funding organizations and spending money for your own private benefit is forbidden, then all lobbying should be persecuted. For example Climate Action Partnership, a cartel of major environmentalist organizations and private corporations set to benefit from cap and trade, such as Alcoa, General Electric, Du Pont and others should be put in jail as well. If not, that only means this nonsense with Exxon is censorship. Novella and other have to decide: is spending money on “wrong” ideas a criminal act in and of itself, or is it just spending money for private gain, irrespective of the underlying justification? Or maybe just spending money for private gain justified by the theories Novella and enviro-Talibans consider “wrong”?

  17. Ivan Groznyon 11 May 2016 at 12:42 pm

    Steve Novella,
    the so called “exoneration” of the criminal conspirators in Climate gate scandal is the biggest bullshit you can imagine. In most of these “inquires” they just repeated the claims of the conspirators and refused even to call the witnesses. It was a simple whitewashing by multiple friendly panels of their pals eager to “exonerate” them.

    https://climateaudit.org/page/2/?s=climategate

  18. Ivan Groznyon 11 May 2016 at 12:50 pm

    “As I clearly stated this is about bad faith – deliberately lying in order to defraud investors or the public.”

    It cannot be OR as an “inclusive distinction”; it coudl only EITHER/OR. If the investors are relevant then the case closed since Exxon does not have fiduciary duty to use its money to fund any specific scientific research or view. Yours is a fundamental misunderstanding of the free market economy. They would have been guilty of fraud if they falsely advertised a new project’s performance, or (like the former environmentalist darling Enron) used accounting gimmicks to falsely report profit and so on. Giving the money to this or that organization doing scientific research does not have anything to do with the investors.

    If it is the “public”, on the other hand, then Exxon is not a private corporation anymore and this is censorship. Exxon has to do what someone (judges, politicians, amateur bloggers) thinks is in public interest and not what Enron thinks is in public interest.

    It could be one OR the other, not AT LEAST ONE of the above possibilities.

  19. Ivan Groznyon 11 May 2016 at 12:51 pm

    I meant “disjunction” above not “distinction”.

  20. steve12on 11 May 2016 at 1:25 pm

    Ivan the Revenge!!!!!

    Dude: you can’t process this because you’re exactly what you constantly call us – an absurdly rigid ideologue. That’s why it’s comedy gold when you levy that charge. You are the firehouse on fire.

    You’re obviously a kid, so don’t be so rigid! Get out there. Enjoy the world, learn, have fun. Absorb some other perspectives.

  21. Ivan Groznyon 11 May 2016 at 1:53 pm

    Steve Novella,

    one more thing: the same gang that is “investigating” still unspecified “crimes” of Exxon is “investigating” also Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market think tank. Is that also ok, on the basis of possible “defrauding of the investors or the public”, having nothing to do with the First amendment? Just curious…

    https://cei.org/content/cei-fights-subpoena-silence-debate-climate-change

  22. steve12on 11 May 2016 at 2:34 pm

    First he doesn’t understand the difference b/w common law and civil law. Now he doesn’t understand the distinction b/w fiduciary responsibility and freedom of speech.

    And politics is your thing, ’cause you sure ain’t a scientist….just, wow.

  23. steve12on 11 May 2016 at 2:41 pm

    Just to be clear – it’s illegal to help others commit crimes, in case you didn’t know that either 🙂

  24. The Sparrowon 11 May 2016 at 4:58 pm

    I find it hard to take anyone seriously who uses the word Taliban to describe people who disagree with them (barring very few exceptions).

  25. BillyJoe7on 11 May 2016 at 5:40 pm

    Ivan,

    I see you’re still lying:

    Ivan: “This is just plain stupid. Exxon is not in the business of “saving the planet” but of providing money for its shareholders”
    SN: “Investigation of oil companies is partly financial, did they mislead investors and overvalue their companies by ignoring the financial costs of climate change and the potential of having to leave fossil fuel assets in the ground?”

    The other part is this:

    SN: “If…executives hid scientific information from their investors and the public, or engaged in a deliberate campaign of deception to protect their interests, I think the analogy to the tobacco industry is fairly solid…”

    To argue against this point you would need to show that the tobacco industry was innocent or that oil companies engaging in a deliberate campaign of deception to protect their interests is different from what the tobacco companies engaged in.

    Ivan: “They do not have any regulatory requirement to propagandize for climate change”

    Still lying.
    Otherwise point out where SN said this

    Ivan: “On the other hand, it’s really ludicrous that he speculates whether Exxon “hid scientific information” from the public”

    Still lying.
    SN is not speculating, he is reporting on the investigation by New York attourney general. The investigation focuses on whether statements the company made to investors about climate risks as recently as this year were consistent with the company’s own long-running scientific research.

    Ivan: “Exxon does not have the fiduciary duty to the “public” but to its shareholders”
    SN: ” “If…executives hid scientific information from their investors and the public…”

    Here you are simply wrong.
    They have a fiduciary duty to the public in the sense that they cannot externalise the costs of their operations onto the public. The costs of running an oil company includes the costs of their carbon footprint. If their records show that they know they are contributing to climate change…

    “Exxon does not have a duty to “reveal”any kind of information about climate to anyone. Because Exxon is a private corporation selling oil”

    Here you are simply naive.
    Phillip Morris did not have a duty to reveal any kind of information about the harms of smoking because Phillip Morris was just a private corporation selling cigarettes.

    “This is just a politically motivated witch hunt by environmentalist Talibans and their enablers, nothing more. And Novella is simply clueless as ever when it comes to this issue”

    Stop lying, Ivan, and look in the mirror you clueless politically motivated fool.
    Yeah, and thanks for this variation of Godwin’s Law.

  26. Ivan Groznyon 12 May 2016 at 9:41 am

    Steve Novella, another question: Exxon gave about $2 million to Competitive Enterprise institute since 1998. In the same time, they gave $110 million only to the “Climate change”center at Stanford University, led by Steven Schneider and Paul Elrich, two of the most radical environmentalist fanatics in the world. Is this center going to be investigated as well?

    If not, what about CEI? Any comments? What is their crime?

    Billy Joe
    you are clueless.

    “The investigation focuses on whether statements the company made to investors about climate risks as recently as this year were consistent with the company’s own long-running scientific research.”

    The company does not do the “scientific research” in climate change. It funds different scientists and different organizations with different approaches to the issue. They gave much more money to the global warming alarmists than to the sceptics (see above)

    “Otherwise point out where SN said this”

    He is saying that Exxon should be punished if they funded sceptics while secretly believing that alarmists are right.

    “Investigation of oil companies is partly financial, did they mislead investors and overvalue their companies by ignoring the financial costs of climate change and the potential of having to leave fossil fuel assets in the ground?”

    Traslation: “did Exxon lulled their investors into giving them the money while minimizing the threat from cap-and-trade scheme imposed by government that would kill the industry.” Thus far, they seemed to have done well, although Obama is trying to legislate by executive fiat in this areas. However, the Supreme Court did strike down this rule. Just plain stupid and incoherent, but understandable if you take into account that the entire operation is not an “investigation” but a classic shakedown.

    “If…executives hid scientific information from their investors and the public, or engaged in a deliberate campaign of deception to protect their interests, I think the analogy to the tobacco industry is fairly solid”

    This is also pure nonsense. Executives of Exxon could somehow “hid” from the public the “information” every single university, newspaper, tv station in the country is repeating ad nauseam all the time. And evil Exxon has a power to “hid” all of that. Let alone the fact that there is no specific information to be hidden but an array of controversial and complicated scientific theories and philosophical debates about whether warming is big, small, natural, anthropogenic, good, bad, dangerous, beneficial and so on. If anyone is trying to hide anything that would be the politicized scientists manipulating the data in order to defend the defensible models. In all this issues scientific literature has been and is literally all over the place. I will provide a dozen of examples of this later on.

    So, that illustrates my point about Novella’s implicit assumption that Exxon has to propagandize for warming alarmism. Exxon has to fund and support only those researchers and organization that subscribe under one specific interpretations od science, data and political philosophy and to dithc all others, i.e. to propagandize for alarmism. For Novella “hiding the information” means supporting the guys he does nor agree about science.

  27. mumadaddon 12 May 2016 at 9:53 am

    http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/

    Also a film (well worth a watch): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3675568/

    The U.S. scientific community has long led the world in research on public health, environmental science, and other issues affecting the quality of life. Our scientists have produced landmark studies on the dangers of DDT, tobacco smoke, acid rain, and global warming. But at the same time, a small yet potent subset of this community leads the world in vehement denial of these dangers.

    In their new book, Merchants of Doubt, historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway explain how a loose–knit group of high-level scientists, with extensive political connections, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. In seven compelling chapters addressing tobacco, acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming, and DDT, Oreskes and Conway roll back the rug on this dark corner of the American scientific community, showing how the ideology of free market fundamentalism, aided by a too-compliant media, has skewed public understanding of some of the most pressing issues of our era.

  28. steve12on 12 May 2016 at 10:12 am

    Libertarians make many mistakes in their thinking, most of which regard confusion over (model of world) vs. (actual world).

    But there is another unstated assumption that I find amusingly naive. The notion that tyranny can only come from a government. The idea that private entities cannot become so powerful as to enact tyranny via environmental degradation, misuse of privatized public resources, or monopolization of sectors of economic trade.

    But it’s yet another of the “assumptions” that libertarians live with freely and easily, like problems re: collusion, or the fallacy that individual consumers have the resources to employ caveat emptor for all market interactions, or that there is a symmetry of size for their economic models, etc. All nonsense.

    Of course, if you look at libertarianism as an IDEAL, an important consideration to balance with others (or supercede in some cases), it’s essential for a free society.

    To treat it as more is simply foolish.

  29. Ivan Groznyon 12 May 2016 at 10:16 am

    I’ll give you some examples of scientists hiding or manipulating the information.

    In 1998 Michael Mann and coauthors published a paper with the infamous Hockey stick purporting to show unprecedented warming in the 20th century. Yet, as it turned out the paper was literally a fraud; the entire trend was fabricated by selecting a small subset of proxies with the hockey stick shape and manipulating the methodology so as to artificially inflate the contribution of this handful of proxies to the reported trend. When you remove those dubious proxies (britlecone pines) and calculate the trend on the basis of the remaining 95% of proxies you don’t get the hockey stick at all. Mann and co DID this sensitivity analysis but did not report it to the journal. And we know that because the file titled CENSORED was found at their university website with this calculation done! Needless to say that the Hockey stick graph was prominently featured in the Third assessment report of the IPCC in 2001 and was sent to every single primary school in Canada to teach the kids about the horrors of burning the fossil fuels.

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

    Steve McIntyre who was first to expose the hockey stick fraud devoted his career to auditing climate research, especially in the area of paleo-climatology. And he soon discovered that the authors publishing in the literature did not share their data and methods (as they are required). He was unable to get the data or the information about the method in more than 90% of studies he tried to replicate. In some cases he discovered not only very questionable statistical methods but also fraudulent or highly problematic use of proxies.

    Most of these scientists use federal funds which require them to make their data and pethods publicly available. Are they going to be investigated?

    Another thing is – what is the “information” Exxon may or may not “hid”. The most basic scientific problem of climate science on which everything hinges is – what is the climate sensitivity, i.e. the mount of warming expected from doubling the CO2 concentration. If sensitivity is about 2 deg C even IPCC admits there would not be much problem. And guess what, EVERY SINGLE study of climate sensitivity performed in the last 5 or 6 years (21 of them) shows sensitivity at 2 degrees or lower. That’ the “consensus science” now> Below are just some of the studies showing about 2 degrees or less sensitivity. Especially important Otto et al (2013) reporting 2 degrees sensitivity was co-authored by 15 lead authors of the latest IPCC report!

    Aldrin, M., et al., 2012. Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations of hemispheric temperature and global ocean heat content. Environmetrics, doi: 10.1002/env.2140.

    Annan, J.D., and J.C Hargreaves, 2011. On the genera­tion and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity. Climatic Change, 104, 324-436.

    Hargreaves, J.C., et al., 2012. Can the Last Glacial Maximum constrain climate sensitivity? Geophysical Research Letters, 39, L24702, doi: 10.1029/2012GL053872

    Lewis, N. 2013. An objective Bayesian, improved approach for applying optimal fingerprint techniques to estimate climate sensitivity. Journal of Climate, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00473.1.

    Lewis, N. and J.A. Curry, C., 2014. The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 focring and heat uptake estimates. Climate Dynamic, 10.1007/s00382-014-2342-y.

    Lindzen, R.S., and Y-S. Choi, 2011. On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implica­tions. Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science, 47, 377-390.

    Loehle, C., 2014. A minimal model for estimating climate sensitivity. Ecological Modelling, 276, 80-84.

    Masters, T., 2013. Observational estimates of climate sensitivity from changes in the rate of ocean heat uptake and comparison to CMIP5 models. Climate Dynamics, doi:101007/s00382-013-1770-4

    McKitrick, R., 2014. HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series. Open Journal of Statistics, 4, 527-535. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2014.47050.

    Michaels. P.J. et al., 2002. Revised 21st century temperature projections. Climate Research, 23, 1-9.

    Otto, A., F. E. L. Otto, O. Boucher, J. Church, G. Hegerl, P. M. Forster, N. P. Gillett, J. Gregory, G. C. Johnson, R. Knutti, N. Lewis, U. Lohmann, J. Marotzke, G. Myhre, D. Shindell, B. Stevens, and M. R. Allen, 2013. Energy budget constraints on climate response. Nature Geoscience, 6, 415-416.

    Ring, M.J., et al., 2012. Causes of the global warming observed since the 19th century. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 2, 401-415, doi: 10.4236/acs.2012.24035.

    Schmittner, A., et al. 2011. Climate sensitivity estimat­ed from temperature reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum. Science, 334, 1385-1388, doi: 10.1126/science.1203513.

    Skeie, R. B., T. Berntsen, M. Aldrin, M. Holden, and G. Myhre, 2014. A lower and more constrained estimate of climate sensitivity using updated observations and detailed radiative forcing time series. Earth System Dynamics, 5, 139–175.

    Spencer, R. W., and W. D. Braswell, 2013. The role of ENSO in global ocean temperature changes during 1955-2011 simulated with a 1D climate model. Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science, doi:10.1007/s13143-014-0011-z.

    van Hateren, J.H., 2012. A fractal climate response function can simulate global average temperature trends of the modern era and the past millennium. Climate Dynamics, doi: 10.1007/s00382-012-1375-3.

  30. steve12on 12 May 2016 at 12:02 pm

    Ivan is getting to troll level here:

    “Most of these scientists use federal funds which require them to make their data and pethods publicly available. Are they going to be investigated?”

    Uhhh – are you serious?

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/federal-investigators-clear-climate-scientist-michael-mann/

    No commentor here is more insulated from empirical reality that can easily be found….

  31. Ivan Groznyon 12 May 2016 at 12:27 pm

    steve 12,

    the “investigation” you mention was done by NSF, a scientific body, and dealt with the possible scientific misconduct, and not by law-enforcement agencies and attorney generals threatening criminal persecution. When Virginia attorney general Cucchineli tried to investigate Michael Mann over his use of state funds an eruption of protests against “censorship” and “inquisition” ensued, and the investigation was stopped.

    As usual, you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

  32. steve12on 12 May 2016 at 1:11 pm

    “As usual, you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.”

    Oh, the irony. It burns.

    How should matters of an accusation of scientific fraud be investigated Ivan? By right-wing ideologues who know nothing about science like you? Or maybe we should let Exxon do it?

    I guess to you that makes sense.

    Face it: you just agree with whatever your politics say. You don’t know jack or shit about any of this.

  33. steve12on 12 May 2016 at 1:15 pm

    Ivan:

    This topic notwithstanding, should Michael Mann et al. face criminal investigation?

  34. Ivan Groznyon 12 May 2016 at 1:50 pm

    Of course he should not. That’s the entire point. Both the method and the goals of this new anti-Exxon and first Cuccineli’s witch hunts were the same: in both cases the officials were requesting decades of emails, official documents and papers from the victims without any specific charges but with the insinuations that some wrongdoing MAY be found. Actually both wanted to dig up some dirt that can be used in public against the victims (with a sufficient search, something can always be foudn, as Steve Novella rightly emphasized in other contexts). And in both cases the real goal was a shakedown and intimidation of people and institutions the authorities disagreed with. Michael Mann may be a scientific fraud, but that does not mean you have a right to harass him for non-existent financial crimes. Exxon or CEI may be right or wrong about climate but that does not give you the basis to persecute them for non-existent “defrauding” of the “public”.

  35. Ivan Groznyon 12 May 2016 at 1:53 pm

    and with regard to your first comment: we are talking about Exxon here, and criminal instigations of people receiving money from it. My rhetorical question to Steve Novella was whether other people who received huge amount of money from Exxon should be investigated, specifically Schneider, Erlich and Stanford University? How is that the case that Exxon’s money given to CEI is dirty and 100 times bigger money given to Stanford “climate change” center is clean?

  36. steve12on 12 May 2016 at 2:03 pm

    So you say that Michael Mann committed fraud using tax payer money, but he should not be prosecuted for this?

    Please explain why he should be spared for what is clearly a crime.

  37. Ivan Groznyon 12 May 2016 at 2:43 pm

    I called Mann a “scientific fraud”, not that he committed a financial crime. Hockey stick was a scientific fraud, or at least a very dubious study, with proven data manipulations. But, the proper avenue for that is not the harassment for financial crimes, but rather scientific investigation. Some institutions failed miserably such as NSF and couple of others, especially those investigating the Climategate affair, who simply whitewashed the whole thing. Some did better. Congressional committee chaired by professor Edward Wegman found that “Mann’s conclusions cannot be supported by his analysis”, whereas NAS panel tiptoed around calling a spade spade, but nevertheless confirmed all substantive points raised by McIntyre and McKitrick in their critique of Mann et al. What I am saying is that a proper avenue for investigating scientific misconduct in the case of Hockey stick is not a political witch hunt for non-existent tax violations, but scientific critique and shaming by Mann’s peers and academic organizations.

  38. BillyJoe7on 12 May 2016 at 3:34 pm

    Ivan,

    All of your blathering above is negated by the inconvenient fact that…

    THE HOCKEY STICK IS REAL!

    Bummer hey?

  39. steve12on 12 May 2016 at 3:47 pm

    Ivan:

    “…shaming by Mann’s peers and academic organizations.”

    So a guy takes public money to knowingly perpetrate a fraud wherein the fraudulent science would have serious public impact, and you think a “shaming” is sufficient?

    I will say this: you’re wise to my trap! But I think that if this were asked on a different day it might have gotten a different response….

    OK – you can go back to your John Galt routine…

  40. steve12on 12 May 2016 at 3:50 pm

    “THE HOCKEY STICK IS REAL!”

    That is the funny part, isn’t it? That data’s held up 10 ways from Sunday.

    So the work was a conspiratorial fraud (the email’s prove it!) but somehow the result of the work is true.

    Go figure.

  41. tmac57on 12 May 2016 at 4:12 pm

    Boy, I tell you, that Michael Mann sure was one lucky ‘fraudster’ the way that his Fraudy McFraudface ‘hockey stick’ just happened to end up matching dozens of other data sets. Nice guess Michael!!!

    😉

    Ivan, did anyone ever tell you that you are terrible?

  42. Ivan Groznyon 12 May 2016 at 4:16 pm

    Hockey stick is bullshit. But even more funny, even if it were real, that would have contributed zero towards establishing the AGW dogma, since Mann’s reconstruction ends in 1980, just when the anthropogenic warming allegedly kicked off. The 20th century hockey stick covers only the warming in the years 1910-1940 when even the IPCC says it was mostly natural.

    And even more curiously, the tree rings Mann used for his reconstruction show a significant DECREASE in width in the last 40 years or so, in spite of thermometers measuring warming. That’s a well-known problem of “proxy divergence” and the context of the infamous “hide the decline” Climategate email, referring to Briffa’s amputation of the inconvenient post-1970 portion of the graph showing cooling.

    You two are hopeless cases.

  43. Ivan Groznyon 12 May 2016 at 4:24 pm

    tmac,
    which other “data set” did hockey stick “match”? Hockey stick is not a “data set”, but a “proxy” reconstruction of past climate, that goes against every single study of past climate ever published in the world before. Even the IPCC had shown in their First and Second assessment reports that the Middle Ages were much warmer than the 20th century. Another zealous know-nothing.

  44. daedalus2uon 12 May 2016 at 4:53 pm

    Why would you use a proxy for a period when you have actual temperature measurements? Isn’t it more accurate to use actual measurements than some proxy, which by your own admission isn’t tracking temperatures?

  45. BillyJoe7on 12 May 2016 at 5:12 pm

    d2u,

    Because Ivan doesn’t have a clue.
    He is simply mouthing what the climate denialists are telling him because it fits his political ideology.
    He is a clueless stooge for these deniers.

  46. BillyJoe7on 12 May 2016 at 5:18 pm

    It is interesting that, before any investigation has even commenced, Ivan is convinced Exxon Mobil is innocent, but the climate scientists who have been found innocent by numerous investigations are still guilty according to him.

  47. steve12on 12 May 2016 at 5:28 pm

    So all of the scientists are know-nothings. OK.

    What’s your background again Ivan? You’ve come her to tell us that the scientists know nothing about science, the constitutional law professors know nothing about the constitution, etc.

    What do you do, exactly, that has allowed you to amass so much expertise where so many who have dedicated their lives have failed?

    I know Ivan has dodged this Q in the past, so I’m not expecting much…

  48. steve12on 12 May 2016 at 5:32 pm

    >which other “data set” did hockey stick “match”? Hockey stick is not a “data set”, but a “proxy” >reconstruction ”

    So if it’s …information?… that is being used as a proxy measure for something else it’s not a “data set”? Or it’s only data if it’s a first order measure of the investigators intended query? Or…what is this kid talking about?

  49. mumadaddon 12 May 2016 at 5:46 pm

    FUD for thought.

  50. Niche Geekon 12 May 2016 at 10:45 pm

    “When Virginia attorney general Cucchineli tried to investigate Michael Mann over his use of state funds an eruption of protests against “censorship” and “inquisition” ensued, and the investigation was stopped.”

    …by the Virginia Supreme Court.

  51. BillyJoe7on 13 May 2016 at 8:19 am

    Ivan:

    “Even the IPCC had shown in their First and Second assessment reports that the Middle Ages were much warmer than the 20th century”

    This is a well known climate myth.

    The myth’s author is…Christopher Monckton!
    And the myth was uncritically taken up and spread by…Andrew Watt!
    Need I say more? Okay…

    Here is the graph from the IPCC FAR (First Assessment Report):

    http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_1990_panel3.jpg

    See the problem?
    This is not a temperature reconstruction. It is a hand-drawn schematic diagram – there aren’t even any temperatures on the vertical axis! And it ends in about 1970 – before the business end of that famous hockey stick! Not only that, but it is a schematic diagram of central England temperatures. It is not a reconstruction of global temperatures and does not accurately reflect reconstructed global temperatures. Nevertheless, here is that schematic diagram of central England temperatures extended to 2007:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Jones2009_Fig7.png

    Voila…the hockey stick!
    The schematic diagram of central England temperatures was omitted from subsequent IPCC assessment reports because actual global temperature reconstructions became available.

  52. BillyJoe7on 13 May 2016 at 9:29 am

    Ivan,

    “Hockey stick is bullshit”

    Ivan is bullshit.

    “But even more funny, even if it were real, that would have contributed zero towards establishing the AGW dogma, since Mann’s reconstruction ends in 1980”

    Ivan is funny.

    Of course the temperature reconstruction ends in 1980. After that we have actual surface thermometer readings. When you can measure the temperature with an actual thermometer, you don’t need no temperature reconstructions! Temperature reconstructions are needed when you can’t use a thermometer – like when you want to know what the temperature was a thousand years ago! Then you go for proxies like ice cores, tree rings, pollen analysis, corals etc.

    “And even more curiously, the tree rings Mann used for his reconstruction show a significant DECREASE in width in the last 40 years or so, in spite of thermometers measuring warming”

    Ivan is laugh out loud funny.

    The thermometers show warming.
    All the proxies show warming.
    Except the tree rings – they show cooling.
    So what are you going to believe – the actual thermometer readings and all the other proxies, or the tree rings?
    Ivan is going for the tree rings! 😀

    “That’s a well-known problem of “proxy divergence” and the context of the infamous “hide the decline” Climategate email”

    Ivan is just plain dumb.

    Yes, the tree rings suggested cooling, whilst all other proxies and the actual thermometer readings suggested warming. That would logically suggest that there was be something wrong with using tree rings as a proxy for temperature, especially as the temperature rose above a certain level in certain areas of the northern hemisphere where these tree rings were measured . A decision was made to leave off the temperature reconstructions from tree ring measurements after 1960 when they became obviously unreliable. That was the context of the “hide the decline” in those emails. However, it was only “hidden” in the sense that is was left off the graph. The paper in which that graph originally appeared gave a full explanation for why the tree ring proxy was left off after 1960. These facts were not “hidden” but have been openly available in the public record from 1995!

    “referring to Briffa’s amputation of the inconvenient post-1970 portion of the graph showing cooling”

    Ivan is just so ignorant.

    It was 1960.
    It was not inconvenient, it was confusing.
    It was only one proxy that was showing cooling.
    All the other proxies were showing continued warming.
    But the slam dunk was that the tree rings were showing cooling when the actual thermometer temperature readings were showing warming!

  53. Ivan Groznyon 13 May 2016 at 12:22 pm

    Billy,
    the graph in the FAR was taken from Hubert Lamb’s book and it shows, as I said, warmer MWP than current temperatures, (Lamb was the foremost paleoclimatologist who investigated the MWP and LIA). All reconstructions done before Mann et al had shown much warmer MWP, that was the absolute “consensus science” until 1998.

    As for the proxies, you are obvio

    “The thermometers show warming.
    All the proxies show warming.
    Except the tree rings – they show cooling.
    So what are you going to believe – the actual thermometer readings and all the other proxies, or the tree rings?
    Ivan is going for the tree rings! ”

    First, not all other proxies show warming. Most of them don’t. And even more importantly most of them end by 1975 or 1980, before or just around the time the supposed anthropogenic warming started.

    https://climateaudit.org/2005/02/20/bring-the-proxies-up-to-date/

    You cannot have it both ways: if tree ring proxies are not good, then you cannot parade Mann’s hockey stick based on tree ring proxies as “reliable reconstruction”. If the tree rings are good, then you have to explain how come they went down in the last 40 years while thermometers went up?

    Briffa “it was confusing”

    It was fraudulent, not “confusing”. The problem is that Jones and Briffa did not say they amputated the graph! On the contrary, they used the trickery to make the graph appear to be continuing after 1960s, while amputating the adverse post-1960 portion. It was a fraud, pure and simple.

    The fact that the full data was presented in the original publication only shows you how reliable are the proclamations of official bodies such as IPCC or WMO. I am talking about the conspiracy to manipulate the scientific data in order to present a politically convenient story in the IPCC reports. In their emails Climategate co-conspirators openly complained that Briffa reconstruction represented a problem for them in this regard, and that they needed to delete the post-1960 portion of it, in order not to “give the fodder to sceptics” (Mann). Briffa himself in a an email said that medieval times were probably warmer than today. Yet, he went along with the fraud eventually.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqzcA7SsqSA

  54. Ivan Groznyon 13 May 2016 at 12:33 pm

    “Of course the temperature reconstruction ends in 1980. After that we have actual surface thermometer readings.”

    As I said, you are a hopeless case. All major surface data sets begin in 1870s or 1880s, and some in the mid-19th century, not in 1980s!

    See for example HadCrut

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl

  55. Ivan Groznyon 13 May 2016 at 12:37 pm

    The very concept of “divergence” is based on the possibility to compare the thermometer readings with the proxy reconstructions which seem to “converge” before 1960s and “diverge” after that. Dear God, is it possible to be any denser than that…

  56. steve12on 13 May 2016 at 1:25 pm

    So “no” on the background Ivan?

    We’ve already established that you’re wrong about science, politics, law, etc – yet are very confident in ALL areas of knowledge. ISo I’d just like to know what Montessori nonsense factory produced someone such a know it all…

  57. Ivan Groznyon 13 May 2016 at 2:41 pm

    Another genius startled by the obvious: “Why would you use a proxy for a period when you have actual temperature measurements? Isn’t it more accurate to use actual measurements than some proxy, which by your own admission isn’t tracking temperatures?”

    Because you want to test how good your proxies actually are. If they do not match the modern temperature fluctuations what is then the basis for the claim that they reflect the temperatures 1000 years ago any better? And that’s why the Climategate fraudsters deleted the post -1960s part of the Briffa reconstruction without notifying the reader what they were doing – thermometers were showing warming after 1960s and tree rings – cooling, which was inconvenient, to use the favorite term of that great climate expert from Tennessee. And Phil Jones conceded that openly in one of the Climategate emails: “if I were a sceptic I would ask us why would we believe you about the past when your proxies do not replicate the 20th century warming”.

  58. Ivan Groznyon 13 May 2016 at 3:24 pm

    Steve Novella,
    I just want to repeat a few facts, because your moral and intellectual downfall in this area disturbs me greatly since I like and appreciate your knowledge and expertise in many other areas.

    1. Exxon has given much more money to the alarmist organizations and scientists then to the sceptics. Schneider’s and Erlich climate change center received $110 million whereas Competitive Enterprise Institute (which is persecuted now) received just around $2 million from 1998 on. So Exxon may have wanted to “suppress” any information favourable to climate change alarmism by giving 110 million to green fanatics like Schneider and Erlich and 50 times less to their supposed “stooges”? Looks pretty stupid to me.

    2. CEI is not a corporation but a think tank. I suspect you would not take it gladly if some attorney general launched an “investigation” against Schneider or Erlich without any criminal charges or “probable cause”, just by seeking the emails and documents for last 10 years and in order to search for some dirt. I am certain you would have considered that an attack of free speech (also I think you were not pleased with Cuccineli’s investigation of M. Mann. What’s the difference here?). That CEI is an organization doing research which challenges the global warming alarmism is not news, and nobody could have been deceived by them. The double standards here are very, very sad and revealing.

    3. The comparison with tobacco companies does not make any sense logically. The connection between tobacco smoking and lung cancer is clear and well established. And above all it’s a simple issue – whether tobacco causes cancer or not. Climate change effects of CO2 are not nearly as simple. First, what is climate sensitivity, i.e. the degree of expected warming? Recent research shows it’s much lower than previously thought (see one of my comments above summarizing the literature). Even earlier, there were studies indicating the same. If the current consensus in the scientific literature is correct (I am not sure about that, because the field is obviously very primitive) there is no problem of large warming to begin with. But, even if the consensus is wrong, the question arises: is the large warming good or bad? God or bad For whom? What should be done even if it’s bad? These questions have to do with philosophy, economic analysis and political theory. None of them could be resolved by invoking ANY scientific facts. All this shows you that the very concept you use to justify the persecution of sceptics (“they may have concealed the information”) does not make sense purely logically.

  59. steve12on 13 May 2016 at 4:25 pm

    Ivan:

    “because your moral and intellectual downfall in this area disturbs me greatly”

    Don’t understate it Ivan! Jesus J. Christ – when did kids get so friggin’ sanctimonious?

    Still nothing about where you’ve amassed greater expertise than all people on all things? You can always make up credentials like The Troll. Mind you, we’ve already shown that you’re full of shit – no ad hom or appeal to exp. Just think it would be funny

    Already funny that you continue to dodge the Q…Hey wait!

    The Troll = Ivan?

  60. Hosson 14 May 2016 at 3:22 am

    Ivan
    You have a serious lack of understanding on this issue. Hopefully I’ll be able to clarify a few things for you, if you’re willing to honestly read what I write instead of distorting it with your interpretation, which you do quite frequently.

    In New York to be charged with securities fraud under the Martin Act a misrepresentation or omission of relevant material is needed without scienter, unlike SEC securities fraud where intent is necessary.

    In 2007 ExxonMobil started reporting to investors the company’s risk due to climate change. Since the 1980s Exxon, before its merger with Mobil, has incorporate internal climate change research into their strategic planning. It appears ExxonMobil knew of the risk of climate change well before they started disclosing those risk to investors. The investigation by the New York attorney general appears justified.
    http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/

    “[ExxonMobil] does not do the ‘scientific research’ in climate change.”
    You’re wrong. They do internal research. Read the Los Angeles Times article I linked to. Understanding this is an important aspect of what possibly led to the investigation.

    Hand wave all you want, but if ExxonMobil mislead or omitted business risk, based upon internal climate change research, to investors, then that’s securities fraud.

    The New York attorney general isn’t the only one investigating ExxonMobil for fraud either. California started an investigation in January and a few other attorneys general have started investigations as well.

    ExxonMobil is being investigated by the U.S. Virgin Islands attorney general for the suspected violations of the CICO act, consumer fraud, and securities fraud.

    The CEI subpoena is related to the U.S. V.I. attorney general’s investigation of ExxonMobil. The scope of the subpoena is only related to relevant information for the investigation of ExxonMobil. CEI probably didn’t knowingly conspire to commit fraud with ExxonMobil since they are climate change denying ideologues, but the subpoenaed communications and documents may be important in building the case against ExxonMobil.

    The subpoena: https://cei.org/sites/default/files/CEI%20Subpoena%20from%20USVI%20AG%20Claude%20Walker%20April%207%202016.pdf

    It’s premature to come to any conclusions right now. We’ll have to wait and see how this all turns out.

    Hopefully that clarified a few things for you. If you’re going to respond, please don’t respond with irrelevant arguments – you’ve done that quite a bit in this comment thread.

  61. BillyJoe7on 14 May 2016 at 6:34 am

    Ivan,

    “the graph in the FAR was taken from Hubert Lamb’s book and it shows, as I said, warmer MWP than current temperatures”

    False.
    It was not a graph. It was a hand-drawn schematic diagram.
    It does not show current temperatures. It shows temperatures up to about 1970.
    It does not show gobal temperatures. It shows temperatures in central England.
    Three errors in one sentence!

    BJ: “Of course the temperature reconstruction ends in 1980. After that we have actual surface thermometer readings.”
    Ivan: “All major surface data sets begin in 1870s or 1880s, and some in the mid-19th century, not in 1980s!”

    Fair enough, that was a bit sloppy.
    But the point is that the proxies continued to be used up until is was reasonably well established that they were a reliable approximation of temperature stretching back 1000 years (except for that outlier – tree rings after 1960). There was an overlap of proxy reconstructions and instrumental temperature from about 1850 to 1960 during which time the proxy reconstructions followed the instrumental record pretty closely. Having established the reliability of the proxies, it was no longer useful to spend time on them. Climate scientists had established a reliable comparison between paleoclimate and present temperatures. It was therefore no longer useful to continue with the proxies, when they could measure the temperature directly.
    Sorry, long stories short don’t always work as intended.

    “The very concept of “divergence” is based on the possibility to compare the thermometer readings with the proxy reconstructions which seem to “converge” before 1960s and “diverge” after that”

    Incorrect.
    Only the bristlecone tree rings in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere “diverge”.
    Despite your insistence otherwise, all the other proxies largely “converged” with the temperature record for over a hundred years (in fact, the proxy reconstructions must have followed the instrumental record pretty closely, otherwise it would not have been possible to be calibrated them against temperature!). That’s why climate scientists know they are reliable proxies. Those bristlecone tree rings in the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere after 1960 were what is called an “outlier”. That is why it was left off the graph.
    But climate deniers so love their cherry picking!

    “that’s why the Climategate fraudsters deleted the post -1960s part of the Briffa reconstruction without notifying the reader what they were doing”

    As I said in my previous post, the “paper in which that graph originally appeared gave a full explanation for why the tree ring proxy was left off after 1960. These facts were not “hidden” but have been openly available in the public record from 1995!”.
    That is an undeniable fact.

    ” And Phil Jones conceded that openly in one of the Climategate emails: “if I were a sceptic I would ask us why would we believe you about the past when your proxies do not replicate the 20th century warming””

    Climate scientists were pretty sick and tired of doing all the hard work collecting all the data and putting it on the public record only to have some lazy climate denying bloggers cherry pick outliers and exaggerate their significance out of all proportion. That was indeed a large part of their motivation in leaving off the outlier (the outlier being the bristlecone high latitude northern hemisphere tree ring proxy after 1960).

    “All reconstructions done before Mann et al had shown much warmer MWP, that was the absolute “consensus science” until 1998”

    Firstly, it seems you don’t believe in “consensus science” until it suits you to do so.
    Secondly, the consensus changes as new data becomes available. That is how science works!
    Thirdly, I’m not sure you are presentiing the situation prior to 1998 accurately.

    “not all other proxies show warming. Most of them don’t”

    Here is the graph showing proxies following the instrumental record:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years#/media/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

    “If the tree rings are good, then you have to explain how come they went down in the last 40 years while thermometers went up?”

    There are many explanations for the “divergence” including warming-induced drought, sulfur dioxide emissions, air pollution, falling stratospheric ozone concentration, global dimming, microsite factors etc. Ironically, one of the likely factors is global warming itself! However the effect is most likely multifactorial.

  62. Ivan Groznyon 14 May 2016 at 4:10 pm

    Billy Joe,
    you are really hopeless case but I’ll try once again with elementary logic

    “There was an overlap of proxy reconstructions and instrumental temperature from about 1850 to 1960 during which time the proxy reconstructions followed the instrumental record pretty closely. Having established the reliability of the proxies, it was no longer useful to spend time on them”

    If your proxies do not track the temperature record after 1960 but decline instead that could mean only one of the two things. 1) proxies are not good or 2) temperature record after 1960 is not good. So, reliability of procies is not established but rather refuted. Briffa reconstruction had post-1960 portion> if it is not useful to waste time with post-1960 proxies why the original study included the post 1960 part? You don’t make any sense.

    “Only the bristlecone tree rings in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere “diverge”.”

    False. Divergence is a universal phenomenon, including all tree ring series, as well as many non-tree ring proxies, such as alcenonon series. see here
    https://climateaudit.org/2013/04/09/alkenone-divergence/

    In Briffa’s study published in 2001 consisting of tree ring series, divergence is visible in all 369 sites covering North America, Siberia, Tibetan Plateau and many other areas.So, it is not only the North American bristlecones. You confused divergence with another phenomenon: hockey stick shaped proxies. In this regard the bristlecones are indeed an”outlier” because few, if any other proxies have the hockey stick shape in the 20th century. The entire fraud in the original Mann et al study was to artificially inflate by their methodology the significance of bristlecones, and create the hockey stick graph, although 95% of the proxies used did not have a hockey stick shape.

    “As I said in my previous post, the “paper in which that graph originally appeared gave a full explanation for why the tree ring proxy was left off after 1960. These facts were not “hidden” but have been openly available in the public record from 1995!”.
    That is an undeniable fact.”

    Yes, but the problem is that the “hide the decline” email did not pertain to the original study, but to the “spaghetti graph” published in the official Third Assessment Report of th IPCC (presenting the “consensus science” that gullible amateurs such as Steve Novella still believe to be a fair summary of scientific literature).The claim that a fraud was not committed in the former does not prove it was not committed in the latter. In the IPCC graph the post-1960 portion of the Briffa reconstruction was deleted without notification. It was a fraud, pure and simple, and from the Climategate correspondence we have a clear admission as to why: not to “confuse the reader” and not to “give the fodder to sceptics”, i.e. to present a political message they wanted to present even if that included directly falsifying the results of science.

    “Climate scientists were pretty sick and tired of doing all the hard work collecting all the data and putting it on the public record only to have some lazy climate denying bloggers cherry pick outliers and exaggerate their significance out of all proportion. That was indeed a large part of their motivation in leaving off the outlier (the outlier being the bristlecone high latitude northern hemisphere tree ring proxy after 1960).”

    As is obvious by now, you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. As I shown, the bristlecones are not the outlier with regard to “divergence”, second, the Briffa study in question did NOT include the bristlecones but was based mostly on the tree ring series from Russia and China, third Briffa did not put the data on record until many years after the fact, and fourth – none of this can justify a fraudulent practice of deleting an inconvenient part of the graph from an official IPCC report without indicating that you are deleted it, and without explaining why you did it. Maybe for some reason the post-1960 portion was indeed wrong, but that had to be established, the original reconstruction had to be shown and deletion justified in some way. This was just a fraudulent amputation of the part of the reconstruction in the hope that nobody will notice. If a private company had done this the guys responsible would have ended up in jail.

    Firstly, it seems you don’t believe in “consensus science” until it suits you to do so.
    Secondly, the consensus changes as new data becomes available. That is how science works!

    Firstly, I take cum grano salis the consensus in a young and primitive area of science such as climatology. I am not saying that Mann is wrong, or Lumb right, I am just saying that the original study purporting to show the hockey stick was worthless. That does not mean automatically the conclusions are wrong, it just means that the method and data used to support the conclusions cannot support them. Another good example is climate sensitivity. Until five years ago, the consensus seemed to be that the best estimate is about 3 degrees C. The consensus in the literature right snow seems to be about 2 degrees, give or take. My guess is that probably nobody knows and that we will wait many years of decades to a more reliable results. That’s very different from the literal certainty that General relativity or quantum mechanics are correct theories.

    Secondly, yes, but Mann did not have any data, just one anomalous proxy for which even the people who collected the data (Sherwood and Idso) warned against using them as temperature proxies!!!

    Third, yes I do. If you are interested I can provide you with some links and references.

  63. Ivan Groznyon 14 May 2016 at 4:39 pm

    Hoss,

    what is the “risk of climate change”? Can you define the term for me? Unless you do that all the rest is just nonsense, or rather nonsense used as a smokescreen for political persecution. In order to be able to determine whether Exxon was aware or not of this “risk” we have first to know what we are talking about.

    This is not a matter of rhetorical hair splitting. There are some good scientific and philosophical reasons to believe that this “risk” is very low or non-existent (I can spell them out later if necessary). You can define it in many different ways, depending on your philosophical and scientific assumptions. As you seen if you read my comments, the science is all over the place, and philosophy much more so. So, define the “risk of climate change” that may affect Exxon’s future business, and then we can proceed further from that.

  64. Ivan Groznyon 14 May 2016 at 5:05 pm

    And the article from LA Times is of course a total garbage. It “discovers” that a scientist who worked for Exxon between 1986 and 1991 predicted the climate Armageddon and that Exxon’s executives did not accept that and later were routinely dismissing the same models as unreliable. That’s all. And guess what, they were right and he was wrong:

    https://climateaudit.org/2016/04/19/gavin-schmidt-and-reference-period-trickery/christy_cmip5-90-models-global-tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013/

    The article makes me even more confident that this is just a political witch hunt. “Exxon knew climate change risk is real” means approximately “one scientist working for Exxon said this in 1991, which was later shown to be wrong or at least highly questionable”.

  65. BillyJoe7on 15 May 2016 at 2:40 am

    NOTE:
    The quotes below are from the follwiing link which collates the opinons of actual climate scientists:
    http://www.wsl.ch/info/mitarbeitende/cherubin/index_EN/download/D_ArrigoetalGlobPlanCh2008.pdf
    Ivan’s repeated link is from Ross McKitrick, an ecomonist, and well known climate denier.
    —————————————————————–

    Ivan: “Divergence is a universal phenomenon, including all tree ring series”

    This is simply false.

    From the link:

    This phenomenon has been described on a range of spatial scales, and appears to be largely confined to northern forests. Other studies show no divergence at all. Other more southern, drought-stressed sites also do not show evidence of divergence

    And again:

    Any theory seeking to explain the observed divergence of northern forests will need to account for the absence of decreased climate sensitivity at some northern tree-ring sites. One notable example is a millennial-length tree-ring width record of Siberian pine from Mongolia, which demonstrates a pronounced positive response to warming in recent decades. The trees at Sol Dav, based on ecological considerations and comparisons with instrumental temperatures, do not appear to be sensitive to moisture stress.

    And again:

    Fig. 5 [note: on page 11 of the link) presents a new temperature reconstruction for the Northern Hemisphere that utilizes 15 tree-ring based proxy series that express no divergence effects. It extends from 1750–2000, is completely independent from previous Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions and was developed exclusively to test whether a “divergence-free” Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction could be derived if appropriate unbiased (i.e. showing no divergence at the local scale) tree-ring proxies were used.

    The problem posed by “divergence”:

    The principal difficulty is that the divergence disallows the direct calibration of tree growth indices with instrumental temperature data over recent decades (the period of greatest warmth over the
    last 150 years), impeding the use of such data in climatic reconstructions.

    And:

    Inclusion of divergence-affected tree-ring variations in the calibration period of such reconstructions could result in overestimation of past reconstructed temperatures, and underestimation of recent warming.

    And a suggestion based on the above:

    Development of proxy temperature reconstructions based on tree-ring records from “divergence free” sites…will also greatly improve our ability to model large-scale temperatures over recent decades.

  66. BillyJoe7on 15 May 2016 at 2:45 am

    Okay, Ivan’s link is to not to Ross McKitrick, but to Steve McIntyre, a mining exploration company director, a former minerals prospector, a semi-retired mining consultant, and Ross McKitrick’s partner in crime.

  67. BillyJoe7on 15 May 2016 at 3:43 am

    Ivan:

    “My guess is that probably nobody knows and that we will wait many years of decades to a more reliable results”

    Your guess is worthless.

    Here is a summary of the opinion of actual climate scientists (first 1:10 mins), plus more on those emails (2:00 onwards), those tree ring proxies (note that at 3:40 mins, and again at 3:56 mins, he says “some tree ring proxies”!), proxies that do track the land temperature record (4:20 mins); and why we should exclude certain data, and that excluding data is not unique to those tree rings! (4:30 mins):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc8A6SIJijs

  68. BillyJoe7on 15 May 2016 at 3:46 am

    Ivan:

    “This was just a fraudulent amputation of the part of the reconstruction in the hope that nobody will notice”

    This is just Ivan’s spin on the so-called “Climategate emails” borrowed directly from his friends in the climate denying community.
    But I’ll let Michael Mann speak for himself:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP6N9nbmS54&feature=youtu.be

    Please note the following:

    – at 3:22 mins, the climate scientists corroborating on this video with Michael Mann makes it very clear that the divergence refers to “some of the tree rings..not all of the tree rings”!. He also subsequently discusses the possible reasons for this divergence – including the effect of climate change itself!

    – at 5:10, Michael Mann says that the authors of the original study that demonstrated the “divergence” stated explicitly that this part of the tree ring proxy record should be discarded because of the fact that it is misleading data.

  69. BillyJoe7on 15 May 2016 at 4:02 am

    Not sure if I need to go on, but…

    Ivan: “If your proxies do not track the temperature record after 1960 but decline instead that could mean only one of the two things…”

    “1) proxies are not good”

    Firstly, most of those proxies are good – they do not decline after 1960.
    Secondly, there are many possible explanations for why those that are no good are no good, including the effects of climate change itself!

    “2) temperature record after 1960 is not good”

    They are good.

    “So, reliability of proxies is not established but rather refuted”

    😀

    “Briffa reconstruction had post-1960 portion> if it is not useful to waste time with post-1960 proxies why the original study included the post 1960 part?”

    Because Briffa was highlightling why those proxies were no good!

    “You don’t make any sense”

    Then pay closer attention. 😉

  70. steve12on 15 May 2016 at 9:21 am

    Wow. This is as embarrassing.

    Even more so than our constitutional debate where Ivan revealed he didn’t know anything about the subject, yet told our resident constitutional law professor that he was an idiot?

    Or the time he gave us graphs where the Y-axis units were so turned up they hid differences?

    OR when he says our problems are that we’re ideologues w/ no sense of irony.

    Or…

    OK. Let’s just say it’s yet another embarrassing debate, this time at the hands of BJ7, and leave it at that.

  71. Ivan Groznyon 15 May 2016 at 9:44 am

    I post a list of more than 20 studies of climate sensitivity published in the last 5-6 years, all having climate sensitivity at or below 2 C, and Bily genius “refutes” that with a youtube video containing some opinion poll about how many scientists believe in the “danger of climate change”. 🙂

    As for the divergence, we now jumped from North American bristlecones to “north hemisphere forests”. Of course, but guess what Billy, an overwhelming majority of sites used in tree ring chronologies come from “northern forest” 🙂

    About amputation of the post-1960 Billy gives the youtube video by Michael Mann, the guy who made a sensitivity analysis showing his reconstruction was worthless without the bristlecones but concealed that from the journal, as a “proof” that they did not amputate the graph. Bernie Madoff swearing he is a n honest guy…

    And of course, surprise, surprise, the Mikee boy is lying again: this time about the alleged “recommendation” not to use the post-1960 portion of the reconstruction. Here is what Briffa and coauthors said in the paper itself:

    “During the second half of the twentieth century, the decadal-scale trends in wood density and summer temperatures have increasingly diverged as wood density has progressively fallen. The cause of this increasing insensitivity of wood density to temperature changes is not known, but if it is not taken into account in dendroclimatic reconstructions, past temperatures could be overestimated.”

    See, not only that the decline should not be deleted or “hidden”, but it has to be taken seriously in order not to overestimate the past temperatures. Never in the study Briffa mentioned that the post-1960 part should be discarded. Mikee boy simply made that up. Moreover, Briffa himself during the Climate-gate conspiracy talks “what to do” with his reconstruction at first bitterly opposed the amputation of the post-1960s part but then eventually went along with Mann, Jones and others.

    “Firstly, most of those proxies are good – they do not decline after 1960.”

    They are not, an updated version of Briffa network, by far the largest tree ring chronology, has a pronounced post-1960s decline. Many other proxies show the decline, such as widely used alcenone series that I linked to previously. In some cases it’s almost comical: Moberg et al 2005 used the alcenone proxies upside-down to “avoid” the divergence problem. Real ingenuity. 🙂

    But, the reason why we talk about divergence at all is that the hockey stick was based exclusively on one small subset of tree ring data (bristlecone pines). You yourself said that bristlecones are bad proxies but continue to invoke Mann’s hockey stick which is based 100% on bristlecones! You cannot have it both ways: either bristlecones are good or are not good.

    The lead author of the paper you cite, D’Arrigo became famous for her statement that “if you want to make a cherry pie you have to cherry pick” referring to the ex-post selection of sites with no divergence problem, which is a clear case of scientific malpractice (you have to justify the ex ante the choice of any particular proxy, not ex post when you see the results that you like or do not like) Surprise, surprise, the results of D’Arrigo 2006 study widely used to show how divergence was “limited” were obtained by excluding half of he data that went the “wrong way” (ex post selection). When the entire data set is included , the familiar decline at the end of the 20th century (re)appears.

    https://climateaudit.org/2016/01/29/cherry-picking-by-darrigo/

    To put it in the jargon of “consensus climate science” – it’s even worse than we thought.

    As for the “explanations” for the divergence, that’s all ad hoc. There is no accepted theory why that happens, IPCC TAR says it’s unknown. Briffa et 1998 says it’s “unknown” as well. This entire desperate hand waiving now is just to control the damage. Briffa and Jones in climategate emails in 2001 clearly concede that if the divergence is shown that puts into question the reliability of proxies for the past.

  72. BillyJoe7on 15 May 2016 at 9:45 am

    I do have to concede one point though:

    BJ: “Only the bristlecone tree rings in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere “diverge”.”
    Ivan: “You confused divergence with another phenomenon: hockey stick shaped proxies. In this regard the bristlecones are indeed an”outlier””

    You are correct.

    It took me forever to find a link but here it is:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/106/48/20348.full.pdf%5D;

    My excuse is that I wrote the above posts from memory and somehow confused the Northern Hemisphere tree-rings (some, but not all, of which “diverge” from the instrumental record) with the North American bristlecone tree rings (which actually “converge” with the instrumental record) and actually came up with Northern Hemisphere bristlecone tree rings

    Sorry about that, but just scratch the word “bristlecone” from my posts above and my argument stands.

  73. BillyJoe7on 15 May 2016 at 9:51 am

    Hmmm…

    Ivan’s last desperate post appeared while I was composing mine so I didn’t see it before posting.
    I hope it resolves his concerns.

    🙂

  74. BillyJoe7on 15 May 2016 at 9:55 am

    Ivan:

    “As for the “explanations” for the divergence, that’s all ad hoc. There is no accepted theory why that happens”

    BJ on 14 May 6:34:

    “There are many explanations for the “divergence” including warming-induced drought, sulfur dioxide emissions, air pollution, falling stratospheric ozone concentration, global dimming, microsite factors etc. Ironically, one of the likely factors is global warming itself! However the effect is most likely multifactorial”

    Give it a break, Ivan. 😉

  75. Mal Adaptedon 15 May 2016 at 5:40 pm

    AFAICT, Ivan Grozny represents the paradigmatic ideologically-motivated denier of anthropogenic climate change. I use “denial” as it is used in the discipline of pschology, “in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.” Ivan’s denial appears to stem from his sheer unwillingness to acknowledge that liberty carries responsibility. His logic, such as it is, rests entirely on the argument from consequences: if the overwhelming evidence for AGW is accepted, then Ivan’s freedom to maximize his private utility by socializing his costs can be legitimately challenged.

    When confronted with the evidence, Ivan falls back on conspiracist ideation, a common feature of psychological denial. To maintain his denial, Ivan is forced to postulate a global conspiracy that has been successfully concealed for two centuries, and has enlisted thousands of scientists celebrated and obscure (one celebrated example is Svante Arrhenius, who in 1896 published the first numerical model relating climate to atmospheric CO2, and who as a Swede saw no problem with a little global warming).

    Ivan’s conspiracy theory, as with many others, is self-sealing. In his view the lopsided consensus of working climate scientists is prima facie evidence of the conspiracy. Everything a scientist who supports the consensus says, publicly or privately, is suspect; every innocuous figure of speech, every disagreement with a colleague, every equivocation or hesitation, can have only nefarious intent. When a sub-standard article is rejected for publication in a refereed journal, it must be an attempt to suppress the truth. Mike Mann’s exoneration by a US National Research Council panel merely proves the NRC is in on the plot. When politicians, whose ulterior motives are transparent to all but him, abuse their power by harassing well-respected scientists on the flimsiest of pretenses, Ivan applauds.

    I don’t think Ivan should be prosecuted, as his distorted thinking seems to be a mental health issue. OTOH, while a psychological professional might feel obliged to treat Ivan’s delusions with sensitivity, random commenters on Dr. Novella’s blog have no such obligation.

  76. Ivan Groznyon 15 May 2016 at 7:32 pm

    Billy,
    you simply don’t understand some very basic staff:buddy, if you don’t know the reason for recent divergence, you are not allowed to make any claims about the past on the basis of the same proxies.As simple as that (I hope even for you). You cannot say “oh I don’t know what it is but I am certain it’s something that does not put in question the reliability of the proxies going back”. You simply cannot do that. You have to prove it. Sorry.

    To summarize further:
    1. You claimed just a small number of proxies display divergence. Incorrect, as shown above.
    2. You and few other geniuses claimed the “hockey stick is real” but you yourself now admit is bullshit. (Mann based the hockey stick exclusively on bristleones and Graybill and Idso, the very guys who collected the bristlecone data, advised strongly against using them as temperature proxies).
    3. You claim my argument that consensus science now determines climate sensitivity at or below 2 degree is wrong (proven by me with the references to ALL 21 studies published in the litearture in the last 6 years), but you have no arguments except some silly and irrelevant polls pertaining to other issues, not climate sensitivity.
    4. You and couple of others equally clueless geniuses claimed Hockey stick proves something about AGW. It does not; even if correct, it covers only the 1910- 1940 warming which was not caused by anthropogenic CO2 (even according to the IPCC).
    5. You parroted Michael Mann’s lie that Briffa advised against using his own reconstruction in his paper. Wrong, as shown above; moreover, Briffa himself first protested against the amputation of the post-1960 part of the graph. And in the paper he advised to take the divergence very seriously.

    Mal Adapted:”I don’t think Ivan should be prosecuted, as his distorted thinking seems to be a mental health issue.”

    You are not very original here my friend. Comrades in Breznev’s USSR also believed they would look better if they start putting “people’s enemies” in psychiatric clinics rather than in Siberian Gulags.

  77. Mal Adaptedon 15 May 2016 at 9:47 pm

    Ivan Grozny: “You are not very original here my friend. Comrades in Breznev’s USSR also believed they would look better if they start putting ‘people’s enemies’ in psychiatric clinics rather than in Siberian Gulags.”

    Heh. Who said anything about putting you in a psychiatric clinic? Hard as it may be for you to believe, Brezhnev’s USSR is no more. I have no legal or medical authority over you at all, I’m just another random guy on the Internet like you. I’m not a “comrade” (or a psychiatrist, for that matter), nor is Dr. Novella’s blog a психу́шка. You’re a prisoner only of your fevered imagination.

    Get used to it, Ivan: your freedom isn’t being abridged just because someone questions your sanity. You’re free to spew any delusional nonsense that scampers across your confused mind, and I’m equally free to call it delusional nonsense. Ain’t freedom grand?

  78. Ivan Groznyon 16 May 2016 at 9:08 am

    mad Adapted

    “To maintain his denial, Ivan is forced to postulate a global conspiracy that has been successfully concealed for two centuries, and has enlisted thousands of scientists celebrated and obscure (one celebrated example is Svante Arrhenius, who in 1896 published the first numerical model relating climate to atmospheric CO2, and who as a Swede saw no problem with a little global warming).

    …And this model was wrong because it did not take into account the cloud feedback….This is just another example of a staggering scientific illiteracy. The moron thinks “climate deniers” don’t believe that the CO2 is a greenhouse gas! He never heard that virtually all scientists sceptical of global warming alarmism accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, while rejecting high climate sensitivity that would require something to be “done”. Hilarious.

  79. BillyJoe7on 17 May 2016 at 6:41 am

    “Hilarious”

    There has been no warming for 20 years
    AND
    The greenhouse effect is real

    “Hilarious”

    Climate sensitivity is low
    AND
    The Medieval Warm Period was as warm as the present

    “Hilarious”

    Random internet bloggers are believed without question
    AND
    Climate scientists are dismissed out of hand

    “Hilarious”

    “Divergence is a universal phenomenon, including all tree ring series”
    “Hockey stick covers only the 1910- 1940 warming”

    😀

  80. BillyJoe7on 17 May 2016 at 8:18 am

    Ivan,

    “You parroted Michael Mann’s lie that Briffa advised against using his own reconstruction in his paper”

    I suppose the IPCC is lying as well:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf

    “Chapter 6

    Palaeoclimate.

    Lead Authors:
    Keith R. Briffa
    (UK), Jean-Claude Duplessy (France), Fortunat Joos (Switzerland), Valérie Masson-Delmotte (France), Daniel Olago (Kenya), Bette Otto-Bliesner (USA), W. Richard Peltier (Canada), Stefan Rahmstorf (Germany), Rengaswamy Ramesh (India), Dominique Raynaud (France), David Rind (USA), Olga Solomina (Russian Federation), Ricardo Villalba (Argentina), De’er Zhang (China)”

    Section 6.6.1.1, page 472-473

    This ‘divergence’ is apparently restricted to some northern, high-
    latitude regions, but it is certainly not ubiquitous even there.
    In
    their large-scale reconstructions based on tree ring density data,
    Briffa et al. (2001) specifically excluded the post-1960 data in
    their calibration against instrumental records, to avoid biasing
    the estimation of the earlier reconstructions (hence they are not
    shown in Figure 6.10), implicitly assuming that the ‘divergence’
    was a uniquely recent phenomenon…

  81. BillyJoe7on 17 May 2016 at 8:22 am

    Ivan,

    “You parroted Michael Mann’s lie that Briffa advised against using his own reconstruction in his paper”

    I suppose the IPCC is lying as well:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf

    “Chapter 6
    Palaeoclimate

    Lead Authors:
    Keith R. Briffa
    (UK), Jean-Claude Duplessy (France), Fortunat Joos (Switzerland), Valérie Masson-Delmotte (France), Daniel Olago (Kenya), Bette Otto-Bliesner (USA), W. Richard Peltier (Canada), Stefan Rahmstorf (Germany), Rengaswamy Ramesh (India), Dominique Raynaud (France), David Rind (USA), Olga Solomina (Russian Federation), Ricardo Villalba (Argentina), De’er Zhang (China)”

    Section 6.6.1.1, page 472-473

    This ‘divergence’ is apparently restricted to some northern, high-
    latitude regions, but it is certainly not ubiquitous even there.
    In
    their large-scale reconstructions based on tree ring density data,
    Briffa et al. (2001) specifically excluded the post-1960 data in
    their calibration against instrumental records, to avoid biasing
    the estimation of the earlier reconstructions (hence they are not
    shown in Figure 6.10)
    , implicitly assuming that the ‘divergence’
    was a uniquely recent phenomenon…”

  82. BillyJoe7on 17 May 2016 at 8:38 am

    Ivan: “Hockey stick…covers only the 1910- 1940 warming”

    Is wikipedia also lying?
    Here they show the original Hockey stick graph….going all the way to 1998!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph

  83. tmac57on 18 May 2016 at 6:38 pm

    Ivan said “If sensitivity is about 2 deg C even IPCC admits there would not be much problem. ”

    I think that you are conflating what the IPCC said about an absolute rise to 2C (which is even debatable) with climate sensitivity of 2C. To stop at 2C, the world would have had to cap Co2 at 560 PPM, and we are on track to that number by 2100 if linear trends continue, as they have done since the 1800’s.
    Notice that I said “cap”, which means that we would have had to, at that point, pretty much stopped all man made causes of Co2 and other man made green house emissions related to post industrial life, or have found a way to extract Co2 from the atmosphere.
    But doing nothing at all toward that goal would doom us to ever escalating surface temperatures, and all of the bad stuff that that entails.
    The IPCC is definitely NOT OK with a 2C climate sensitivity in a BAU world.

  84. Guy Chapmanon 26 May 2016 at 6:04 pm

    Thanks, Ivan, for that tour of current climate change denialist talking points. I am happy that there are no new ones in the last couple of years.

    In case it wasn’t obvious, the way science deals with proven fraud is retraction of the paper. Research is scrutinised by other scientists and comments are also published. There are now rather a lot of independent models, and all of them show a hockey stick pattern (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph). This is not remotely controversial among scientists.

    You have failed to demonstrate any reason why climate scientists would falsify findings. Exxon has a huge financial interest in promoting climate change denialism, but any scientist who provided robust evidence that the climate is *not* warming would become very famous indeed.

  85. BillyJoe7on 27 May 2016 at 12:56 am

    Guy,

    Ivan is famous for spreading lies about climate change. Once exposed, he usually slinks off to reappear the next time he gets another opportunity to spread some more lies. He persisted for a while on this thread even after his lies about the Northern hemisphere tree rings was exposed. That was a little unusual for him. But when his lies about the hockey stick were exposed, he then simply moved onto the next thread. In that thread, when his lie about all recent papers showing a climate sensitivity of less than 2% was exposed, he suddenly disappeared from that thread also. No doubt we’ll see him again spreading more lies at the service of his political ideology.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.