Mod+ 234. GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND OUR ILLUSION OF CONTROL

Ahah!


The Guardian Reveals Key Funder of Global Warming Policy Foundation Is Michael Hintze




Cross-posted with permission from The Guardian
by Graham Readfearn, Leo Hickman and Rupert Neate


Michael Hintze, a leading Conservative party donor who runs the £5bn hedge fund CQS, has emerged as a financial backer of the climate sceptic thinktank founded by former chancellor, Lord Nigel Lawson.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation, launched by Lawson in 2009, regularly casts doubt on the science and cost of tackling climate change in the media and has called on climate scientists to show greater transparency, but has refused to reveal details of its donors. Leading Nasa climate scientist James Hansen calls it "one link in a devious manipulation of public opinion [regarding climate change]."

On Monday, Downing Street was forced to reveal that Hintze was among the leading Tory donors who were invited to privately dine with David Cameron at a "thank you" dinner following the general election in 2010. The revelation that Hintze, who has also donated £1.5m to the Tory party, is connected withclimate change scepticism will be an embarassment for David Cameron, who has pledged to lead the "greenest government ever".

The Guardian has seen correspondence sent by Hintze in which he appears to indicate he is financially supporting the educational charity. Last October, Hintze emerged as a key figure in the lobbying scandal which forced the resignation of the then defence secretary Liam Fox after it was revealed by the Guardian that Hintze had given free office space to Fox's controversial associate Adam Werrity and flown both Fox and Werrity on his private jet. Hintze's former charity adviser, Oliver Hylton, later lost his job at CQS after it was revealed that he was the sole director of Pargav Ltd, a company which paid for Werrity's global travel and derived its income from Conservative party donors.

Hintze's backing for the GWPF was made apparent in an email sent last September following an approach by a climate change project for funding. He declined the request, writing that he was "fully committed at this time. Furthermore we are supporting Nigel Lawson's initiative." Both Hintze and CQS have declined to comment on the email.

There have been repeated calls for the GWPF, which claims to be "all-party and non-party", to reveal the identities of its donors, but Lawson has refused saying that he offers all donors the protection of anonymity so not to risk exposing them to public criticism. He has added that his charity does not accept donations from anyone with a "significant" interest in the energy industry.

A long-running Freedom of Information request by the investigative journalist [Brendan] Montague, which was supported by Hansen, to force the Charity Commission to reveal the identity of the thinktank's seed donor was recently rejected by a judge at the Information Rights Tribunal. The judge commented, however, that she found it "rather surprising" that the GWPF claims to have significant influence over policymakers when it is registered as an educational charity. According to the Charity Commission, educational charities cannot "exist for a political purpose." This, she said, was a matter for the Charity Commission to investigate, not the tribunal.

John Prescott, the former deputy prime minister who has called for Lawson to reveal his funders, said: "Lord Lawson should own up to, not just to this donation, but also where any other donation has come from. The public interest demands greater transparency as to where the money has come from for his hostile thinktank into climate change. I've asked him in the alley way, I've asked him in parliament and I'll have to ask again: come clean, Lord Lawson."

Montague added: "Lord Lawson must now recognise there is a public interest in him being transparent about the funding of the GWPF. The Charity Commission should investigate the political nature of his climate sceptic think tank which campaigns for a change in government policy while being part funded by Tory party donors. How can the public take Lawson's demand for transparency [of climate scientists] seriously when he has been so secretive about his own funding?"

The Australian-born Hintze is a key backer of the Conservative party, donating to the party and to individual politicians since 2005. His hedge fund CQS has also donated to the party. In 2006, Hintze revealed he had loaned £2.5m to the party.

Hintze, whose personal fortune is estimated by Forbes magazine to be $1.4bn (£880m), has been lauded in philanthropic circles for his multi-million pound donations to the arts and museum projects, including major donations to the Victoria & Albert Museum in London, £2m to the National Gallery and money to help restore Michaelangelo frescoes in the Vatican's Pauline Chapel.

Charity Commission records show that in 2010 The Hintze Family Charitable Foundation also gave £100,000 to the Institute of Economic Affairs, a right-leaning, free-market thinktank, where Hintze is also a trustee. The IEA haspromoted the work of Lord Lawson and other climate sceptics, including a book claiming global warming is not caused by humans but is instead part of a natural cycle. Professor David Henderson, a member of the IEA's advisory council, is the chairman of GWPF's academic advisory council.

Hintze is also chairman of the board of trustees for the Prince's Foundation for Building Community, to which he has donated £683,954 in recent years. In 2009, Hintze received The Prince of Wales Medal for Arts Philanthropy from Prince Charles, who has been a vocal critic of climate sceptics.

In 2010 during a speech at St James' Palace, the prince said climate sceptics were peddling "pseudo science". In a speech at the European Parliament a year ago, the prince said climate sceptics were having a "corrosive effect" on public opinion and were playing a "reckless game of roulette" with the future of the planet. Last December, Hintze replaced Hylton as his charity adviser with Major William Mackinlay, Prince Charles's former equerry.

Last November, Chris Huhne, the then energy secretary, described the GWPF as "misinformed, wrong and perverse."

http://www.desmogblog.com/guardian-...obal-warming-policy-foundation-michael-hintze
 
A bunch of those quotes (all of them?) can be found here (no sources though): http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
Ah Google...
Along with this one which has just been discredited:
Quote by David Rockefeller, heir to billion dollar fortune: "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis..."

To be honest guys I am over this. I am not saying this to anyone in particular, but if anyone posts garbage sources here they are going to be found out. I am not interested in websites which sell T-shirts or resources from people who have links to mining, tobacco, petroleum, political parties or right wing think tanks.

If you want to know how the movement to deny climate change is funded read this:

Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations
Robert J. Brulle​

Abstract
This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the
organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United
States.....
Conclusion
The debate over climate change involves a political and cultural dispute contest over the
appropriate field frame that governs energy policy. The CCCM efforts focus on maintaining a
field frame that justifies unlimited use of fossil fuels by attempting to delegitmate the science that
supports the necessity of mandatory limits on carbon emissions. To accomplish this goal in the
face of massive scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change has meant the development
of an active campaign tomanipulate and mislead the public over the nature of climate science and
the threat posed by climate change. This counter-movement involves a large number of organizations,
including conservative think tanks, advocacy groups, trade associations and conservative
foundations, with strong links to sympathetic media outlets and conservative politicians.
It is without question that conservative foundations play a major role in the creation and
maintenance of the CCCM. All of the available information illustrates strong links between these
foundations and organizations in the CCCM, even despite efforts such as the creation of Donors
Trust/Capital to conceal these funding flows. The largest and most consistent funders of organizations
orchestrating efforts to defeat efforts to mitigate climate change are a number of well-known
conservative foundations. These foundations promote neoliberal free-market ideas in many realms,
and have extended their funding of conservative causes to encompass climate change.
The available data indicates that the Koch and ExxonMobil Foundations have recently
pulled back from publicly funding CCCM organizations. From 2003 to 2007, the Koch
Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were heavily involved in funding
CCCM organizations. But since 2008, they are no longer making publicly traceable contributions
to CCCM organizations. Instead, funding has shifted to pass through untraceable sources.
Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to CCCM
organizations by Donors Trust/Capital has risen dramatically.
A large portion of funding for CCCM organizations is untraceable. Despite extensive data
compilation and analyses, only a fraction of the contributions to CCCM organizations can be
specifically accounted for from public records. The sizable amount of undisclosed funding, or
“dark money” involved in the CCCM obscures the resource mobilization practices of the
CCCM. However, enough information is available to document that a number of major
conservative foundations have clearly played a crucial role in the development and maintenance
of the CCCM.
With delay and obfuscation as their goals, the U.S. CCCM has been quite successful in
recent decades. However, the key actors in this cultural and political conflict are not just the
“experts” who appear in the media spotlight. The roots of climate-change denial go deeper,
because individuals’ efforts have been bankrolled and directed by organizations that receive
sustained support from foundations and funders known for their overall commitments to
conservative causes. Thus to fully understand the opposition to climate change legislation,
we need to focus on the institutionalized efforts that have built and maintain this organized
campaign. Just as in a theatrical show, there are stars in the spotlight. In the drama of climate
change, these are often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians, such as
Senator James Inhofe. However, they are only the most visible and transparent parts of a larger
production. Supporting this effort are directors, script writers, and, most importantly, a series of
producers, in the form of conservative foundations. Clarifying the institutional dynamics of the
CCCM can aid our understanding of how anthropogenic climate change has been turned into a
controversy rather than a scientific fact in the U.S.


The discussion and methodology are really worth the read.

http://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing Delay - Climatic Change.ashx

The author can be found here:
R. J. Brulle
Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
 
Last edited:

-------------------------------------
In my previous two posts I used quotes from several leaders in the environmental movement and their supporters to expose what I can only interpret as blatant misanthropy on their part. Now I've gathered a few more quotes to demonstrate that much of the fury behind activist pronouncements of catastrophic global warming has its roots in a compulsion to control the rest of us, and an ends-justify-the-means approach to attaining that goal. Doug
In 1968 I lived in a crappy little house in the foothills of Upland, in the upper right hand corner of this picture. We waited for "the Big One", when California would shake us all in to the ocean. And any time there was the slightest tremor - people would spazz out for weeks - thinking we were all gonna die.
----------------
I remember also the nuclear air raid sirens and the drill when we kids would be instructed to hide under our desk if there was a flash of light outside, and put our heads between our knees. (Yeah, like the radiation wouldn't find us there. . . )
----------------
The Chicanos would jump the Chulos, or vice versa, and a white kid never walked to school alone.
----------------
Worst of all, though, was the smog. Dirty gray haze so thick you couldn't see the other side of the street and your eyes would sting and your chest would burn and you'd have to sit inside all day till they lifted the smog alert. The filthy air from all of LA would get carried eastward by the ocean breezes where it would get funneled and trapped against the San Gabriel Mountains under a tight lid of warmer air. And the smog would just HANG there, like a stinking clinging toxic stew. . . . Poor people in the foothills were dying and nobody knew what to do. . . .
----------------
Just like global warming - NONE of these problems had an obvious solution; and many mistakes were made trying desperately to solve them : forced integration, HOV lanes, bomb shelters, Ice-Age predictions, pets forecasting earthquakes. . . . TONNES of mistakes were made - but we did the best we could. We relied on science, trial and error, responsive government, and best laid plans. And we made it through. "Course, all of those problems are still there - but they aren't so horrible now. We kept the solutions that worked: we got catalytic converters and smokestack scrubbers and quake-proof buildings --- and we got lead taken out of the gas ! Do you have any idea the number of lives that were ruined by lead in the air ??!!

But UNLIKE potential global warming, we didn't have these acrid and unnatural divisions. Nowadays, before we can even propose a talk about a possible non-alarmist solution, one side of the debate attempts to literally de-humanize the other side, accusing us of totalitarianism, Malthusianism and God knows what else. Doug -- I'm a real human being, with a past, and a real conscience, and a couple daughters to leave behind. I don't want to see anybody die - ever. Not Americans, not Chulos, not Muslims - not even elderly Brits. And we don't want control - we want cohesion, against a common enemy of ignorance and exclusion.
 
Hi Doug. What's your source? We are at the stage of the debate where everything needs to be referenced (my view).
Jules, I think you have a point about everything needing to be referenced, and I regret not doing so for my quote posts. What I can say, though, is that the first post, in which I dated most of the quotes, is the one I spent the most research on. I ran out of steam after posting those quotes and spent considerably less time researching the others. Having said that, here are some of the sources I remember using:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/1312

http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html

http://pushback.com/issues/environment/ecofreak-quotes/

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=27941

http://www.off-road.com/trails-events/voice/genocide-threats-from-green-terrorists-16221.html

http://www.nationalcenter.org/dos7125.htm

http://ronbosoldier.blogspot.com/2007/12/human-hatred.html

http://pc.blogspot.com/2006/07/quote-extinction-of-human-species-may.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Exton1

Doug
 
Jules, I think you have a point about everything needing to be referenced, and I regret not doing so for my quote posts. What I can say, though, is that the first post, in which I dated most of the quotes, is the one I spent the most research on. I ran out of steam after posting those quotes and spent considerably less time researching the others. Having said that, here are some of the sources I remember using:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/1312

http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html

http://pushback.com/issues/environment/ecofreak-quotes/

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=27941

http://www.off-road.com/trails-events/voice/genocide-threats-from-green-terrorists-16221.html

http://www.nationalcenter.org/dos7125.htm

http://ronbosoldier.blogspot.com/2007/12/human-hatred.html

http://pc.blogspot.com/2006/07/quote-extinction-of-human-species-may.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Exton1

Doug
Hi Doug. On the net you find people saying whatever you want. You need to ask if what they are saying can be attributed and verified and what are the motivations of the person posting. I always ask 'who is funding this?' As that's when you work out what is really going on. You get the odd crank in every movement but if I turned the spotlight on these references what would be revealed is an organised campaign with dubious funding. Please note that this is what I have done with article after article posted here. If I took the quotes (which are allegations on your part) and sent them to the people you are accusing, would your allegations stand up in court? Please remember these are people and you are damaging their reputation. If you are repeating lies and distortions even if you didn't "invent" them then that is slander. You have already found one quote falsified. But you have left the rest?
You and me Doug - we are just the little guys. But we can ask really difficult questions and refuse to be sucked in by the bull..
Please check the background on these people/organisations. It's not hard. Thanks.
Jules.
 

Alex

Administrator
Alex, can you please provide a specific example of what you consider to be a "wacky idea" as it relates to global warming?
can anyone please tell us how you would implement, manage and enforce policy to effect a 30% reduction in CO2 within the next 20 years (wacky idea... pipe dream).

you can not... because you would need worldwide cooperation. given that we're at war with China (hidden, economic) and not on the best of terms with other emerging economies we have to wonder what's behind all this arm-waving about CO2? why do our politicians continue to pretend like there's some kind of real policy decision here?
 
can anyone please tell us how you would implement, manage and enforce policy to effect a 30% reduction in CO2 within the next 20 years (wacky idea... pipe dream).
??? Links? Not that this is a fave issue but I haven't seen anything about that CO2 reduction and a quick search didn't turn up anything .All I found was some pending legislation to reduce greenhouse gases by 30%.
 

Alex

Administrator
Conspiracy by whom?

In November 2009, servers at the University of East Anglia in UK were hacked into and emails were stolen. A selection of emails between climate scientists were published on the Internet and a few quotes used out of context to claim global warming was all just a vast conspiracy. This incident was nicknamed “Climategate.”
this kind of silliness is really hard to take. JUST READ THE EMAILS:

/// The IPCC Process ///

Thorne/MetO:
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary [...]

Thorne:
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

Carter:
It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.

Wigley:
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]

Overpeck:
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s
included and what is left out.

Overpeck:
I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
“Subsequent evidence” [...] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?

Wanner/NCCR:
In my [IPCC-TAR] review [...] I critcized [...] the Mann hockeytick [...]
My review was classified “unsignificant” even I inquired several times. Now the
internationally well known newspaper SPIEGEL got the information about these
early statements because I expressed my opinion in several talks, mainly in
Germany, in 2002 and 2003. I just refused to give an exclusive interview to
SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.

Coe:
Hence the AR4 Section 2.7.1.1.2 dismissal of the ACRIM composite to be
instrumental rather than solar in origin is a bit controversial. Similarly IPCC
in their discussion on solar RF since the Maunder Minimum are very dependent on
the paper by Wang et al (which I have been unable to access) in the decision to
reduce the solar RF significantly despite the many papers to the contrary in
the ISSI workshop. All this leaves the IPCC almost entirely dependent on CO2
for the explanation of current global temperatures as in Fig 2.23. since
methane CFCs and aerosols are not increasing.

Briffa:
I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of
all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!

Jones:
I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones
certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show warming.

Trenberth:
[...] opposing some things said by people like Chris Landsea who has said all the
stuff going on is natural variability. In addition to the 4 hurricanes hitting
Florida, there has been a record number hit Japan 10?? and I saw a report
saying Japanese scientists had linked this to global warming. [...] I am leaning
toward the idea of getting a box on changes in hurricanes, perhaps written by a
Japanese.

Jones:
We can put a note in that something will be there in the next draft, or Kevin
or I will write something – it depends on whether and what we get from Japan.

Jones:
Kevin, Seems that this potential Nature paper may be worth citing, if it does
say that GW is having an effect on TC activity.

Jones:
Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about
the tornadoes group.

Jones:
Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud
issue – on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be
have to involve him ?)

Stott/MetO:
My most immediate concern is to whether to leave this statement ["probably the
warmest of the last millennium"] in or whether I should remove it in the
anticipation that by the time of the 4th Assessment Report we’ll have withdrawn
this statement – Chris Folland at least seems to think this is possible.

/// Communicating Climate Change ///

Humphrey/DEFRA:
I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a
message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their
story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made
to look foolish.

Fox/Environment Agency:
if we loose the chance to make climate change a reality to people in the
regions we will have missed a major trick in REGIS.

Adams:
Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely
complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and
that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.

Lorenzoni:
I agree with the importance of extreme events as foci for public and
governmental opinion [...] ‘climate change’ needs to be present in people’s
daily lives. They should be reminded that it is a continuously occurring and
evolving phenomenon

Jones:
We don’t really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written
[...] We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff.

Mann:
the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what
the site [Real Climate] is about.

Ashton/co2.org:
Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn
this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions – bad politics – to
one about the value of a stable climate – much better politics. [...] the most
valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as
possible

Kelly:
the current commitments, even with some strengthening, are little different
from what would have happened without a climate treaty.
[...] the way to pitch the analysis is to argue that precautionary action must be
taken now to protect reserves etc against the inevitable

Singer/WWF:
we as an NGO working on climate policy need such a document pretty soon for the
public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate started and
b) in order to get into the media the context between climate
extremes/desasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and
energy

Torok/CSIRO:
[...] idea of looking at the implications of climate change for what he termed
“global icons” [...] One of these suggested icons was the Great Barrier Reef [...]
It also became apparent that there was always a local “reason” for the
destruction – cyclones, starfish, fertilizers [...] A perception of an
“unchanging” environment leads people to generate local explanations for coral
loss based on transient phenomena, while not acknowledging the possibility of
systematic damage from long-term climatic/environmental change [...] Such a
project could do a lot to raise awareness of threats to the reef from climate
change

Minns/Tyndall Centre:
In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public
relations problem with the media

Kjellen:
I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global
warming

Pierrehumbert:
What kind of circulation change could lock Europe into deadly summer heat waves
like that of last summer? That’s the sort of thing we need to think about.

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/climategate-2-0/#sthash.eWMLiI0l.dpuf
 

Alex

Administrator
??? Links? Not that this is a fave issue but I haven't seen anything about that CO2 reduction and a quick search didn't turn up anything .All I found was some pending legislation to reduce greenhouse gases by 30%.
pick any figure you like the point is the same.
 
It isn't a simple question of agreeing/disagreeing with the statement.
When you posted the Ross McKitrick article you announced it as follows:

Okay. I didn't want to go into the detail, but IMO the best and most understandable piece on this is by Ross McKitrick in the Financial Post. For the whole article, see: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/04/01/were-not-screwed/ I've included enough to explain to the layman (like me) what happened in plain English.
Among other things, McKitrick discusses core redating as the means by which Marcott et al used to derive the uptick in their paper in the journal, Science. I pointed out to you how McKitrick decontextualized a quote by Marcott that gave it an unintended meaning which Mckitrick exploited in his article. When I supplied the evidence which supported that claim, you then requested the following from me:

What I want is your own words on why McKitrick is wrong in saying that the C20th uptick is an artefact of the arbitrary redating of cores
Given that you vouched for the article’s veracity and posed the challenge to me, it was apparent that you were convinced of the article’s assertions. So much so, you referred to it as "the best and most understandable piece" on the subject. Because your point of contention was the alleged deceitful conduct on the part of Marcott in relation to the uptick, one would normally assume that you researched it beyond the one article in order to substantiate your claims before making accusations of such a scandalous nature.

However, it turns out that had you chose to, you wouldn’t have had to go very far because in his article McKitrick links to a Q&A session with Marcott that was placed online in RealClimate after the publication of Marcott's paper in Science. Marcott discusses using instrument data for their research many times throughout the session . He explains that that instrument data was used during the 20th century since there wasn't enough samples during that late period to be robust enough. It's a straight forward, matter-of-fact explanation. It's revealing that McKitrick doesn't mention that discussion in his article.

Although, McKitrick does dismissively bring up the instrumentation record (he refers to it as a thermometer), but only as means to cast doubt on its usage in the context of the research Macrcott et al performed -- as if getting an accurate and complete record was somehow how controversial. In that regard, Marcott directly addresses that issue as well -- which Mckitrick also conveniently glosses over. The fact that McKitrick chose to ignore the relevant information and focus on the nefarious 'core-redating' theory (which effectively amounts to cooking the books) provides insight into McKitrick's motivation in writing the article in the first place.

After Marcott’s paper was published the denialists freaked out because the uptick resembled the 'hockeystick'. (This can be seen in this article along with an updated reconstruction at the top of the page.)

The uptick data from the instrument record was available so it was it was included. However, the main thrust of the paper were the global temperatures over the entire Holocene period which dates back over 11,000 years ago. That was the significant part of the research. The uptick wasn’t a major feature in the paper in terms of research because it arose from the modern temperature record which isn’t controversial within the scientific community. It was included for comparison purposes as stated by Marcott:

Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record.” -- Marcott​

Michael, you also incorrectly state that Marcott didn’t reference the instrument record in their paper. In addition, you falsely imply that Marcott was deliberating withholding information for a long period of time while a major controversy swirled on around him. So how many months (or years) elapsed before Marcott finally offered to answer some questions? Between 2 to 3 weeks (depending on the actual public release date after the date-stamp on the paper). In his article, McKitrick states,

“…the Marcott team promised to clear matters up with an online FAQ. It finally appeared over the weekend….” -- McKitrick​

With the usage of the word “finally” in the above, McKitrick attempts to convey a sense of foot-dragging on the part of Marcott even though only a couple of weeks had transpired between the time of publication of the journal paper and the Q&A session where he directly answered questions about it.

Also, I mentioned above that McKitrick truncated a quote from Marcott in order to mischaracterize Marcott’s comments along the lines of him admitted to having used 'un-robust' core samples to formulate the uptick. McKitrick extracts that quote from the Q&A session and is most likely the primary reason he references it. I discuss this in my posts here, here, and here.

[The next page contains Marcott’s Q&A statements regarding their use of instrumentation records for the 20th century data as opposed to cores as alleged by McKitric, and then by you, Michael.]​

Michael, you quoted a manipulative and slanderous article written by an economist with dubious affiliations. Rather than take the time to research the other side of the debate by clicking on the link that McKitrick himself had provided in his article, you chose instead to short-circuit the process and reach erroneous conclusions which satisfied your own predisposition on the topic of global warming. You then proffered the article as a legitimate source that validated your sordid scenario. Like all the sources you cite, it’s flagrantly biased and without scientific merit. After being called out on it you doubled-down with further obfuscation and mudslinging.

Our exchanges have been both frustrating and educational at the same time. On the one hand it’s frustrating because you don’t argue in good faith, so there’s a certain amount of negativity associated with that. The upside is that I’m learning a lot about the reality of global warming. The more we learn about AGW, the better our odds will be in combating it. I look forward to more discussions with you in the future, albeit with some trepidation. Given that AGW is a collective problem, my main hope is that others are also learning something from our debates.
 
Last edited:
Below are Marcott’s Q&A statements regarding their use of instrumentation records:
Q: How does one go about reconstructing temperatures in the past?

A: Changes in Earth’s temperature for the last ~160 years are determined from instrumental data, such as thermometers on the ground or, for more recent times, satellites looking down from space. Beyond about 160 years ago, we must turn to other methods that indirectly record temperature (called “proxies”) for reconstructing past temperatures. -- Marcott

Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

A: …Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record…. -- Marcott

Q: How do you compare the Holocene temperatures to the modern instrumental data?

A: One of our primary conclusions is based on Figure 3 of the paper, which compares the magnitude of global warming seen in the instrumental temperature record of the past century to the full range of temperature variability over the entire Holocene based on our reconstruction. We conclude that the average temperature for 1900-1909 CE in the instrumental record was cooler than ~95% of the Holocene range of global temperatures, while the average temperature for 2000-2009 CE in the instrumental record was warmer than ~75% of the Holocene distribution... -- Marcott

Q: Are the proxy records seasonally biased?

A: ...This implies that the range of Holocene annual-average temperatures might have been smaller in the Northern Hemisphere than the proxy data suggest, making the observed historical temperature averages for 2000-2009 CE, obtained from instrumental records, even more unusual with respect to the full distribution of Holocene global-average temperatures. [::]

Since the CRU-EIV reconstruction is referenced as temperature anomalies from the 1961-1990 CE instrumental mean global temperature, the Holocene reconstructions are now also effectively referenced as anomalies from the 1961-1990 CE mean. [::]

Compared the histogram of Holocene paleotemperatures to the instrumental global temperature anomalies during the decades 1900-1909 CE and 2000-2009 CE. – Marcott
 
you can not... because you would need worldwide cooperation.
Alex, the issue of whether or not AGW is solvable is itself a contentious issue; as is whether or not it exists in the first place. My opinion on it is that it's solvable provided that people act in time. However, that can’t happen until there’s a collective understanding that unless we act, sooner rather than later, then we’re in for major trouble. In order to get to that level of awakening there first needs to be a discussion pertaining to the reality of AGW and its seriousness. In that regard, my question to you is, what do you find to be “wacky” about the idea that global warming is real and is caused by humans?
 
Last edited:
can anyone please tell us how you would implement, manage and enforce policy to effect a 30% reduction in CO2 within the next 20 years (wacky idea... pipe dream).

you can not... because you would need worldwide cooperation. given that we're at war with China (hidden, economic) and not on the best of terms with other emerging economies we have to wonder what's behind all this arm-waving about CO2? why do our politicians continue to pretend like there's some kind of real policy decision here?
As opposed to your wacky idea that we should do nothing?
 
Michael, you quoted a manipulative and slanderous article written by an economist with dubious affiliations. Rather than take the time to research the other side of the debate by clicking on the link that McKitrick himself had provided in his article, you chose instead to short-circuit the process and reach erroneous conclusions which satisfied your own predisposition on the topic of global warming. You then proffered the article as a legitimate source that validated your sordid scenario. Like all the sources you cite, it’s flagrantly biased and without scientific merit. After being called out on it you doubled-down with further obfuscation and mudslinging.

Our exchanges have been both frustrating and educational at the same time. On the one hand it’s frustrating because you don’t argue in good faith, so there’s a certain amount of negativity associated with that. The upside is that I’m learning a lot about the reality of global warming. The more we learn about AGW, the better our odds will be in combating it. I look forward to more discussions with you in the future, albeit with some trepidation. Given that AGW is collective problem, my main hope is that others are also learning something from our debates.
I agree with the bit about being illustrating and educational. We've both had our say, and we'll have to leave it to readers to evaluate the arguments. If they want to know more about this issue from the sceptical side, then I recommend they go to either http://wattsupwiththat.com/ or http://climateaudit.org/ and enter "Marcott" in the search box.

Heaven forfend that I should dare to post anything that challenges the orthodoxy, or that climate scientists should ever, ever, ever tell porky pies. They're as pure as the driven snow, as we all know. Global warming causes everything: hot, cold, wet, dry, even my uncle Charlie's bunions. There is nothing, so long as it can be made to sound bad, that doesn't come under its ambit, and some folk simply can't bear for there not to be some looming catastrophe. If it wasn't global warming, it would be something else; in fact, when the boondoggle is finally over, it will be something else.

Of course, you yourself wouldn't resort to mudslinging about McKitrick, who besides being an economist is a rather good statistician, and climate science could do with a lot more of those. He's also published at least 6 papers, along with McIntyre, in climate journals. If his article is slanderous, then Marcott only has to sue him. I hope he does: if and when, I will lay in a stock of popcorn.

If not arguing in good faith means I don't have faith in the church of global warming, paint me pink with purple stripes and call me guilty, for I certainly don't. Your faith is touching, but it shouldn't be a matter of faith at all. Save your faux and stilted indignation on this issue, it doesn't wash. Whatever you say, Marcott created the impression that the graph came solely from the proxy data, and that was the thing that everyone got excited about: for if it could independently duplicate the actual C20th instrumental record, that would validate the pre-C20th proxy record he came up with.

As it is, all he's got is a graph that under the most charitable interpretation stitches together incompatible data and actually means Sweet Fanny Adams. But look what Marcott actually said when the hoo-ha broke in March '13:


Shaun Marcott, a geologist at Oregon State University, says "global temperatures are warmer than about 75 percent of anything we've seen over the last 11,000 years or so." The other way to look at that is, 25 percent of the time since the last ice age, it's been warmer than now.

You might think, so what's to worry about? But Marcott says the record shows just how unusual our current warming is. "It's really the rates of change here that's amazing and atypical," he says. Essentially, it's warming up superfast.

Here's what happened. After the end of the ice age, the planet got warmer. Then, 5,000 years ago, it started to get cooler — but really slowly. In all, it cooled 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit, up until the last century or so. Then it flipped again — global average temperature shot up.

"Temperatures now have gone from that cold period to the warm period in just 100 years," Marcott says.

So it's taken just 100 years for the average temperature to change by 1.3 degrees, when it took 5,000 years to do that before.

As Rud Istvan wrily remarks:


Marcott neglected to tell NPR his methodology did not recognize ‘fast’ century changes at all–until recent thermometer records were spliced onto the 73 paleosites.

And so the next CAGW hockey stick game begins. Possibly with a pass of the puck to Canadian Steve McIntyre.

 
this kind of silliness is really hard to take.
Sadly, I think time will show its you who is being silly Alex. That's sad for the planet and sad given everything you have achieved with increasing the visibility and acceptability of the science into anomalous experience and consciousness.
  1. In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."
  2. In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".
  3. In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".
  4. In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".
  5. In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt".
  6. In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and"found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."
  7. In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".
  8. In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found "no evidence in the CRU emails thatNOAA inappropriately manipulated data".
  9. In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded "Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

Complete emails often tell a different story than carefully edited email extracts. How many here have read the official reports and the explanations which accompany the emails? Our justice system is based on the premise that people are entitled to a right of reply. I am satisfied with theirs as was every committee commissioned to investigate this. I think we all need to be careful who we listen to.

I repeat:

"The debate over climate change involves a political and cultural dispute contest over the
appropriate field frame that governs energy policy. The CCCM efforts focus on maintaining a
field frame that justifies unlimited use of fossil fuels by attempting to delegitmate the science that
supports the necessity of mandatory limits on carbon emissions. To accomplish this goal in the
face of massive scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change has meant the development
of an active campaign to manipulate and mislead the public over the nature of climate science and
the threat posed by climate change. This counter-movement involves a large number of organizations,
including conservative think tanks, advocacy groups, trade associations and conservative
foundations, with strong links to sympathetic media outlets and conservative politicians.
It is without question that conservative foundations play a major role in the creation and
maintenance of the CCCM. All of the available information illustrates strong links between these
foundations and organizations in the CCCM, even despite efforts such as the creation of Donors
Trust/Capital to conceal these funding flows. The largest and most consistent funders of organizations
orchestrating efforts to defeat efforts to mitigate climate change are a number of well-known
conservative foundations. These foundations promote neoliberal free-market ideas in many realms,
and have extended their funding of conservative causes to encompass climate change."

And this is the person saying it:

http://www.drexel.edu/culturecomm/contact/facultyDirectory/brulle/

 
Last edited:
Let people make their own minds up.

http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL REPORT.pdf

The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review
July 2010
Chair: Sir Muir Russell

Review team:
Professor Geoffrey Boulton
Professor Peter Clarke
David Eyton
Professor James Norton

For those who don't have the time:

The official inquiry into the CRU e-mails concluded that “on the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt”.
 
Top