From Steve McIntyre: Left- Briffa reconstruction from Oct 5, 1999 Climategate email. Matches Briffa et al 2001 Plate 3 version up to 1960. Post-1960 values deleted in 2001 version shown in red; right – emulation of IPCC AR3 figure without trick. Briffa shown here in purple for emphasis.
Dr. Richard Muller calls out the “hide the decline” aka “Mike’s Nature Trick” on this YouTube video of a presentation he gave.
For some strong background, see Steve McIntyre’s Heartland 2010 presentation here (PDF)
This presentation is riddled with factual error … as Mosh points out the claim that the divergent data was ‘hidden’ by FOI is just wrong. Gavin has a few other points about the video this clip was excerpted from
“Muller’s video and characterisation of the issues is partial, and quite frankly, misleading. He neglects to mention the actual temperatures (which is what the graphic was supposed to show), and insinuates that Jim Hansen was somehow cooking the books, because he was able to forecast that 2010 would be a near record breaking year (which was actually not hard to do). Instead of being impressed by a prediction made based on scientific reasoning and then being validated by events, he implies that scientists shouldn’t be making predictions at all. This makes no sense. Muller’s presentation contains many basic errors – conflating baroclinic instability (a cause of mid-latitude storminess) with latent heat release (the cause of tropical storms), for instance, and mis-represents Gore’s statements on a number of issues. This is in line with his previous statements on the paleoclimate reconstructions which were also overblown and misleading. Thus while he may have a great reputation in his field, and while he has certainly made some interesting (though ultimately unsuccessful) contributions to understanding ice age cycles, his statements on the broader climate issue are neither comprehensive nor reliable. He may have great confidence in his own ability, but as he himself has said: “Most of our opinions are based on false information” and “Scientists are as easily fooled as anybody else”. He might want to “take steps to compensate” for that. “
Jimbo
March 19, 2011 3:10 am
TBear says:
March 18, 2011 at 10:28 pm
Specifically, why, if Briffa is right, are not scientists of all description shouting the AGW-Worriers down? Does the scientific community,…
Charlie Foxtrot says:
March 18, 2011 at 11:21 pm
To reply to TBear, the best explanation I have heard for the AGW behavior is that it has become religion, not science. It has all the hallmarks of religion.
Tenuc says:
March 19, 2011 at 1:58 am
Climate ‘science’ is no more. Instead it has mutated into an abnormal advocacy group to push the green agenda against fossil fuels. As with any belief system, any facts which would falsify its tenets are conveniently erased, or……
You two are right on the money. Man-made global Warming belief bears the hallmarks of what traditionally would be recognised as a religion. [UK judge via the Guardian]
Scott
March 19, 2011 3:44 am
I didn’t appreciate until now that Richard Muller is the leader of the breakaway group who will reestimate global trends in temperature. William M. Briggs (Adjunct Professor of Statistical Science, Cornell University) talks about this in his blog. http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=3558
I seem to remember this was mentioned here as well.
Going by the other 47 minutes from the rest of the full video presentation, I presume Professor Muller is one of the representatives from the AGW camp.
Iggy Slanter
March 19, 2011 4:07 am
Please note that I admit to being easily confused…. But Dr. Muller believes that human emissions of CO2 causes dangerous global warming. But he destroys the science behind it (rather elegantly I might add) in only a couple of minutes. Can someone walk me through this?
jcrabb
March 19, 2011 4:43 am
What is it about retired Professors to talk about subjects they have no idea about, he is a Physicist not a Climatologist, would anybody listen to a Chemist talkking about Physics?
Stacey
March 19, 2011 5:01 am
Well he his only saying what we’ve known for many years from work here and on Climate Audit, who really gets the plaudit:-) H however he is a scientist who considers that global warming is occurring so I think the Team need to beware.
One thing he says which infuriates. “The public may not understand graphs”.
Venter
March 19, 2011 5:13 am
Crabb
Can you please tell me which of the AGW scientist is a ” Climatologist ” by qualification?
@Iggy Slanter: One might say that even though Dr. Muller personally believes that anthropogenic CO2 is causing warming, the case hasn’t been proven yet and this “science” is not the way to do it. It would be similar to a prosecuting attorney believing the accused is guilty, knows he doesn’t have the evidence, but also knows that breaking into the perp’s house without a warrant to get evidence is not the way to win the case.
This is a very simple example, of course, but what it shows is that Dr. Muller has integrity as a scientist. His personal beliefs are unimportant compared to what the true science shows, and he will go where the actual evidence leads.
Bill Illis
March 19, 2011 5:15 am
Something from the Guardian’s news article on the Berkeley group’s effort to construct a new temperature series caught my eye.
Peter Thorne, (of climategate fame, who has worked in most of the climategate institutions and until recently, was leading an effort to build a new temperature series under the auspices of the WMO and the UK Met Office) is quoted as saying,
“We need groups like Berkeley stepping up to the plate and taking this challenge on, because it’s the only way we’re going to move forwards. I wish there were 10 other groups doing this,” he says.
So, there is the playbook against the Berkeley group.
It is standard technique of the pro-AGW’ers. Get out ahead of some new non-AGW publication or get a rebuttal published in a very short timeframe in order to short-circuit any new non-AGW finding. The rebuttal allows them to ignore the finding and keep the publication/finding out of the IPCC etc. It is now the standard MO from the pro-AGW set.
Somewhere, a group from the Met, UEA and the NCDC is trying to replicate some of the Berkeley Group’s activities in advance (with the appropriate +0.4C adjustments applied) and will try to upstage them or something of the sort. Either that, or a number of groups will be ready to take the Berkeley Group’s raw database collation and apply the appropriate data torture techniques and come up with an even greater trend in temperatures.
Maybe they actually have 10 groups on standby already.
Might be a little paranoid, but this is their standard MO.
@jcrabb: You must have missed the statement of Dr. Curry about Dr. Muller: “While most of his research is in physics, Muller has also published important papers on paleoclimate…”
The man does have street cred in climate science.
jcrabb
March 19, 2011 5:31 am
Muller obviously doesn’t really know what he is talking about, in the full length presentation, he calls Saudi Arabia ‘King of Coal’ while discussing a graph displaying world Oil resources.
[Reply – So that is your reason to rubbish his expertise? Nice criterion. Ever done a presentation to a large audience? Even the most experienced will err and not notice from time to time. Chances are the audience got what he meant not what he said ~ jove, mod]
He states that Coral reef bleaching is not increasing, which is totally wrong , it only started to occur since the 70’s, seems he should just stick to Physics.
[Reply – perhaps what you mean is ‘science only started reporting it to occur in the 70s’, which is not the same thing ~ jove, mod]
Viv Evans
March 19, 2011 6:05 am
You’re indeed “not allowed to do this in science” – I am glad that some heavy hitters, who are still teaching, are now coming out with this.
This ‘trick’, btw is the precise reason why my luke-scepticism, before ClimateGate, turned into scepticism.
This ‘trick’ alone has made climate science as perpetrated by The Team into something one really doesn’t need to waste time on any longer. The Team really ought not to be called ‘scientists’ any longer.
Sadly, too many climate and other scientists have kept silent about this, which does nothing for their reputation.
Let’s praise the very few amongst them, who have been rising their heads above the parapet, and let’s hope their courage hasn’t come too late to repair the damage done not just to climate science, but to science in general.
Master Crabb:
Richard A Muller has written extensively on ice ages. He is eminently qualified to comment on this and many other related topics. His critique carries significant weight among his fellow scientists.
His explanation of his graph of fossil fuels was a bit muddled early on, but only a pedant would argue that the graph is not easy to understand.
================
From the article linked to by Jimbo, edited slightly for objectivity.:
No one who spoke to the Guardian about the Berkeley Earth project believed it would shake the faith of the minority who have set their minds againstin favor of global warming. “As new kids on the block, I think they will be given a favourable view by people, but I don’t think it will fundamentally change people’s minds,” says Thorne. Brillinger has reservations too. “There are people you are never going to change. They have their beliefs and they’re not going to back away from them.”
jcrabb
March 19, 2011 7:05 am
Sure the mistake about Saudi Arabia is not terminal, but he was a Professor at Berkely so he is in no way new to speaking in public.
Rhe idea that the ‘trick’ was a secret is a load of utter bollocks, there was a paper published about it before the IPCC report was published, so how on Earth can it be called a secret, the fact that Muller doesn’t know about this paper shows he doesn’t know what he is talking about, that he is just dabbling.
As for reef bleaching, no I don’t mean science started reporting it then, I mean that it starts being reported then because thats when the phenomenon starts, do you think Scientists only started looking at reefs in the 70’s
Iggy Slanter
March 19, 2011 7:11 am
Thank you JamesS. I appreciate your help. Cheers.
Dr. Lurtz
March 19, 2011 7:18 am
At best tree rings can only show a low to medium correlation to temperature. Tree ring growth depends upon the following [major items]:
1) Temperature
2) CO2
3) Ground Water, rain
4) Humidity
5) Amount of fertilizer, i.e., Sulfur, Iron, etc.
6) Previous Winter Season coldness/warmness.
7) Forest Fires releasing fertilizer, CO2, altering local light levels, etc.
8) Light Levels
9) Atmospheric Dust lowering leaf efficiency
10) Disease, infestations, etc.
Some of these items average out, some don’t. A stand of tree might be great for 200 years and then become not reliable due to disease, infestations, etc.
If we treat the data as low to medium correlation, we can use tree rings a one puzzle piece. The same is true for CO2. How can it be possible to leave out the increase in solar output over the last 350 years.
Just like the Catholic Church pushed that the Earth was the center of the universe, AGW push constant Solar Output with the only variable being CO2.
Since the Earth is warmer due to years of increasing Solar activity, now that the Sun has gone quiet, the average Global temperatures will plummet [higher starting point, heat input turned off].
Check -> http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
to watch the heat leave the Pacific and the Atlantic.
mitchel44
March 19, 2011 7:21 am
When the Global and Hemispheric page here, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html does not contain the names Jones, Briffa, Mann, Amman, Wahl, Osborn, or any trace of their work, maybe the fight will be over.
But not before.
Fred from Canuckistan
March 19, 2011 7:23 am
We should all be thankful that Mann, Briffa, Jones et al dabble in Climate Scientology and are not scientists developing new drugs..
With their version of scientific ethics and morality, their penchant, if not adoration for deceptive data manipulation when it is convenient to “prove” their predetermined and preferred scientific outcome would have by now resulted in a lot of very sick and dead people.
All they have done is to contribute to the flushing of tens of billions of valuable dollars down the public policy toilet, real money that could have been used by real scientists doing real work for the the real benefit of real people.
History will not be kind to these fools and the other rat-pack of eco-grifters profiting off the great scam.
jcrabb
March 19, 2011 8:40 am
Bernie:
Another issue that makes me wonder about Dr Muller’s expertise is that he states there has been no warming over the last ten years, a quick perusal of ‘Wood for Trees’ shows this statement to be incorrect, as there is quite a significant slope indicating warming has occured, it is not the flat line if what he says were to be true.
PhD student
March 19, 2011 8:42 am
No amount of evidence will impact the current belief in AGW in academia. As a PhD student I see on a daily basis how reliant academia has become on the AGW scare, it leaves me truly speechless.
Countless colleagues are dependent on CO2 being a pollutant. Their jobs depend on it, the value of their education depends on it, the relevance of their publications depends on it, and the list goes on and on.
As bad as it is, i cannot see how it will become anything but worse. The vast majority of PhD positions announced, the courses available, and funding are related to AGW.
God help the few who dare being openly skeptical in this environment.
The truth has become the biggest enemy of the system.
This will end in tears, and lots of it
chris y
March 19, 2011 9:12 am
Prof. Muller is worried about the lack of solutions to the global warming problem. He is not a CACA, but he clearly sees only problems with increased CO2 levels.
Aside from the tree ring circus discussion, I think the most important couple of minutes in the talk starts at around 3:23 of the full talk (not the excerpted video). He targets cloud cover response to warming as the key unknown issue.
Transcribed from Prof. Muller’s presentation-
“There is an uncertainty, because when you increase the carbon dioxide, making the temperature rise a little bit, this causes water vapor to evaporate, more water vapor than you would have otherwise.
That enhances the greenhouse effect, but it is believed not to enhance cloud cover.
If it enhances cloud cover significantly, then all the calculations are wrong.
Everybody admits this. This is not a contentious issue.
If you look at the IPCC- this is the big UN panel- when people say there’s consensus, that is what they are referring to. And they state in their report- and you can read the summary report, its only about 7 or 8 pages, and its available on the web- they are very clear about the fact that cloud cover is the biggest uncertainty.
And if cloud cover were to increase by 2%, in the next 50 years, we wouldn’t have global warming. So this is the big unknown.
And as you’ll see, if you believe that you can get favors from God by praying, then I suggest you pray that cloud cover will kick in. Because my evaluation is that when I show you what the problem is, if the global warming models are right (and I think they are very likely right) then we are going to have global warming. And there is nobody proposing any solution about what to do about it.”
robertvdl
March 19, 2011 9:17 am
Climategate ‘hide the decline’ in depth explanation by Stephen McIntyre 1/3
Quote of the week?
Gulf stream slows down
Gulf stream speeds up a little
Plants move uphill
Plants move downhill
Sahel to get less rain
Sahel to get more rain
Sahel to get more or less rain!
I got lots more… ;O)
This presentation is riddled with factual error … as Mosh points out the claim that the divergent data was ‘hidden’ by FOI is just wrong. Gavin has a few other points about the video this clip was excerpted from
“Muller’s video and characterisation of the issues is partial, and quite frankly, misleading. He neglects to mention the actual temperatures (which is what the graphic was supposed to show), and insinuates that Jim Hansen was somehow cooking the books, because he was able to forecast that 2010 would be a near record breaking year (which was actually not hard to do). Instead of being impressed by a prediction made based on scientific reasoning and then being validated by events, he implies that scientists shouldn’t be making predictions at all. This makes no sense. Muller’s presentation contains many basic errors – conflating baroclinic instability (a cause of mid-latitude storminess) with latent heat release (the cause of tropical storms), for instance, and mis-represents Gore’s statements on a number of issues. This is in line with his previous statements on the paleoclimate reconstructions which were also overblown and misleading. Thus while he may have a great reputation in his field, and while he has certainly made some interesting (though ultimately unsuccessful) contributions to understanding ice age cycles, his statements on the broader climate issue are neither comprehensive nor reliable. He may have great confidence in his own ability, but as he himself has said: “Most of our opinions are based on false information” and “Scientists are as easily fooled as anybody else”. He might want to “take steps to compensate” for that. “
The answer to this question might be found at Deep Throat: Follow the money
2011 USA government funding of climate science – $2.48 billion
http://climatequotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/cc2011.png
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/rdreport2011/
You two are right on the money. Man-made global Warming belief bears the hallmarks of what traditionally would be recognised as a religion. [UK judge via the Guardian]
I didn’t appreciate until now that Richard Muller is the leader of the breakaway group who will reestimate global trends in temperature. William M. Briggs (Adjunct Professor of Statistical Science, Cornell University) talks about this in his blog.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=3558
I seem to remember this was mentioned here as well.
Going by the other 47 minutes from the rest of the full video presentation, I presume Professor Muller is one of the representatives from the AGW camp.
Please note that I admit to being easily confused…. But Dr. Muller believes that human emissions of CO2 causes dangerous global warming. But he destroys the science behind it (rather elegantly I might add) in only a couple of minutes. Can someone walk me through this?
What is it about retired Professors to talk about subjects they have no idea about, he is a Physicist not a Climatologist, would anybody listen to a Chemist talkking about Physics?
Well he his only saying what we’ve known for many years from work here and on Climate Audit, who really gets the plaudit:-) H however he is a scientist who considers that global warming is occurring so I think the Team need to beware.
One thing he says which infuriates. “The public may not understand graphs”.
Crabb
Can you please tell me which of the AGW scientist is a ” Climatologist ” by qualification?
@Iggy Slanter: One might say that even though Dr. Muller personally believes that anthropogenic CO2 is causing warming, the case hasn’t been proven yet and this “science” is not the way to do it. It would be similar to a prosecuting attorney believing the accused is guilty, knows he doesn’t have the evidence, but also knows that breaking into the perp’s house without a warrant to get evidence is not the way to win the case.
This is a very simple example, of course, but what it shows is that Dr. Muller has integrity as a scientist. His personal beliefs are unimportant compared to what the true science shows, and he will go where the actual evidence leads.
Something from the Guardian’s news article on the Berkeley group’s effort to construct a new temperature series caught my eye.
Peter Thorne, (of climategate fame, who has worked in most of the climategate institutions and until recently, was leading an effort to build a new temperature series under the auspices of the WMO and the UK Met Office) is quoted as saying,
“We need groups like Berkeley stepping up to the plate and taking this challenge on, because it’s the only way we’re going to move forwards. I wish there were 10 other groups doing this,” he says.
So, there is the playbook against the Berkeley group.
It is standard technique of the pro-AGW’ers. Get out ahead of some new non-AGW publication or get a rebuttal published in a very short timeframe in order to short-circuit any new non-AGW finding. The rebuttal allows them to ignore the finding and keep the publication/finding out of the IPCC etc. It is now the standard MO from the pro-AGW set.
Somewhere, a group from the Met, UEA and the NCDC is trying to replicate some of the Berkeley Group’s activities in advance (with the appropriate +0.4C adjustments applied) and will try to upstage them or something of the sort. Either that, or a number of groups will be ready to take the Berkeley Group’s raw database collation and apply the appropriate data torture techniques and come up with an even greater trend in temperatures.
Maybe they actually have 10 groups on standby already.
Might be a little paranoid, but this is their standard MO.
@jcrabb: You must have missed the statement of Dr. Curry about Dr. Muller: “While most of his research is in physics, Muller has also published important papers on paleoclimate…”
The man does have street cred in climate science.
Muller obviously doesn’t really know what he is talking about, in the full length presentation, he calls Saudi Arabia ‘King of Coal’ while discussing a graph displaying world Oil resources.
[Reply – So that is your reason to rubbish his expertise? Nice criterion. Ever done a presentation to a large audience? Even the most experienced will err and not notice from time to time. Chances are the audience got what he meant not what he said ~ jove, mod]
He states that Coral reef bleaching is not increasing, which is totally wrong , it only started to occur since the 70’s, seems he should just stick to Physics.
[Reply – perhaps what you mean is ‘science only started reporting it to occur in the 70s’, which is not the same thing ~ jove, mod]
You’re indeed “not allowed to do this in science” – I am glad that some heavy hitters, who are still teaching, are now coming out with this.
This ‘trick’, btw is the precise reason why my luke-scepticism, before ClimateGate, turned into scepticism.
This ‘trick’ alone has made climate science as perpetrated by The Team into something one really doesn’t need to waste time on any longer. The Team really ought not to be called ‘scientists’ any longer.
Sadly, too many climate and other scientists have kept silent about this, which does nothing for their reputation.
Let’s praise the very few amongst them, who have been rising their heads above the parapet, and let’s hope their courage hasn’t come too late to repair the damage done not just to climate science, but to science in general.
Master Crabb:
Richard A Muller has written extensively on ice ages. He is eminently qualified to comment on this and many other related topics. His critique carries significant weight among his fellow scientists.
His explanation of his graph of fossil fuels was a bit muddled early on, but only a pedant would argue that the graph is not easy to understand.
================
From the article linked to by Jimbo, edited slightly for objectivity.:
No one who spoke to the Guardian about the Berkeley Earth project believed it would shake the faith of the minority who have set their minds
againstin favor of global warming. “As new kids on the block, I think they will be given a favourable view by people, but I don’t think it will fundamentally change people’s minds,” says Thorne. Brillinger has reservations too. “There are people you are never going to change. They have their beliefs and they’re not going to back away from them.”Sure the mistake about Saudi Arabia is not terminal, but he was a Professor at Berkely so he is in no way new to speaking in public.
Rhe idea that the ‘trick’ was a secret is a load of utter bollocks, there was a paper published about it before the IPCC report was published, so how on Earth can it be called a secret, the fact that Muller doesn’t know about this paper shows he doesn’t know what he is talking about, that he is just dabbling.
As for reef bleaching, no I don’t mean science started reporting it then, I mean that it starts being reported then because thats when the phenomenon starts, do you think Scientists only started looking at reefs in the 70’s
Thank you JamesS. I appreciate your help. Cheers.
At best tree rings can only show a low to medium correlation to temperature. Tree ring growth depends upon the following [major items]:
1) Temperature
2) CO2
3) Ground Water, rain
4) Humidity
5) Amount of fertilizer, i.e., Sulfur, Iron, etc.
6) Previous Winter Season coldness/warmness.
7) Forest Fires releasing fertilizer, CO2, altering local light levels, etc.
8) Light Levels
9) Atmospheric Dust lowering leaf efficiency
10) Disease, infestations, etc.
Some of these items average out, some don’t. A stand of tree might be great for 200 years and then become not reliable due to disease, infestations, etc.
If we treat the data as low to medium correlation, we can use tree rings a one puzzle piece. The same is true for CO2. How can it be possible to leave out the increase in solar output over the last 350 years.
Just like the Catholic Church pushed that the Earth was the center of the universe, AGW push constant Solar Output with the only variable being CO2.
Since the Earth is warmer due to years of increasing Solar activity, now that the Sun has gone quiet, the average Global temperatures will plummet [higher starting point, heat input turned off].
Check ->
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
to watch the heat leave the Pacific and the Atlantic.
When the Global and Hemispheric page here, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html does not contain the names Jones, Briffa, Mann, Amman, Wahl, Osborn, or any trace of their work, maybe the fight will be over.
But not before.
We should all be thankful that Mann, Briffa, Jones et al dabble in Climate Scientology and are not scientists developing new drugs..
With their version of scientific ethics and morality, their penchant, if not adoration for deceptive data manipulation when it is convenient to “prove” their predetermined and preferred scientific outcome would have by now resulted in a lot of very sick and dead people.
All they have done is to contribute to the flushing of tens of billions of valuable dollars down the public policy toilet, real money that could have been used by real scientists doing real work for the the real benefit of real people.
History will not be kind to these fools and the other rat-pack of eco-grifters profiting off the great scam.
Bernie:
Another issue that makes me wonder about Dr Muller’s expertise is that he states there has been no warming over the last ten years, a quick perusal of ‘Wood for Trees’ shows this statement to be incorrect, as there is quite a significant slope indicating warming has occured, it is not the flat line if what he says were to be true.
No amount of evidence will impact the current belief in AGW in academia. As a PhD student I see on a daily basis how reliant academia has become on the AGW scare, it leaves me truly speechless.
Countless colleagues are dependent on CO2 being a pollutant. Their jobs depend on it, the value of their education depends on it, the relevance of their publications depends on it, and the list goes on and on.
As bad as it is, i cannot see how it will become anything but worse. The vast majority of PhD positions announced, the courses available, and funding are related to AGW.
God help the few who dare being openly skeptical in this environment.
The truth has become the biggest enemy of the system.
This will end in tears, and lots of it
Prof. Muller is worried about the lack of solutions to the global warming problem. He is not a CACA, but he clearly sees only problems with increased CO2 levels.
Aside from the tree ring circus discussion, I think the most important couple of minutes in the talk starts at around 3:23 of the full talk (not the excerpted video). He targets cloud cover response to warming as the key unknown issue.
Transcribed from Prof. Muller’s presentation-
“There is an uncertainty, because when you increase the carbon dioxide, making the temperature rise a little bit, this causes water vapor to evaporate, more water vapor than you would have otherwise.
That enhances the greenhouse effect, but it is believed not to enhance cloud cover.
If it enhances cloud cover significantly, then all the calculations are wrong.
Everybody admits this. This is not a contentious issue.
If you look at the IPCC- this is the big UN panel- when people say there’s consensus, that is what they are referring to. And they state in their report- and you can read the summary report, its only about 7 or 8 pages, and its available on the web- they are very clear about the fact that cloud cover is the biggest uncertainty.
And if cloud cover were to increase by 2%, in the next 50 years, we wouldn’t have global warming. So this is the big unknown.
And as you’ll see, if you believe that you can get favors from God by praying, then I suggest you pray that cloud cover will kick in. Because my evaluation is that when I show you what the problem is, if the global warming models are right (and I think they are very likely right) then we are going to have global warming. And there is nobody proposing any solution about what to do about it.”
Climategate ‘hide the decline’ in depth explanation by Stephen McIntyre 1/3
http://www.youtube.com/user/Androidoful#p/u/1/JlCNrdna9CI
Annotated Notes for Presentation to Heartland Conference, Chicago
May 16 2010
http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/mcintyre-heartland_2010.pdf