On the Climate Audit thread, The Vergano FOI Request the irascible Nick Stokes provokes another commenter “mpaul”, to lay out all the history in a simple summary that even Nick might understand. I thought it was worth repeating here for readers who have not followed the twists and turns in detail, and also in the hope that Dr. Michael Mann might read it and get a clue. Obstruction doesn’t pay.
From this Climate Audit comment:
mpaul
But I don’t think snooping through people’s private emails is a dignified activity.
Nick, I’ll turn the sarcasm off for a moment. I agree with you on this point. I have been an advocate for Cuccinelli CID process. Say what you will about Cuccinelli’s motives, but the American justice system provides protections for the accused and standards of procedure that do not exist in the court of public opinion.
We have arrived at this point in history along the following path:
(1) Steve wanted to replicate MBH98 and asked for data. Mann initially complied, but then began to obstruct.
(2) Steve successfully obtained the needed data and demonstrated serious flaws in Mann’s approach.
(3) Mann defended his work by saying that other Hockey Stick reconstructions validated his method and his conclusions.
(4) Attention turned to replicating the other reconstructions. By now, the Team had become extremely defensive and a sort of bunker mentality took over. Years of obstruction followed.
(5) Those seeking the data and methods used in the HS reconstructions became more and more aggressive, eventually turning to FOIA as a tool to pry loose the information.
(6) Then “a miracle happened’. A file containing materials and emails requested under FOIA turned up on the internet. Most everyone would agree that the contents of the emails warranted an investigation. The only investigation that specifically looked into Mann’s conduct was undertaken by Penn State. Penn State cleared Mann noting that Mann stated:
(a) he had never falsified any data, nor had he had ever manipulated data to serve a given predetermined outcome;
(b) he never used inappropriate influence in reviewing papers by other scientists who disagreed with the conclusions of his science;
(c) he never deleted emails at the behest of any other scientist, specifically including Dr. Phil Jones, and that he never withheld data with the intention of obstructing science; and
(d) he never engaged in activities or behaviors that were inconsistent with accepted academic practices.
(7) Critics have charged that the Penn State investigation was inadequate. Michael Mann has subsequently stated that he did, in fact, participate in an orchestrated effort to delete emails covered under FOIA, raising questions about the veracity of statements he made to the Penn State investigators. Penn State seems untroubled by this.
A real, independent investigation, subject to rules of evidence and judicial procedures, is needed. Such an investigation is the only way to put and end to Climategate and is the only way to restore the tattered reputation of climate science. I think both Virginia and Pennsylvania should conduct an investigation. However, if UVa continues to obstruct the CID, then FOIA is the only option and Mann will be afforded no protection of his privacy.
Mann and UVa are playing a losing game. Its sheer folly to attempt to frustrate a State AG in a law enforcement investigation. Cuccinelli has nuclear weapons at his disposal and UVa has water pistols. If Cuccinelli loses the CID battle, he will simply file a lawsuit and obtain the materials through discovery. Or, if UVa really pisses him off, he will convene a Grand Jury. For Mann personally, this would be catastrophic. Mann and UVa should cooperate with the CID process.
It’s sad that we have arrived at this place. But at every juncture in this journey, Mann has chosen the wrong path.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

It is all going to end very badly for Michael Mann and sycophants like Nick Stokes. They get what they deserve.
Steve McIntyre says: June 3, 2011 at 9:45 pm
“Nick Stokes continues to fabricate a fake history, He says above:
They carefully did not show what the result would have been without the error. Neither did Wegman. That was left to Wahl and Ammann.
This is totally untrue. In MM2005(EE), we discussed virtually all of the permutations and combinations that were subsequently discussed by Wahl and Ammann.”
No, Steve, I think you’re making stuff up. Where in MM2005EE is your plot of what the result would have been without the decentring? Your equivalent of the plot of Wahl and Ammann? Which figure number? And how did Wegman come to miss it in his report, which included a summary of that paper? So that when asked by Stupak:
“Does your report include a recalculation of the MBH98 and MBH99 results using the CFR methodology and all the proxies used in MBH98 and MBH99, but properly centering the data? If not, why doesn’t it?”
He replied:
“Our report does not include the recalculation of MBH98 and
MBH99. We were not asked nor were we funded to do this.”
It would seem to be an obvious thing to mehtion. And when asked:
“I understand that Wahl and Ammann actually examined, among other things, the problem of data decentering, the main focus of your report, and corrected the emulation of MBH98 by recentering the data.”
he did not dispute this, insisting only that Ammann had been a student of Mann.
Phil says “The argument seems to go The Hockey Stick is broken => recent warmth is not unprecedented => it must be natural => AGW is a hoax. I leave the logical flaws in this line of reasoning as an exercise for the reader. ”
Actually I think the argument goes more like => hisotrical and physical evidence shows that recent warmth is not unprecedented, contrary to what the Hockey Stick claims=> thus there are likely natural factors as or more important in recent warming than CO2 => claims by warmists that the science is settled is therefore BS and therefore the proposed solutions are likely BS.
I see that sceptical will continue to ignore me and my comments.Here again are my words you keep ignoring.My original post is here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/02/manns-hockey-stick-climategate-and-foi-in-a-nutshell/#comment-673033
A partial quote:
“Secondly,it contradicts decades of well established research in several fields.Such as History,Archaeology,Botany,Biology and of course climate science.Research that TO THIS DAY still insist that the MWP and LIA existed and was widespread.
Thirdly,there are many published science papers attesting to the existence of the MWP :
Medieval Warm Period Project
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
You need to wake up to reality.”
Because YOU know deep down that you can not credibly answer it.Therefore just ignore it like so many have in the past.To my similar comments about the H.S. paper.And the large body of research that has the opposite conclusion about the existence and depth of the MWP and the LIA.
The “Hockey Stick” paper sticks out like a sore thumb.It is very very wrong.
It’s disconcerting to see the once mighty Nick Stokes stoop so low, and it is disconcerting the the hockey stick stumbles on, a once proud icon so tarnished and tattered, a paupered deity. Gavin gave up the Stick at Keith’s last year; it’s no good before 1500. Steve reiterates here the evidence that Michael knew his graph was not robust.
I warned you, Nick. There are now people who won’t believe you when they should. That’s a shame for them, and for you.
==============
Alcheson:
At June 4, 2011 at 1:25 am you rightly say;
“Actually I think the argument goes more like => hisotrical and physical evidence shows that recent warmth is not unprecedented, contrary to what the Hockey Stick claims=> thus there are likely natural factors as or more important in recent warming than CO2 => claims by warmists that the science is settled is therefore BS and therefore the proposed solutions are likely BS.”
Or, to put it another way, the argument goes like this.
1.
The null hypothesis is that the climate system has not changed unless there is evidence that the system has changed.
2.
It is asserted that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have changed the system (i.e. the AGW hypothesis).
3.
A change to the behaviour of the system following the emissions would be evidence that the system has changed and probably as a result of the emissions.
4.
But, to date, there is no evidence of any kind that the system has changed since the emissions began.
5.
The MBH ‘hockey stick’ seemed to show that the system has changed and that the start of the change was coincident with the start of the emissions.
6.
Several studies (notably those of McIntyre and McKitrick) proved the MBH ‘hockey stick’ was a result of faulty analysis and, therefore, it does not show that the system has changed.
7.
The fact that there is no evidence that the system has changed is important because some people argue for actions to correct the change to the system which they believe has been caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.
8.
Some people who believe in the AGW hypothesis refuse to accept that the MBH ‘hockey stick’ could be wrong so (as this thread demonstrates) they fabricate facts and histories, and they defame and smear people (notably McIntyre and McKitrick) who point out that the MBH ‘hockey stick’ is an artifact of very faulty analysis.
Richard
What is really sad is the determined effort to IGNORE several fields of research over many decades.That convincingly attest to the existence of the MWP and LIA.
I personally knew about it back in the 1970’s.It was THEN well understood.That those two major climate epochs existed.That they strongly effected us.
The “Hockey Stick” paper has become a millstone for those who irrationally cling to it.
This debate has all of the hallmarks of a religious wrangle. The only difference being that when rapture day came and went, the good prophet had the grace to hide himself away in a motel room.
Here, when the sea refused to rise up over the streets of Manhatten, the good Mannian prophets make stuff up
kim,
I agree, Nick Stokes used to be a credible voice for the alarmist crowd. But true belief has clouded his ability to think rationally. I doubt he would read The Hockey Stick Illusion as suggested, because he would see that Mann’s “censored” file was deliberately withheld despite years of requests for the data.
I think the reason that Mann refused to disclose the censored file was because it had a more valid range of proxies, and the resulting chart would have shown temperatures going in the opposite direction.
There’s an easy way to fix this problem of climate scientists’ reluctance to share their data and methods:
GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE CLIMATE SCIENCE INDUSTRY!
We could start by zero-funding all non-essential NSF and DOE projects related to “climate change”. The affected scientists could then appeal to the private sector (like the rest of us who work for a living) for their funding. I’m sure companies and individuals like GE, BP, George Soros, WWF, Greenpeace, Mother Jones, Sheryl Crow, and Fidel Castro would gladly contribute to their research. But best of all, as a private enterprise, they wouldn’t have to share their data or methods with anyone! It’s a win-win for both the taxpayers and the climate scientists!
Only element of surprise here is why these utterances of Nick Stokes are even being described politely as ” disinformation”, They should be bluntly called as lies which is what they are.
Steve McIntyre says:
Steve, how does this relate to the following discussion from MBH99? ( http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.177.955&rep=rep1&type=pdf ):
So who is Nick Stokes and why is he an apologist for Michael Mann?
Well if my livelihood/career depended on aligning my opinions on global warming with those of my employer (as is the case with Professor Nick Stokes, BSc, MSc, Phd)then I suppose I might share the same opinions as apologist Nick. Thankfuly I don’t.
http://www.cmis.csiro.au/Nick.Stokes/
In my case I’m self-employed and have spent far too much time on ClimateAudit (almost from it’s inception) and so know who is the telling the truth (Steve and Ross) and who is ‘making it up as he goes’ along in order to keep his employer happy.
Sadly Nick doesn’t understand and certainly doesn’t appreciate quite how foolish his persistence on attempting to rationalise Michael Mann’s despicable activities looks. You may have done alright up until recently Nick, browning nosing your employer, but ‘wake up and smell the roses’. The tide has changed and is now rapidly ‘FASTFLOwing’ in the other direction. Your organisation will shortly be suffering severe cuts once the whole ‘CAGW game’ is up in Oz which it will be very shortly.
Perhaps, Nick, it’s now time to put aside all this climate change stuff (especially apologising for the Hockey Stick) and to finally ‘stand on the shoulders’ of your ‘giant’ great-great grandad George? God knows the climate models could do with the injection of some ‘non-parameterised’ reality. Surely with your pedigree you can put them straight Nick?
I think it would be nice to start a new thread on sea level rise due to AGW too while these warmist guys are around commenting. There is much to be said there as well.
sunsettommy says:
No…There are many others who have confirmed the basic picture of MBH http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-6-10.html (albeit some with some with a little bit more variability in temperatures over the millenium, mainly due to a somewhat deeper LIA). Of course, all of these are based on proxy temperature records, so the usual caveats apply, but the best evidence that we have is that the late 20th century warmth appears to be higher than any other time in the last ~1300 years.
As I explained http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/02/manns-hockey-stick-climategate-and-foi-in-a-nutshell/#comment-673318 , cherry-picking studies that show the existence of some warmth over some part of a broad period that is called the MWP does not disprove this.
Smokey says:
Does it ever trouble you guys that the only sources that seem to support your version of reality are clearly biased sources? All more objective sources, like the National Academy of Sciences or the various investigations of Mann, reach different conclusions. It is like if I argued about AGW based only on writings from the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and Joe Romm!
sceptical says:
Exactly…And, that is why they are continually puzzled by the fact that the scientific community, as evidenced by all the IPCC, the various scientific societies, etc., are reaching conclusions very different from their own. Of course, they are willing to explain this away as evidence that there is a mass conspiracy impacting the entire scientific community worldwide (and extending through much of the policy community and now even private industry), rather than to reach the more obvious conclusion that their own very narrow, partisan sources of information might be biased.
Joel says: “It is like if I argued about AGW based only on writings from the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and Joe Romm”
I think you should have said:” It is like if argued about AGW based only on writings from the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and Joe Romm, Michael Mann, and the IPCC.”
The game is now played so cynically in some quarters that the idea of a hot MWP is gaining currency in some quarters as a rationale to cry ‘Uncertainty’ and ‘High Sensitivity’ and misuse both concepts.
=============
Joel Shore:
“Does it ever trouble you guys that the only sources that seem to support your version of reality are clearly biased sources? All more objective sources,…….”
Joel, Thank you so much for a real thigh-slapper! You made my day.
Perhaps a more appropriate response to Joel regarding ” rather than to reach the more obvious conclusion that their own very narrow, partisan sources of information might be biased.” would be:
Not only is MBH98 wildly inconsistent with the fact that the Vikings settled and thrived in Greenland for a while and that the Thames River was frozen over in the LIA (but not before) but even the IPPC before the Hockey Stick arrived on the scene, accepted that it clearly existed in the data.
Now as far as narrow and partisan I guess the list of research institutions from which published evidence for the MWP project was obtained is considered narrow and partisan:
Argentina
– Departamento de Geologia, Universidad Nacional del Sur, San Juan
Australia
– Advanced Centre for Queensland University Isotope Research Excellence, University of Queensland
– Antarctic Co-operative Research Centre, University of Tasmania, Hobart
– CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra, ACT – Department of Geology, The Australian National University, Canberra
– Geoscience Australia, Hobart
– Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart
– Radiogenic Isotope Laboratory, Centre for Microscopy and Microanalysis, University of Queensland
– School of Geosciences, University of Wollongong, NSW
Austria
– Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck
– Institute for High Mountain Research, Innsbruck
– Institute of Limnology, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Mondsee
Belgium
– Department of Biology, Ghent University
– Department of Biology, Section Protistology & Aquatic Ecology, Ghent University, Ghent
– Faculte Polytechnique de Mons, Mons
– International Bureau of Environmental Study, Brussels
– Universite catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve
Brazil
– Department of Geology, Center of Technology and Geosciences, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife
– Laboratory of Coastal Dynamics, Federal University of Para´, Bele´m (Pa)
Canada
– Alberta Research Council, Calgary
– Biology and Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna
– Canadian Forest Service, Edmonton, Alberta
– Centre d’Etudes Nordiques, Laboratoire de Paleoecologie Aquatique, Universite Laval, Quebec
– Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.
– Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta
– Department of Biology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario
– Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta
– Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Birtish Columbia
– Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Institute of Ocean Sciences, Sidney, British Columbia
– Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario
– Department of Geology and Geophysics, The University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta
– Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo
– Geological Survey of Canada, Vancouver, B.C.
– GEOTOP, Geochemistry and Geodynamics Research Center, Montreal, Quebec
– Institut National de la Recherché Scientifique, Centre Eau, Terre et Environnement, Quebec
– Laboratory for Paleoclimatology and Climatology, Department of Geography, University of Ottawa, Ottawa
– Laboratory for Paleoclimatology and Climatology, Ottawa-Carleton Institute of Biology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa
– Pacific Geoscience Center, Geological Survey of Canada, Sidney British Columbia
– Paleoecological Environmental Assessment and Research Lab (PEARL), Department of Biology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario
– Paleolimnology-Paleoecology Laboratory, Départment de géographie et Centre d’études nordiques, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec
– Parks Canada Fire and Vegetation Specialist, Radium Hot Springs, B.C.
– Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, Brotish Columbia
– Saskatchewan Isotope Laboratory, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon
– School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia
Chile
– Center for Advanced Studies in Ecology and Biodiversity, Departamento de Ecologia, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago
– Center for Oceanographic Research in the Eastern South Pacific, University of Concepcion, Concepcion
– Department of Geophysics, University of Concepcion, Concepcion
– Department of Oceanography, University of Concepcion, Concepcion
– Departamento de Geologia, Facultad de Ciencias Fisicas y Matematicas, Universidad de Chile, Santiago
– Institute of Ecology and Biodiversity, Las Palmeras, Santiago
– Servicio Nacional de Geologia y Mineria, Santiago
– Universidad de Concepcion, Concepcion
China
– Administrative Center for China’s Agenda 21th Century, Beijing
– Center for Arid Environment and Paleoclimate Research, Lanzhou University
– China Center of Desert Research, Beijing Normal University
– Climate Data Center of Qinghai, Qinghai Meteorological Bureau, Xining – Cold and Arid Regions Environmental and Engineering Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou
– College of Marine Geosciences, Ocean University of China, Qingdao
– College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Northeast Normal University, Changchun
– Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Peking University, Beijing
– Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China
– Department of Environment Engineering, School of Energy and Power Engineering of Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an
– Department of Resources and Environment Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing
– East China Normal University, Shanghai
– First Institute of Oceanography, Qingdao
– Geological Analysis Center, Beijing
– Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing
– Institute of Chinese History and Geography, Fudan University, Shanghai
– Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xi’an High-Tech Zone, Xi’an
– Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing
– Institute of Geology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing
– Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Science
– Institute of Hydrologic and Environmental Geology, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, Zhengding
– Institute of Peatmire, Northeast Normal University, Changchun, Jilin
– Institute of Plateau Meteorology, China Meteorological Administration, Chengdu
– Institute of Resources and Environment, Beijing Normal University, Beijing
– Institute of Salty Lake, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xining
– Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing
– Key Laboratory of Geographic Information Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai
– Key Laboratory of Lake Sedimentation and Environment, Nanjing Institute of Geography and Limnology, Chinese Academy of Sciences
– Key Laboratory of Marine Geology and Environment, Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Qingdao
– Key Laboratory of Submarine Geosciences and Prospecting Techniques, Ministry of Education, Qingdao
– Laboratory for Climate Studies, National Climate Center, China Meteorological Administration, Beijing
– Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes, College of Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing
– Laboratory of Lake Sedimentation and Environment, Nanjing Institute of Geography and Limnology, Nanjing
– Laboratory of Quantitative Vegetation Ecology, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing
– Laboratory of Watershed Hydrology and Ecology, Cold and Arid Regions Environmental and Engineering Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou
– Lanzhou Institute of Geology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou
– Lanzhou Institute of Glaciology and Geocryology, Chinese Academy of Sciences
– Marine Geology College, Ocean University of China, Qingdao
– MOE Key Laboratory of Western China’s Environmental Systems, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou
– Nanjing Institute of Geography and Limnology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing
– National Marine Data and Information Service, Tianjin
– School of Geographic and Oceanographic Sciences, Nanjing University, Nanjing
– School of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Lanzhou University, Gansu
– Second Institute of Oceanography, Hangzhou
– South China Sea Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences
– State Key Laboratory of Cryospheric Sciences, Cold and Arid Regions Environment and Engineering Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou
– State Key Laboratory of Environmental Geochemistry, Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guiyang, Guizhou
– State Key Laboratory of Frozen Soils Engineering, Cold and Arid Regions Environmental and Engineering Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou
– State Key Laboratory of Lake Science and Environment, Nanjing Institute of Geography and Limnology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing
– State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology, Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xi’an
– State Key Laboratory of Mineral Deposit Research, Institute of Surficial Geochemistry, Department of Earth Sciences, Nanjing University
– State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Adademy of Sciences, Beijing
– Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi
– Yantai Institute of Coastal Zone Research for Sustainable Development, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Yantai
Czech Republic
– Geophysics Institute, Czech Academy of Science
Denmark
– AMS 14C Laboratory, Institute for Physics and Astronomy, Århus University
– Centre for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen
– Department of Earth Sciences, University of Aarhus, Århus
– Department of Geophysics, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen
– Geographic Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen
– Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Copenhagen
– Geophysical Isotope Laboratory, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen
– Natural Science Research Institute, National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen
– The Niels Bohr Institute, Department of Geophysics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen
– Riso National Laboratory, Roskilde
Estonia
– Institute of Geology, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn
Ethiopia
– Department of Earth Sciences, University of Addis Ababa, Addis Ababa
Finland
– Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi
– Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki
– Department of Chemistry, University of Oulu, Oulu
– Department of Geography, University of Helsinki, Helsinki
– Department of Geophysics, University of Oulu, Oulu
– Department of Geology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki
– Department of Geology, University of Turku, Turku
– Department of Geosciences and Geography, Division of Geology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki
– Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Oulu
– Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Helsinki
– Department of Quaternary Geology, University of Turku
– Department of Teacher Education, University of Joensuu, Savonlinna
– Faculty of Forest Sciences, University of Joensuu, Joensuu
– Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki
– Geological Survey of Finland, Kuopio
– Mekrijarvi Research Station, University of Joensuu, Ilomantsi
– North Savo Regional Environment Centre, Kuopio
– Rovaniemi Research Unit, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Rovaniemi
– SAIMA Unit of Savonlinna Department of Teacher Education, University of Joensuu, Savonlinna
– Vantaa Research Unit, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Vantaa
France
– Centre Camille Jullian, UMR 6573 CNRS/Aix Marseille Universite, Aix-en-Provence
– Centre de Bio-Archeologie et d’Ecologie, Institut de Botanique, Montpellier
– Centre Littoral de Géophysique, Université de La Rochelle
– CEREGE, BP 80, 13545 Aix-en-Provence cedex 4
– CEREGE, UMR 6635 CNRS/Aix-Marseille Universite, Aix-en-Provence
– Départment de Géologie et Océanographie, Université Bordeaux, Talence
– Départment Écologie et Gestion de la Biodiversité du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris
– Départment Paléoenvironments, Institut des Sciences de l’Evolution, Université de Montpellier II, Montpellier
– Département Terre-Atmosphe`re-Oce´an and Laboratoire de Me´te´orologie Dynamique/IPSL, Ecole Normale Supe´rieure, Paris
– DIMAR, Luminy, 13288 Marseille cedex 9
– EPSHOM, Cellule sédimentologie, Brest
– Geoarchitecture & Geosciences, Universite Europeenne de Bretagne, Vannes
– Geosciences Department & Laboratoire de Meteorologie Dynamique, Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris
– Geosciences Rennes, Universite de Rennes, Rennes Cedex
– IMEP, UMR 6116 CNRS/Aix-Marseille Universite, Aix-en-Provence
– Institut des Sciences de l’Evolution de Montpellier, Equipe Paleoenvironments
– Institute of Alpine Geography, University of Grenoble, Grenoble
– Laboratoire d’Etude de Geo-Environments Marins, Universite de Perpignan
– Laboratoire de Chrono-Ecologie, Faculté des Sciences et Techniques, Besançon
– Laboratoire de Chrono-Environnement, UFR Sciences et Techniques, Universite de Franche-Comte
– Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Géophysique de l’Environment du CNRS, Saint-Martin d’Heres Cedex
– Laboratoire des Sciences du Climate et de l’Environnement, Domaine du CNRS
– Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environment, Unité de recherché mixte CEA/CNRS, Campus du CNRS
– Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environment, Gif sur Yvette
– Laboratoire EDYTEM, Universite de Savoie
– LODYC, 4 Place Jussieu, 75005 Paris
– Morphodynamique continentale et côtière, Université de Caen
– Université de Caen, Caen
– Université de Perpignan, Perpignan
Gabon
– IRSH/GREH, Centre National de Recherche Scientifique et Technique (CENAREST), Libreville
– Wildlife Conservation Society, Libreville
Germany
– Academy of Sciences, Humanities, and Literature, Mainz
– Alfred Wegener Institute, Bremerhaven
– Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Research Unit Potsdam
– Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR), Hannover
– Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle Ltd. (UFZ), Department of Hydrogeology, Research Group of Palaeoclimatology, Halle
– Center for Marine Environmental Sciences, University of Bremen, Bremen
– Center for Tropical Marine Ecology (ZMT), Bremen
– Climate Dynamics and Landscape Evolution, Potsdam
– Department of Geography, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz
– Department of Geography, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg
– Department of Geosciences, University of Bremen, Bremen
– Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universität Bremen, Bremen
– Faculty for Physics and Geoscience, Institute for Geophysics and Geology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig
– Forschungsstelle Radiometrie, Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Heidelberg
– GeoConsult Rein, Oppenheim
– GeoForschungsZentrum, Potsdam
– GEOMAR Research Center for Marine Geosciences, Kiel
– German Advisory Council on Global Change
– German Research Centre for Geosciences, Potsdam
– Heidelberg Academy of Sciences, Institute of Environmental Physics, University of Heidelberg
– Heidelberg Academy of Sciences, MPI fur Kernphysik, Saupfercheckweg, Heidelberg
– Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Heidelberg
– IFM-GEOMAR, Kiel
– Institut fur Geowissenschaften, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universitat, Frankfurt
– Institut für Geowissenschaften, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Mainz
– Institut für Geowissenschaften, Universitat Kiel, Kiel
– Institute for Geology, Technical University for Mining and Technology, Freiberg
– Institute for Geosciences, University of Mainz, Mainz
– Institute of Geography, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nurnberg, Erlangen
– Institute of Geography, Stuttgart
– Institute of Geological Sciences, Freie Universitat Berlin, Berlin
– Institut und Museum für Geologie und Paläontologie, Universität Göttingen, Göttingen
– Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research, Warnemunde
– Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel
– Meteorologisches Institut, Universitat Hamburg, Hamburg
– Potsdam-Institut fur Klimafolgen-forschung, Potsdam
– Research Centre Julich, Sedimentary Systems, Julich
Hungary
– Geophysics Research Group, Hungarian Academy of Science, c/o Geophysics Department, Eötvös University, Budapest
Iceland
– Department of Geosciences, University of Iceland, Askja, Reykjavik
– Earth Science Institute, University of Iceland, Askja, Reykjavik
India
– Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeobotany, Lucknow
– Department of Geology, Lucknow University, Lucknow
– Department of Geology and Geophysics, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
– Department of Schence and Technology, New Delhi
– Physical Research Laboratory, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad
– Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, Dehra Dun
Ireland
– Department of Geography, National University of Ireland, Galway
– Non-institutional
Israel
– Department of Environmental Sciences, The Weizmann Institute of Sciences, Rehovot
– Geological Survey of Israel, Jerusalem
Italy
– Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Pisa
– C.N.R. Centro di Studio per la Geodinamica Alpina e Quaternaria, Milan
– C.N.R. Centro di Studio per la Geologia Strutturale e Dinamica dell’Appennino, Pisa
– CNR – ISMAR, Istituto Scienza del Mare, Bologna
– CNR – Istituto per lo Studio degli Ecosistemi, Verbania Pallanza
– Department of Chemistry, University of Florence, Florence
– Dipartimento di Fisica Generale-Universita, Torino
– Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Ambiente e del Territorio, Universita de Milano, Milano
– Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Istituto di Geoscienze e Georisorse, Universita di Pisa
– Dipartimento di Scienze Geologiche, Ambientali e Marine, Universita di Trieste, Trieste
– Dipartimento di Scienze Geologiche e Geotecnologie, Universita di Milano-Bicocca, Milan
– Dipartimento Scienze della Terra, Universita di Bologna, Bologna
– ENEA C.R. Casaccia, Santa Maria di Galeria, Rome
– European Commission-DG Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, Ispra
– Instituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario, Torino
– Museo Tridentino di Scienze Naturali, Trento
Japan
– Aso Volcanological Laboratory, Institute for Geothermal Sciences, Kyoto University, Kumamoto
– Center for Advanced Marine Core Research, Kochi University, Nankoku, Kochi
– Center for Chronological Research, Nagoya University, Nagoya
– Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Graduate School of Science, Nagoya University, Nagoya
– Department of Earth System Science, Faculty of Science, Fukuoka University, Fukuoka
– Department of Environmental Sciences, Shinshu University, Matsumoto
– Department of Geography, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Hachioji – Department of Geology, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa
– Department of Geology and Paleontology, National Museum of Nature and Science, Tokyo
– Earthquake Research Institute, University of Tokyo, Tokyo
– Environmental Chemistry Division, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Ibaraki
– Faculty of Environmental Earth Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo
– Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Ibaraki
– Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Kyushu Research Center, Kumamoto
– Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Tohoku Research Center, Morioka
– Geological Survey of Japan, Tsukuba
– Graduate School of Environmental Earth Science, Hokkaido University, Sappora
– Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University, Nagoya
– Graduate School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Osaka Prefecture University, Osaka
– IGG, Geological Survey of Japan, AIST, Tsukuba
– International Research Center for Japanese Studies, Kyoto
– Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, Kanagawa
– Institute for Hydrospheric-Atmospheric Sciences, Nagoya University, Nagoya
– Meteorological Research Institute, Japan Meteorological Agency, Tsukuba
– National Institute of Polar Research, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo
– Ocean Research Institute, University of Tokyo, Tokyo
Kenya
– Department of Geology, Chiromo Campus, University of Nairobi, Nairobi
Korea
– Department of Marine Science, Pusan National University
– Department of Science Education, Chungbuk National University, Chongju, Chungbuk-do
– Geological and Environmental Hazards Division, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon
– Marine Environmental & Climate Change Laboratory, Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute
– Polar Sciences Laboratory, Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute
Lithuania
– Coastal Research and Planning Institute, Klaipeda University, Klaipeda
– Institute of Geology and Geography, Vilnius
– The Institute of Baltic Region History and Archaeology, Klaipeda University, Klaipeda
Mexico
– Departamento do Ecologia y Recursos Naturales, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
– Departamento de Ecologia y Recursos Naturales-IMECBIO, Centro Universitario de la Costa Sur, Universidad de Guadalajara, Jalisco
– El Colegio De La Frontera Sur, Herbario, Chetumal, Quintana Roo
– Laboratorio de Paleomagnetismo y Paleoambientes, Instituto de Geofisica, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoacan
– Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolas de Hidalgo, Francisco J. Mujica S/N, Ciudad Universitaria, Edifico R. Morelia, Michoacan
Nepal
– Department of Geology, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu
Netherlands
– Department of Marine Biogeology, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University of Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, Amsterdam
– Department of Marine Geology, Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, Texel
– Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics (IBED), Paleoecology and Landscape Ecology, University of Amsterdam
– Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam
– Laboratory of Palaeobotany and Palynology, Institute of Environmental Biology, Utrecht University, Utrecht
– Palaeoecology, Institute of Environmental Biology, Faculty of Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht
New Zealand
– Chemistry Department, University of Waikato, Hamilton
– Gondwana Tree-ring Laboratory, Little River
– Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research, Palmerston North
– National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd.
– School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, Auckland
– Wildlands Consultants Ltd.
Norway
– Botanical Institute, University of Bergen
– Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, University of Bergen
– Department of Biology, University of Bergen, Bergen
– Department of Earth Science, University of Bergen
– Department of Geography, University of Bergen
– Department of Geology, University of Oslo, Olso
– Department of Geology, University of Tromsø, Tromsø
– Geological Institute, University of Bergen, Allégaten, Bergen
– Geological Survey of Norway, Trondheim
– Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center, Bergen
– Norwegian Fishery College, University of Tromso, Tromso
– Norwegian Polar Institute, Polar Environmental Centre, Tromsø
– Norwegian University of Technology and Science, Trondheim
– SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture, Trondheim
– University Centre in Svalbard, Longyearbyen
Poland
– Department of Palaeoceanology, University of Szczecin, Szczecin
– Department of Plant Ecology, University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk
– Institute of Geological Sciences, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw
Portugal
– Departamento de Geologia Marinha, INETInovação, Estrada da Portela – Zambujal, Amadora
– Department of Geoscience, University of Azores
– Instituto Nacional de Investigação Agrária e das Pescas (INIAP), Lisboa
– Marine Geology Department, National Institute of Engineering, Technology and Innovation-INETI, Alfragide
Russia
– A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow
– Cosmic Ray Laboratory, A.F. Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute, St. Petersburg
– Dynamical-Stochastical Laboratory, Hydrometeorological Research Centre of Russia, Moscow
– Geophysics and Mineralogy, United Institute of Geology, Novosibirsk
– Institute of Archaeology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow
– Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow
– Institute of Geology, URS Russian Academy of Sciences, Ufa
– Institute of Geophysics, UB Russian Academy of Sciences, Ekaterinburg
– Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology, Ural Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Ekaterinburg
– Limnological Institute, Irkutsk
– Moscow State University, Moscow
– Shirshov Institute of Oceanography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow
– Sukachev Institute of Forest, Siberian Division, Russian Academy of Sciences, Akademgorodok, Krasnoyarsk
– Trofimuk United Institute of Geology, Geophysics and Mineralogy, Novosibirsk
– West-Siberian Center of Monitoring on Environment Pollution, Novosibirsk
South Africa
– Archaeology Department, University of the Witwatersrand
– Climatology Research Group, University of the Witwatersrand
– Dating Research Unit, CSIR, Pretoria
– Department of Archaeology, University of Cape Town
– Department of Plant Sciences, University of the Free State
– Quaternary Dating Research Unit, CSIR
– School of Geosciences, University of the Witwatersrand
Spain
– Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Ceintificas, Centro de Ciencias Medioambientales, Madrid
– CSIC_UB Limnology Group, Centre for Advanced Studies of Blanes, Blanes
– Departament de Biologia Animal, Vegetal, i Ecologia, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona
– Departamento de Edafologia y Quimica Agricola, Santiago de Compostela
– Department of Environmental Chemistry, Institute of Chemical and Environmental Research (CSIC), Barcelona
– Department of Geology, University of Alcala, Madrid
– Department of Prehistory, Ancient History and Archaeology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona
– Department of Stratigraphy, University Complutense of Madrid, Madrid
– Direccion de Geologia y Geofisica, Instituto Geologico y Minero de Espana, Madrid
– Direccion de Recursos Minerales y Geoambiente, Instituto Geologico y Minero de Espana, Madrid
– Institute of Earth Sciences Jaume Almera, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Barcelona
– Instituto Pirenaico de Ecologia (C.S.I.C.), Zaragoza
Sweden
– Angstrom Laboratory, Division of Ion Physics, Uppsala
– Climate Impact Research Centre, Umed University, Abisko
– Department of Earth Sciences-Marine Geology, Goteborg University, Goteborg
– Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala
– Department of Earth Sciences, Palaeobiology Program, Uppsala University
– Department of Ecology and Environmental Science, Umea University, Umea
– Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umea
– Department of Geology and Geochemistry, Stockholm University, Stockholm
– Department of Meteorology, Stockholm University, Stockholm
– Department of Natural Sciences, Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall
– Department of Oceanography, Earth Sciences Centre, Goteborg University, Goteborg
– Department of Physical Geography, Stockholm University
– Department of Physical Geography, Umea University, Umea
– Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University
– Department of Quaternary Geology, Lund University, Lund
– Department of Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University
– Department of Quaternary Research, Stockholm University, Stockholm
– Earth Sciences Center, Göteborg University
– GeoBiosphere Science Centre, Quaternary Sciences, Lund University, Solveg
– Regional Climate Group, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg
Switzerland
– Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Bern, Bern
– Department of Geography, University of Berne, Bern
– Department of Geography, University of Zurich-Irchel, Zurich
– EAWAG, Duebendorf
– Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule, Geologisches Institut, Zurich
– Geological Institute, University of Bern
– Institut de Mineralogie et Petrographie, Lausanne
– Institut fur Geologie, Isotopengeologie, Universitat Bern, Berne
– Institute of Geography, University of Bern, Bern
– Institute of Geography, University of Lausanne, Lausanne
– Institute of Particle Physics, ETH-Hoenggerberg, Zurich
– Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Bern, Bern
– Laboratory of Radiochemistry and Environmental Chemistry, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen
– Limnoceane, Institut de Geologie, Neuchatel
– National Centre of Competence in Research on Climate, Bern
– Natural History Museum of the Canton Ticino, Lugano
– NCCR Climate, University of Bern, Bern
– Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Bern
– Paul Scherrer Institut, Laboratory of Atmospheric Chemistry
– Swiss Federal Research Institute, Dendro Sciences Unit, Birmensdorf
– Swiss Federal Research Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, Birmensdorf
Taiwan
– Biodiversity Research Center, Academia Sinica, Nankang, Taipei
– Department of Life Sciences, National Taiwan University, Taipei
– Institute of Earth Sciences, Academia Sinica, Taipei
– Institute of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, National Taiwan University, Taipei
– Research Center for Environmental Change, Academia Sinica, Nankang, Taipei
United Kingdom
– British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
– Centre for Environmental Change and Quaternary Research, GEMRU, University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham
– Centre for Environmental Research, University of Sussex, Brighton
– Centre for Quaternary Science, Coventry University, Coventry
– Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich
– Department of Entomology, Natural History Museum, London
– Department of Geography, Durham University, Durham
– Department of Geography, Swansea University, Swansea
– Department of Geography, University College London
– Department of Geography, University of Exeter, Exeter
– Department of Geography, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne
– Department of Geography, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton
– Department of Geography, University of Wales, Swansea
– Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool
– Department of Mathematics and Information Science, Coventry University, Coventry
– Environmental Archaeology Unit, University of York
– Environmental Change Research Centre, University College London, London
– Institute of Geography, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh
– Institute of Geography and Earth Sciences, University of Wales, Aberystwyth
– Long-term Ecology Laboratory, Oxford University Centre for the Environment, School of Geography, South Parks Road, Oxford
– NERC Isotope Geosciences Laboratory, British Geological Survey, Nottingham
– Palaeoecology Laboratory, Department of Geography, University of Southampton, Southampton
– Petroleum and Environmental Geochemistry Group, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth
– School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, University of Durham, Durham
– School of Earth, Ocean and Environmental Sciences, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth
– School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland
– School of Geography, University of Nottingham, Nottingham
– School of Geography and Geosciences, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews
– School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford
– School of GeoSciences, Grant Institute, Edinburgh University, Edinburgh
– School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh
– Scott Polar Research Centre, Cambridge University, Cambridge
– The Godwin Laboratory, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge
– York Archaeological Trust for Excavation and Research, Aldwark, York
United States
– Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, State University of New York, Albany, NY
– Big Sky Institute, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT
– Biodiversity Research Center and Natural History Museum, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS
– Byrd Polar Research Center, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
– Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, Livermore, CA
– Center for Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
– Center for Environmental Sciences and Quaternary Sciences Program, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ
– Center for Isotope Geochemistry, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA
– Center for Materials Research and Education, Smithsonian Institution, Suitland, MD
– Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI
– Climate Change Institute, University of Maine, Orono, ME
– Climate Change Research Center, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH
– Climate System Research Center, Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
– Coastal and Marine Geology, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA
– College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
– College of Marine Science, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, FL
– College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
– Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO
– Department of Anthropology, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California
– Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
– Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, WA
– Department of Anthropology, Western State College, Gunnison, CO
– Department of Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, University at Albany-State University of New York, Albany, NY
– Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, CA
– Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO
– Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alaska, Anchorage, AK
– Department of Biological Sciences, University of North Carolina, NC
– Department of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO
– Department of Biology, Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT
– Department of Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA
– Department of Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA
– Department of Botany, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
– Department of Botany, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY
– Department of Chemistry, State University of New York-ESF, Syracuse, NY
– Department of Computer Science, University of Maine, Orono, ME
– Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA
– Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC
– Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of New Mexico, Alburquerque, NM
– Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Rutgers, The State University, New Brunswick, NJ
– Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
– Department of Earth Sciences, California State University, Dominguez Hills, Carson, CA
– Department of Earth Sciences, Heroy Geology Laboratory, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
– Department of Earth Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT
– Department of Earth Sciences, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
– Department of Earth Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA
– Department of Earth Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA
– Department of Earth Sciences, University of Maine, Orono, ME
– Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
– Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA
– Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
– Department of Ecology and Limnological Research Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
– Department of Geography, Colgate University, Hamilton, NY
– Department of Geography, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
– Department of Geography, University of California, Berkeley, CA
– Department of Geography, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
– Department of Geography, University of Georgia, Athens, GA
– Department of Geography, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
– Department of Geography, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
– Department of Geography, University of Wyoming, WY
– Department of Geological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI
– Department of Geological Sciences, California State University, Long Beach, CA
– Department of Geological Sciences, Land Use and Environmental Change Institute (LUECI), University of Florida, FL
– Department of Geological Sciences, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
– Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO
– Department of Geological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC
– Department of Geology, Baylor University, Waco, TX
– Department of Geology, Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT
– Department of Geology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ
– Department of Geology, The College of Wooster, Wooster, OH
– Department of Geology, University of Akron, Akron, OH
– Department of Geology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH
– Department of Geology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA
– Department of Geology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL
– Department of Geology, University of Texas at Arlington, TX
– Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of California, Berkeley, CA
– Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
– Department of Geology and Geophysics, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA
– Department of Geology and Planetary Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
– Department of Geoscience, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
– Department of Geosciences, Climate System Research Center, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
– Department of Geosciences, Morrill Science Center, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
– Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
– Department of Geosciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR
– Department of Geosciences, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE
– Department of Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA
– Department of Marine Science, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, FL
– Department of Marine Sciences, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico
– Department of Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
– Department of Plant Biology, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL
– Department of Statistics, Baylor University, Waco, TX
– Desert Laboratory, U.S. Geological Survey and University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
– Earth and Environmental Science Program, New York University, NY
– Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
– Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicolas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC
– Environmental Science Department, Alaska Pacific University, Anchorage, AK
– EROS, U.S. Geological Survey, Sioux City, SD
– Florida Integrated Science Center, United States Geological Survey, St. Petersburg, FL
– Geography Department, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
– Geology and Planetary Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
– Geology Department, State University of New York College at Cortland, Cortland, NY
– Illinois State Geological Survey, Champaign, IL
– Institute for Quaternary and Climate Studies, University of Maine, Orono, ME
– Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
– Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO
– Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, CA
– Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers, The State University, New Brunswick, NJ
– Institute of Marine Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA
– Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX
– Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY
– Large Lakes Observatory, University of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth, MN
– Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA
– Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Center for Accelerated Mass Spectrometry, Livermore, CA
– Limnological Research Center and Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
– Lone Pine Research, Bozeman, MT
– Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
– Mountain Research Center and Department of Biology, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT
– Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
– NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY
– National Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA
– Natural Resources Division, Paul Smith’s College, Paul Smiths, NY
– Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC
– NOAA Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder, CO
– National Science Foundation-Arizona Accelerator Facility for Isotope Dating, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
– NSF-Arizona AMS Facility, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
– Program in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL
– Raytheon Polar Services, Centennial, CO
– Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Miami, Key Biscayne, FL
– School of Earth Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
– School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE
– Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA
– Sierra Nevada Research Center, Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Berkeley, CA
– Skidaway Institute for Oceanography, Savannah, GA
– St. Croix Watershed Research Station, Science Museum of Minnesota, Marine on St. Croix, MN
– Tree-Ring Laboratory, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, NY
– Tree-Ring Laboratory, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, NY
– Tree Ring Laboratory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
– University of Maine, Department of Geological Sciences, ME
– U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta, GA
– U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK
– U.S. Geological Survey, Center for Coastal and Marine Geology, St. Petersburg, FL
– U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO
– U.S. Geological Survey, Eastern Surface Processes Team, Reston, VA
– U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA
– U.S. Geological Survey, Santa Cruz, CA
– U.S. Geological Survey, St. Petersburg, FL
– White Mountain Research Station, Bishop, CA
– Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA
Venezuela
– Departamento de Ciencias de la Tierra, Universidad Pedagogica Experimental Libertador, Caracas
– Estacion de Investigaciones Marinas de Margarita, Fundacion La Salle de Ciencias Naturales, Porlamar
Vietnam
– Northern Mapping Division, DGMV, Hanoi
Joel Shore says:
“Does it ever trouble you guys that the only sources that seem to support your version of reality are clearly biased sources?”
My source for this was twofold: A.W. Montford’s book, and Climate Audit.org. Those two sources are far more unbiased than Joel Shore, and the bought and paid for dissembler Nick Stokes, and sockpuppet “sceptical” among others of their ilk, who are merely propagandists for the repeatedly falsified runaway global warming scare.
A decade ago Prof Richard Lindzen wrote this paper showing the rise of the CAGW movement. Since then the wild-eyed alarmist claims have been on an accelerating trajectory, even as the evidence continues to pile up showing that CAGW is an impossibility, and that AGW is becoming highly questionable, since the planet has gone through much more severe temperature fluctuations prior to the industrial revolution, and for the past decade or more the planet has been flat to cooling even as harmless CO2 continues to rise. Who should we believe? Planet earth? Or the alarmist Joel Shore?
Shore impotently tries to dispute that “version” of reality, but I am simply reporting what the climate is doing. He also cherry-picks the MWP, saying that current temperatures are higher. That is highly doubtful at best, and most likely flat wrong. But on the slim chance it could be right, why did Shore stop at the MWP? Prior global warming episodes were much warmer than at present – when CO2 was very low by comparison.
Finally, as Dr Lindzen and others have shown, the AMS, the IPCC, and most similar organizations fight tooth and nail to keep their memberships from having a say in the positions decided by a handful of people in control – and who are every bit as bought and paid for as Mr Stokes. For example, there are now no openly skeptical scientists in positions of power within the IPCC. Everything written by that corrupt UN organization is generated by self-serving climate alarmists. There may be some accurate information in the IPCC Assessment Reports, but it is drowned out by misinformation and WWF propaganda, driven by the money-hungry Rajendra Pachauri. These are the false authorities that Joel Shore constantly refers to.
According to the scientific method the only honest kind of scientist is a skeptical scientist. But none of the IPCC scientists follow the scientific method. None of them. Neither does Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, etc., etc. Why are they being dishonest? Fame? Fortune? Status? Their motivations vary, but they have one thing in common: their refusal to follow the scientific method. The result is alarmist propaganda, not science.
sceptical says:
June 3, 2011 at 9:52 pm
glacierman, why do you think Dr. Mann was trying to undo anything which to you linked?
James, thanks for the reply. Seems that too many “skeptics” have complete faith in a few studies, such as MM, and refuse to acknowledge subsequent studies. For these “skeptics”, scientific advancement stops once their preconceived notions are supported. You have had your notions supported so no reason to go farther for yourself.
===================================================
sceptical, and I thank you for your reply. Sadly, you seemed to have missed the thrust of my comment, or ignored the details. Yes, MM03 was a watershed moment. And, perhaps it would have been better for the world if that particular line of “science” stopped there. It didn’t. There were rebuttals, sequels, responses, arguments, innuendo, characterizations, mischaracterizations, retorts, and a whole plethora of events which lent to the appearance of malfeasance. The fact is, science didn’t advance. It stopped at Mann98. Nothing new has been presented for over a decade in spite of the fact that several “new” studies had been offered.
It doesn’t pass notice that I mentioned McShane and Wyner but no one from the alarmist side addresses it. I find this amusing. If M&W10 isn’t properly refuted, none of this matters. (With the exception of M&M exposing dendrochronology for what it is……..numerology blended with a strange form of phrenology.) There have been a few very feeble attempts, but they don’t even pass the smell test, much less present any scientific basis for refutation of M&W10.
It also doesn’t pass notice that most of the arguments presented here against M&M have already been dealt with at ClimateAudit. Do people think skeptics confine themselves to one website or one source of information? I don’t know, its difficult to grasp what goes on in the minds of alarmists.
It seems to me, alarmists would be better off focusing on an arm of the science that hasn’t been totally discredited. Perhaps then science could move forward. It won’t until then. Did people really think we wouldn’t notice the graph is a replica of Ehrlich’s population forecasts? Did they not believe we would see through all of the elegant mathematics and know this is simply another form of misanthropy? Alarmists may as well parade Malthus. History has shown that from MBH98 and all of the subsequent clones were nothing but result driven drivel. They
wantedneeded a hockey stick graph and by God they would have one! Then reality set in and anyone that cares to know, knows nothing could be further from the truth…………. something us skeptics knew well before MBH98 was ever conceived. Its shocking that we’re still discussing this dark moment of science. It would be far better to acknowledge the errant thinking and move on.By looking at this tree ring(or several tree rings), I can tell the earth’s temp was 54.85 degrees F.
Anyone believing that thought has any validity is operating solely on faith, not science.
James
Smokey says:
Greenland does not the globe make. It is well-understood that the trend due to orbital variations should result in cooling over the Northern hemisphere high latitudes over the last several thousand years.
As for the rest of your post, it is the very same sort of argument one hears from all the losers in scientific debates on ideologically-contentious issues: “the scientific societies are run by people biased against us” and so on and so forth. You hear the exact same thing from those who argue against evolution.
This clearly shows the AGW skeptic movement for what it is: a movement that disputes the science because they don’t like the ideological implications of the science. There is really nothing new here.
Joel Shore says:
“Does it ever trouble you guys that the only sources that seem to support your version of reality are clearly biased sources?”
I did laugh at this. I don’t even have a version, my sources can’t be biased, because I don’t recognise sources. Not Mann, not Hansen, not Anthony
I am a sceptic.
If you want to convince me, go ahead and try. I’m listening
EO
Richard S Courtney,
Thanks for your 8 step generic argument. It is essential thinking.
Below I have inserted my comments in blockquotes into your post.
John (jmw)
= = = = =
‘’’’’’’’’’Richard S Courtney says:
June 4, 2011 at 3:07 am
1. The null hypothesis is that the climate system has not changed unless there is evidence that the system has changed.
2. It is asserted that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have changed the system (i.e. the AGW hypothesis).
3. A change to the behaviour of the system following the emissions would be evidence that the system has changed and probably as a result of the emissions.
4. But, to date, there is no evidence of any kind that the system has changed since the emissions began.
5. The MBH ‘hockey stick’ seemed to show that the system has changed and that the start of the change was coincident with the start of the emissions.
6. Several studies (notably those of McIntyre and McKitrick) proved the MBH ‘hockey stick’ was a result of faulty analysis and, therefore, it does not show that the system has changed.
7. The fact that there is no evidence that the system has changed is important because some people argue for actions to correct the change to the system which they believe has been caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.
8. Some people who believe in the AGW hypothesis refuse to accept that the MBH ‘hockey stick’ could be wrong so (as this thread demonstrates) they fabricate facts and histories, and they defame and smear people (notably McIntyre and McKitrick) who point out that the MBH ‘hockey stick’ is an artifact of very faulty analysis.
Richard’’’’’’’’’’’
Joel Shore says:
“Greenland does not the globe make. It is well-understood that the trend due to orbital variations should result in cooling over the Northern hemisphere high latitudes over the last several thousand years.”
Wrong again, Joel. But thanx for your conjecture. In fact, there is close correlation between the hemispheres. That empirical evidence shows that the MWP and other temperature changes were global. Sorry about your conjecture.
And really, Joel, more of your ‘ideology’ name-calling? If it weren’t for your own psychological projection, you wouldn’t have much to say. Saying “the very same sort of argument one hears from all the losers in scientific debates” turns reality on its head: every major debate, from Lindzen’s whipping of Gavin Schmidt, to Lord Monckton’s destruction of his alarmist opponents, has been won by the scientific skeptic side. What is more, the audiences were inclined to support the alarmist side before the debate – until they heard the debate. Then the majority turned skeptical.
But since you know this, it means you’re just carrying water for the dishonest alarmist scientists and their enablers, who don’t mind that the scientific method has been dispensed with because it is inconveniently in the way of their agenda. After all, you’ve got a planet to save, right? Not to mention that tasty grant trough.