I’m sure Bishop Hill won’t mind if I pinch this, it shows a rather head in the sand attitude that pervades the people who get money to study global warming, such as the Pacific Institute’s Dr. Peter Gleick. I agree with Bish though: “subterfuge” looks out of place in a scientific report, OTOH so does the use of a “trick”. He writes:
The Heartland Institute’s NIPCC interim report has just been published – see here. This is a summary of the new scientific literature since 2009.
I’ve taken a glance through the paleoclimate bits and it appears to have been put together in a very professional manner. I was blissfully unaware of just how much evidence has been emerging for the existence of a MWP in the world outside Europe.
If I had a criticism based on what I have read, I would say it’s over the authors’ tendency to slip into editorial mode – discussion of Mann being engaged in “subterfuge” looks out of place in a scientific report.
Lots of people are not going to like the report of course. Peter Gleick, the president of the Pacific Institute, tweets that the report makes him sick and refuses to link to it. Barry Woods and I have politely asked which bits in particular he is concerned with and he has told us that he doesn’t need to do this when someone is arguing that the Earth is flat.
Gleick’s head in the sand choices seem to be selective, for example, he’s written a book titled Bottled and Sold: The Story Behind Our Obsession with Bottled Water. Gleick argues against bottled water on the grounds of it being environmentally unsound and just another profit grab by corporate interests selling to a gullible public.
Yet, in one of the most widely publicized environmental protests this year, what do we see? Yep, water bottles everywhere behind Gleick’s hero, Jim Hansen, seen going to the big house after his third arrest above.
I can just hear Gleick going “la la la la la la la la la” as he tries to reconcile climate protest with those protestors leaving water bottle rubbish all over the protest site. It’s a “Joe Romm head exploding moment”, which is why Gleick hasn’t said anything about it.
I suppose the message is “we should be concerned about the environment when those who lecture us on environmental concern actually do as they say”.
Speaking of protests…perhaps we should go Al Sharpton on Gleick, and stand outside his office and read him the NIPCC report through a bullhorn.
After all, such methods are widely accepted in Berkeley.
I have excerpted the passage from chapter 3 below, judge for yourself:
3.1.7. Northern Hemisphere
In the 27 November 2009 issue of Science, Michael Mann and eight coauthors (Mann et al., 2009) describe how they used a global climate proxy network consisting of data derived from ice core, coral, sediment, and various other records to reconstruct a Northern Hemispheric surface air temperature history covering the past 1,500 years for the purpose of determining the characteristics of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. They used Mann’s “Nature trick” of Climategate fame, truncating the reconstructed temperature history near its end and replacing it with modern-day instrumental data, so the last part of the record cannot be validly compared with the earlier portion.
This subterfuge is unwarranted. And in its current application, it’s not just from 1981 or 1961 onwards that the ruse is applied; it’s applied all the way from 1850 to 1995, the period of overlap between the proxy and instrumental records that was used to calibrate the proxy data. Therefore, since the proxy data were available to 1995, the reconstructed near-surface air temperature history should also have been plotted to 1995, in order to be able to make valid quantitative comparisons between the degree of warmth of the Current and Medieval Warm Periods.
For those interested, Chapter 3 is available here NIPCC_chap03_PaleoTemperature (PDF)
The entire report is available here (PDF)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Re bottled water: I worked for 3 years in the dry savanna country in Northern Nigeria (and subsequently in several other African countries) and was advised by a local geologist that ‘Europeans’ sap their energy by drinking too much water during the day and that I should acclimatize and would be more comfortable as I got used to it. I gradually withdrew from the larger amount of water that I used to consume during the day and whittled it down to one quart taking a mouthful at intervals. What happened was I lost weight becoming lean and trim and my stamina increased (I was mapping the regional geology over an area of 3000sq mi driving on dry stream beds by landrover and running 2 to 3 day traverse loops on foot by compass). I think bottled water has become one of the many adictions that we have these days. Few go out without one in their holster or rucksack. Too much of it results in depletion of electrolytes from your blood and cells which ironically reduces the effectiveness of your personal cooling system.
Having said that, I did read that the availability of bottled water did cause people to cut back on all the sugar drinks that used to be the only alternative when traveling or otherwise away from home. So I guess it aint all bad. And hey, when has it become despicable for corporations to profit by selling people stuff?
Gary;
It all depends on how they do the selling. Selective and misrepresented “health science” has consequences.
Gary Pearse says:
Just guessing… but… when Oil companies appeared?
Bob:
At September 2, 2011 at 3:01 pm you ask me:
“So you’re ok with the geographical coverage in section 3.3 then?”
I answer, of course I am! So should everybody be “ok” with it.
Clearly you have failed (refused?) to read my above responses to your nonsense, so I will summarise and itemise the issue.
(a)
The 2009 NIPCC Report had assessed that recent temperatures are similar or less than the temperatures of the MWP.
(b)
The 2011 NIPCC Report provides an update from the earlier 2009 NIPCC Report.
(c)
The early Sections of Chapter 3 of the 2011 NIPCC Report assessed the temperatures of the MWP, and confirmed the finding of the 2009 NIPCC Report that recent temperatures are similar or less than the temperatures of the MWP.
(d)
Section 3.3 of the 2011 NIPCC Report says it assesses papers published after the 2009 Report to determine if they also agree the recent temperatures are similar or less than the temperatures of the MWP.
(e)
Section 3.3 of the 2011 NIPCC Report finds that none of the recent papers refutes the findings that recent temperatures are similar or less than the temperatures of the MWP.
So, “geographical coverage” of the recent papers is irrelevant. At issue is whether any of the recent papers refutes the findings in the 2009 NIPCC Report and in Chapter 3 of the 2011 NIPCC Report that recent temperatures are similar or less than the temperatures of the MWP. And none of them – n.b. not any of them – refutes the findings.
As such, the issue of “geographical coverage” is similar to every post you have made in this thread: i.e. it has no relevance.
Richard
Hmm, if the Heartland Institute can put together an NIPCC, maybe they should start up a peer-reviewed climate science journal. That would be swell.
>> “I can just hear Gleick going “la la la la la la la la la” as he tries to reconcile climate protest with those protestors leaving water bottle rubbish all over the protest site.”
You don’t know that. For all you know he disapproves of it, and maybe told them about it. This is just a cheap shot.
>> “I suppose the message is “we should be concerned about the environment when those who lecture us on environmental concern actually do as they say”.”
People do their best to remain consistent with the values; sometimes they screw up. In this case, you are trying to paint Gleick’s values as inconsistent by pointing at the actions of other people! When it comes to environmental concern, we can all come together to agree on what are the best actions… cheap shot articles don’t help.
wow…
reply to: Ray says: September 1, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Perhaps you should check out the studies showing that in many cases, bottled water is nothing but municipal tap water, or those that have found there are greater impurities or even microbial content in much of the available bottled water. As to ‘who to sue,’ I’m pretty sure that people sue municipalities too, just as they do police, etc. Wrt cost – I’ve no idea about current cost, but for a very long time bottled water actually cost more per gallon than gasoline here in the USA… which is a pretty mind blowing thing to consider when one compares relative abundance, costs of acquiring and preparing for public use, etc.
The way to go for quality, cheap water is a Brita filter. Not counting the initial investment for the pitcher (around $20 or so), it works out to about 2 cents for the equivalent 16.9 oz. container of bottled water, which I’m guessing costs at least 25 or 30 times that, if bought in bulk. We wouldn’t know, because we never buy it. Must be the Scottish blood in me.
The question is, will they be served bottled water in jail?