Readers may recall this piece Monckton’s Schenectady showdown in which he schools a number of students despite “en-masse” collections (to use Donald Rodbell’s words) of naysayers. Mr. Rodbell and Erin Delman, pictured below, wrote this essay (which I’ve excerpted below) in their student newspaper The Concordiensis, citing their angst that Monckton was speaking.
A lord’s opinion can’t compete with scientific truth
Erin Delman (left), President of the Environmental Club, debates with Monckton – photo by Charlotte Lehman | Department Chair and Professor of Geology Donald Rodbell (right) asks Lord Christopher Monckton a question at the event on the “other side” of global warming. – photo by Rachel Steiner, Concordiensis
By Donald Rodbell and Erin Delman in Opinions | March 7, 2012
As Earth scientists, we were torn. The College Republicans and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) were hosting Lord Monckton, a globally recognized climate skeptic, on Mon., March 5, and we were not quite sure how to respond. Frankly, the sentiment vacillated between utter disgust and sheer anger. On one hand, it seemed ludicrous to give Monckton a second of time or thought. On the other, however, dismissing him and allowing his speech without rejection risked that he would have an impact, and a dangerous one at that.
And thus, the college environmentalists – including Environmental Club members, the leaders and members of U-Sustain, concerned citizens, and renowned Earth scientists with PhDs from prestigious research institutions – decided to oppose the presence of Lord Monckton on our campus. We collected en-masse before his presentation to make it unambiguously clear that we would not allow such erroneous discourse to go unnoticed.
…
Lord Monckton does not stand alone in his beliefs on this issue; however, 97 percent of scientists overwhelmingly oppose his viewpoint. He kept asserting that this debate must follow a rigorous, science-based approach, and that the consensus of experts is, by itself, an insufficient basis on which to decide the veracity of the evidence for significant human-induced global warming.
…
Serious scientific debate cannot be carried out in the blogosphere, nor in highly charged and politically motivated presentations either by Lord Monckton or by Al Gore. The fact of the matter is that science has spoken, the overwhelming bulk of the evidence has shown very, very clearly that global warming is occurring and is at least mostly caused by humans. While scientific consensus can be wrong, it most often is not.
[end excerpts]
===============================================================
Sigh, there’s that ridiculous 97% figure again. You’d think these “educated” people would bother to check such things before mindlessly regurgitating them and making themselves look like sycophants. And then there’s this: “Serious scientific debate cannot be carried out in the blogosphere…” well, then, PLEASE tell that to the RealClimate team so they stop trying to do that on the taxpayers dime.
It seems Erin Delman is training to be a professional enviro-legal troublemaker…
She is interested in pursuing a joint Ph.D. and law degree in geology and environmental law and is considering a career in environmental policy, particularly involving water rights.
…so I suppose I’m not surprised at this article. With that California background and water rights bent, I predict she’ll be joining the Pacific Institute to supplement Gleick’s mission.
Full article here: A lord’s opinion can’t compete with scientific truth
===============================================================
Monckton responds in comments to that article
Monckton of Brenchley March 16, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Permalink
Oh, come off it, Professor!
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Professor Donald Rodbell’s personal attack on me in Concordiensis (“A Lord’s Opinion Can’t Compete with Scientific Truth”) deserves an answer. The Professor does not seem to be too keen on freedom of speech: on learning that I was to address students at Union College, he said that he “vacillated between utter disgust and sheer anger”. My oh my!
The Professor should be reminded of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech”. I exercised freedom of speech at Union College. The Professor may disagree with what I said (though his article is lamentably unspecific about what points in my lecture – if any – he disagreed with); but, under the Constitution, he may not deny or abridge my right to say it.
He and his fellow climate extremists ought not, therefore, to have talked of “opposing the presence of Lord Monckton”: for that would be to abridge my freedom of speech. It would have been fair enough for the Professor to talk of opposing my arguments – yet that, curiously, is what his rant in Concordiensis entirely fails to do.
The Professor says it is certain that “the world is warming, climatic patterns are changing, and humans are a driving force”. Let us look at these three statements in turn.
– The world is not warming at present. It has not been warming for almost a decade and a half, though it has been warming since 1695. In the 40 years to 1735, before the Industrial Revolution even began, the temperature in Central England (not a bad proxy for global temperatures) rose by 4 Fahrenheit degrees, compared with just 1 F° in the whole of the 20th century.
– Climatic patterns are indeed changing. But they have been changing for 4,567 million years, and they will go on changing long into the future. However, the fact of climate change does not tell us the cause of climate change.
– Humans are indeed exercising some influence. Indeed, though the Professor implies otherwise, I stated explicitly in my lecture that the IPCC might be right in saying that more than half of the warming since 1950 was caused by us. However, that tells us little about how much warming we may expect in future. My best estimate is that the CO2 we add to the atmosphere this century will cause around 1 C° of warming by 2100. But that is not far short of the IPCC’s own central estimate of 1.5 C°.
Next, the Professor asserts, without any evidence, that “97% of scientists overwhelmingly oppose [Monckton’s] viewpoint”. Overlooking the tautology (the word “overwhelmingly” should have been omitted), as far as I am aware there has been no survey of scientists or of public opinion generally to determine how many oppose my viewpoint. I am aware of two surveys in which 97% of scientists asserted that the world had warmed in the past 60 years: but, in that respect, they agree with my viewpoint. No survey has found 97% of scientists agreeing with the far more extreme proposition that unchecked emissions of CO2 will be very likely to cause dangerous global warming. And, even if there had been such a survey, the notion that science is done by head-counting in this way is the shop-worn logical fallacy of the argumentum ad populum – the headcount fallacy. That fallacy was first described by Aristotle 2300 years ago, and it is depressing to see a Professor trotting it out today.
Science is not done by headcount among scientists. It is done by measurement, observation, and experiment, and by the application of established theory to the results. Until Einstein, 100% of scientists thought that time and space were invariant. They were all wrong. So much for consensus.
Next, the Professor says I made “numerous inaccuracies and mis-statements”. Yet he does not mention a single one in his article, which really amounts to mere hand-waving. He then asserts that I have “no interest whatsoever in pursuing a truly scientific approach”. Those who were present, however, will be aware that I presented large quantities of data and analysis demonstrating that the principal conclusions of each of the four IPCC climate assessments are defective; that the warming to be expected from a doubling of CO2 is 1 C°; and that, even if 21st-century warming were 3 C°, it would still be 10-100 times cheaper and more cost-effective to do nothing now and adapt in a focused way later than to try to stop the warming by controlling CO2.
The Professor goes on to say that “the fundamental building block of all science is peer-reviewed publications”. No: rigorous thought is the cornerstone of science. That is what is lacking in the IPCC’s approach. All of its principal conclusions are based on modeling. However, not one of the models upon which it relies has been peer-reviewed. Nor is any of the IPCC’s documents peer-reviewed in the accepted sense. There are reviewers, but the authors are allowed to override them, and that is not peer review at all. That is how the IPCC’s deliberate error about the alleged disappearance of all Himalayan glaciers by 2035 was not corrected. Worse, almost one-third of all references cited in the IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report were not peer-reviewed either. They were written by environmental campaigners, journalists and even students. That is not good enough.
Next, the Professor says that, in not publishing my own analysis of “global warming” in a reviewed journal, I am “fundamentally non-scientific”. Yet he does not take Al Gore to task for never having had anything published in a reviewed journal. Why this disfiguring double standard? The most important thing, surely, is to shut down the IPCC, whose approach – on the Professor’s own peer-review test – is “fundamentally non-scientific”.
The Professor goes on to say, “It is impossible to scrutinize [Monckton’s] methods, calculations, and conclusions without a complete and detailed peer-reviewed publication that presents the important details.” On the contrary: my slides are publicly available, and they show precisely how I reached my conclusions, with numerous references to the peer-reviewed literature and to the (non-peer-reviewed) IPCC assessment reports.
Next, the Professor says that “rather substantial errors” were pointed out to me at Union College. Yet in every case I was able to answer the points raised: and, here as elsewhere, the Professor is careful not to be specific about what “errors” I am thought to have made. I pointed out some very serious errors in the documents of the IPCC: why does the Professor look the other way when confronted with these “official” errors? Once again, a double standard seems to be at work.
The Professor ends by saying that “science has spoken” and that, “while scientific consensus can be wrong, it most often is not”. Well, the eugenics consensus of the 1920s, to the effect that breeding humans like racehorses would improve the stock, was near-universally held among scientists, but it was wrong, and it led directly to the dismal rail-yards of Oswiecim and Treblinka. The Lysenko consensus of the 1940s and 1950s, to the effect that soaking seed-corn in water over the winter would help it to germinate, wrecked 20 successive Soviet harvests and killed 20 million of the proletariat. The ban-DDT consensus of the 1960s has led to 40 million malaria deaths in children (and counting), 1.25 million of them lasts year alone. The don’t-stop-AIDS consensus of the 1980s has killed 33 million, with another 33 million infected and waiting to die.
The climate “consensus” is also killing millions by diverting billions of dollars from helping the poor to enriching governments, bureaucrats, bankers, landowners, windfarm scamsters, and environmentalist racketeers, and by denying to the Third World the fossil-fueled electricity it so desperately needs. It is time to stop the killing. If arguing for a more rational and scientifically-based policy will bring the slaughter of our fellow citizens of this planet to an end, then I shall continue to argue for it, whether the Professor likes it or not.
He should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.
Sam Geoghegan says:
March 18, 2012 at 7:55 am
-That kind of talk promotes the partisanship that I find disconcerting.
—————-
Maybe I was a little over the top. Let me rephrase my statement a little.
When I said “not a shred of evidence”, I should have said “not a shred of Scientific evidence of Catastrophe”.
Michael Palmer says:
March 18, 2012 at 4:23 pm
…
You are expelling ink as profusely as a cuttlefish, and the results are similarly clear.
Hmm, yes, I’m afraid you’re right.
“The word ‘eugenics’ has many related but not identical meanings – nobody gives a rodent’s posterior which ones you consider valid or legitimate.”
Were you single-handedly lecturing on semiotics and etymology? I thought the actual subject matter would have been more relevant. Is this the part where I’m supposed to ask, “And how do you feel about the word ‘eugenics,’ Mikey?” Of all the lame excuses I have heard….
“I recommend some light but regular physical exercise in lieu of blog trolling.”
Careful with providing medical advice without seeing or even knowing the patient. It’ll wreal havoc with your insurance rates. In any case, I’m flat on me arse with pneumonia, which provides me with the opportunity to cheer and delight the mods here with a ceaseless stream of my inimitable wit and gratuitous verbosity. Thanks for serving as my bouncing board and target dummy, Doc. You performed rather poorly, especially on the comprehension front, so I shan’t need your services anymore.
Reproducing Mann’s hockey stick 7 times is certainly possible given this finding in the Wegman report: “the MBH method creates a hockey-stick shape even when supplied with random input data”. So how could they miss? To replicate Mann’s work correctly you would need the raw data, which is apparently missing. Otherwise, you are simply using the same doctored data and same methods that Mann used, which are pretty much guaranteed to give you a hockey-stick shape no matter what you do.
Hugh, you DO know that Mann’s most recent papers have had to seriously back away from the 1000 and 2000 year recons, don’t you? They can’t be validated prior 1500ce, and even that validation based on tree rings is tenuous. The bottom line, we don’t know, at all, whether today’s temps are unprecedented in scope, rate of increase, etc. It’s LIKELY that temps were higher during much of the Holocene, but we don’t really KNOW.
Mann, deals with the question you raise in his book The Hockey Stick….. . He asserts that the findings of the original published studies, MBH98 and MBH99, have been independently replicated, using available data and algorithm description, and that there are “nearly a dozen” studies using different types of proxy data and alternative statistical methods. The original conclusion has been conformed, namely: it is likely that the warmest period of the past thousand years is the late twentieth century. But please note, mistergunby, these studies are only a small part of the evidentiary puzzle. The conclusion that humans are altering the climate has been independently confirmed. The case does not depend on paleoclimate evidence compiled by Mann. his cohorts, and all the others who have provided confirming evidence.
Perhaps it is the use of proxy data which you find awkward or unacceptable. One study alone would not be satisfactory as a means of establishing evidence. Hence the need to use other proxies, such as deep ocean sediments, and oxygen isotopes in ice cores, to estimate temperatures in the past. Alternative statistical methods were used in the succeeding studies to confirm the original findings. they The original findings of Mann et al were published in 1998 in Nature (779 – 787).
Senator Inhofe has recently written that this is all a giant hoax. Imagine this: thousands of scientists whse whole lives are rooted in skepticism, have conspired to fool everyone else, and more importantly, they have managed to get the ice sheets, sea levels and ocean temperatures to participate in their scam. Wow!
I recommend that you Google M Smerconish. There is an excellent, recent interview with Michael Mann on his site.
Smokey says:
March 18, 2012 at 8:49 pm
Hugh Pepper….Either provide 7 verifiable citations for your mendacious claim that Mann’s MBH98/99 paper has been validated, as you previously asserted, or concede that you were making it up…Last chance: provide seven verifiable citations showing that Michael Mann’s MBH98/99 papers have been rigorously confirmed, or admit that his conjecture has been falsified. Hugh Pepper’s credibility is on the line. What will Pepper do? Own up? Or continue to prevaricate?
LOL! That’s harsh, Smokey, let me see if I can help old Hugh out in his Dark Night of the Soul. How’s ’bout we start with, “Define seven!” Ah-hah?
Anyway, Michael Palmer is unengaged, so feel free to chat with him. I know you’ve been chomping at the bit to do so.
Hugh Pepper says:
March 18, 2012 at 4:19 pm
The literature is FULL of both confirming and disconfirming information. Everywhere you look you will finds this data, hundreds of relevant papers in any given month. I don’t think this needs specific citation.
Translation: I couldn’t find what I was looking for.
David Spurgeon says: @ur momisugly March 18, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Is this what the Professor and his ilk really want?
Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/17/effective-world-government-will-still-be-needed-to-stave-off-climate-catastrophe/
_____________________________________________
Yes CAGW has always been about world government. You can trace it back to the first U.N. Earth Summit in 1972 and the Chairman Maurice Strong. Strong is also a member of the U.N. Commission on Global Governance. Ain’t that a stunning coincidence.
In his quotes you can see how he uses CAGW and the environment to advance the idea of a world government.
Quotes from Strong:
“The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.” -Maurice Strong at the 1992 Earth Summit.
“If we don’t change, our species will not survive… Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.” -Maurice Strong quoted in the September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine.
“[The Earth Summit will play an important role in] reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance.” -Maurice Strong quoted in the September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine.
Dr David M.W. Evans on his guest post at Jo Nova’s site brings up how close we came to dodging the bullet of a de facto world government.
One only has to look at the European Union to see how a “Trade Treaty” has grown into an overarching government. As Richard Henley Davis puts it: The threat of Europe taking over the British democratic process comes a bit late as we are already in a democratic system where Parliament is as impotent as a neutered dog…. Parliament is little more than the rubber stamp for European policies seeing as 80% of our laws are now decided by the EU.
And then listen to the current Director-General of the World Trade Organization (WTO), Pascal Lamy, salivate over the thought of pushing Global Governance to “completion”
Perhaps the most terrifying thing is how the newest “governing body” the World Trade Organization, actually works.
The professor did, finally respond to Monckton’s comments here.
http://www.concordy.com/article/opinions/march-7-2012/a-lords-opinion-cant-compete-with-scientific-truth/4222/#comment-19906
It is late and after responding to poster Eric on his asssertions, one of the few to actually make any,, I do not have time now to dismantle the professors comments. I will quickly say they are very weak and he chooses to use Abraham as his shield, ignoring Monckton’s 80 plus page rebuttal to Abraham, just as Pepper ignores many posts, including mine here, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/17/monckton-in-a-rift-with-union-college-earth-scientists-and-activists/#comment-927824
Hugh Pepper says: @ur momisugly March 18, 2012 at 4:19 pm
The literature is FULL of both confirming and disconfirming information. Everywhere you look you will finds this data, hundreds of relevant papers in any given month. I don’t think this needs specific citation.
____________________________________________
Bill Tuttle says: @ur momisugly March 18, 2012 at 9:33 pm
Translation: I couldn’t find what I was looking for.
_____________________________________________
Translation:
There is no consensus.
The science is not settled.
We really haven’t the foggiest notion of what is actually happening.
The science is still in its infancy.
An accurate summary of the state of the science.
Monckton of Brenchley: “Result: deaths from malaria, which chiefly kills children, rose from 50,000 per year before the worldwide ban to more than 1 million a year afterwards.”
Lord Monckton is claiming that within a year of a “worldwide ban” on DDT, deaths from malaria rose 20-fold. That doesn’t sound very likely.
The interesting aspect of this claim is the precision of the numbers (50,000, 1 million) combined with the lack of specificity regarding the actual year that the “worldwide ban” was imposed.
“On 15 December 2006, Dr. Arata Kochi, newly-appointed head of the World Health Organization’s malaria program, announced that the WHO was lifting the DDT ban…”
Given that India and China were still reportedly producing DDT in 2001, this is hard to reconcile with the claim of “lifting the DDT ban”.
“LOL! That’s harsh, Smokey, let me see if I can help old Hugh out in his Dark Night of the Soul. How’s ’bout we start with, “Define seven!”
————————————————–
I’m guessing that ‘seven’ is the output of a model in this instance.
Coming to this thread late, and not sure anyone will see this, but:
I noticed something different in the comments section where they published their article against Lord Moncton.
the name of one of the supporters of rodbell and co., was for some reason blipped out.
A whole section of comments has either been moved towards the end (as of 4am this morning, Eastern time), or for some reason, copied down en masse.
Not sure what they are up to, but wanted someone to know.
Brendan H says:
March 19, 2012 at 2:33 am
Monckton of Brenchley: “Result: deaths from malaria, which chiefly kills children, rose from 50,000 per year before the worldwide ban to more than 1 million a year afterwards.”
______________________________________________________________
I think it’s meant to be the rate rose to over a million per annum, not necessarily within 12 months of the ban.
johanna says:
March 19, 2012 at 2:36 am
I’m guessing that ‘seven’ is the output of a model in this instance.
———————————-
Or it doesn’t get deeper than this:
Fool : The reason why the seven stars are no more than seven is a pretty reason.
King Lear : Because they are not eight?
Fool : Yes, indeed, thou wouldst make a good fool.
Why does Monckton refer to the historical temperature in England to ‘prove’ his point regarding warming over the whole planet – an elementary error and highlights his lack of scientific rigour and selective use of data. Remember January 2010 when the UK was suffering a major cold snap? At exactly the same time Australia was suffering record high temperatures and the Winter Olympics was suffering from a lack of snow due to unseasonally warm temperatures.
Hugh Pepper said @ur momisugly March 19, 2012 at 7:39 am
Here’s a list of scientists whose work contradicts Mann’s 1998. Notice that Mann was Ababneh’s thesis supervisor. Note also that these scientists are on the list because they have had their work accepted in peer reviewed literature and therefore, according to your criteria, have credibility.
Ababneh, L., Abbott, M.B., Abrantes, F., Aceves, H.L., Addyman, P.V., Adhikari, D.P., Agnihotri, R., Ai, L., Airo, A., Alden, H.A., Alenius, T., Alessio, S., Alexander, C., Almeida-Lenero, L., Almogi-Labin, A., Alvarez-Iglesias, P., An, Z., Andersen, K.K., Anderson, D.E., Anderson, D.M., Anderson, R.S., Anderson, S.P., Andersson, C., Andrade, A., Andreev, A.A., Andrews, J.T., Andrén, E., Andrén, T., Antognini, M., Aono, Y., Appleby, P., Aravena, J.-C., Arnaud, F., Arsenelault, D., Astor, Y., Austin, W.E.N., Axford, Y., Ayalon, A., Ayenew, T., Badura, M., Bahk, J.J., Bakker, J., Balsam, W., Baltzer, A., Bao, Y., Baofu, N., Baolin, H., Bar-Matthews, M., Barber, K.E., Barclay, D.J., Barnola, J.-M., Baroni, C., Barron, J.A., Bartels-Jónsdóttir, H., Bartholdy, J., Bartholin, T.S., Battarbee, R.W., Baumgartner, T.R., Beaty, R.M., Becagli, S., Beer, J., Behling, H., Beilman, D.W., Bell, R.E., Belt, S.T., Benito, G., Bennike, O., Bentaleb, I., Berge, J., Bernabeu, A.M., Bernard, S., Bernasconi, S., Berstad, I.M., Bertin, X., Bertler, N.A.N., Bertrand, S., Besonen, M.R., Betancourt, J.L., Bezada, M., Bhattacharyya, A., Bhushan, R., Bickert, T., Billeaud, I., Birks, H.J.B., Birks, S.J., Bischoff, J.L., Bjorck, S., Bjune, A.E., Blaauw, M., Black, D.E., Blanco, N., Blazauskas, N., Bodri, L., Boettger, T., Booth, R.K., Borromei, A., Borsato, A., Bouaouina, F., Box, J.E., Bracht, B., Bradley, R.S., Brauer, A., Bräuning, A., Brenner, M., Briffa, K.R., Brook, G.A., Brooks, S.J., Brown, T.A., Brutsch, S., Bryson, R.A., Brubaker, L.B., Budeus, G., Bukry, D., Bunn, A.G., Burnett, A.W., Buster, N.A., Byrne, A.R., Büntgen, U., Cage, A.G., Cai, Q., Cai, Y., Calanchi, N., Calkin, P.E., Calvert, S.E., Came, R.E., Campbell, C., Campbell, I.D., Cane, M.A., Cannariato, K.G., Cao, Q.-Y., Carbotte, S.M., Carson, E.C., Carter, L., Carter, T., Castellano, E., Catalan, J., Causey, D., Cazelles, B., Cermák, V., Chacornac-Rault, M., Chambers, F.M., Chang, X.L., Chaudhary, V., Chauhan, M.S., Chaumillon, E., Chen, F.H., Chen, JianHui, Chen, Jiaqi., Chen, Jun., Chen, L., Chen, S.-H., Chen, T., Chen, Z., Cheng, G., Cheng, H., Cheng, W., Chepstow-Lusty, A., Chipman, M.L., Chivas, A.R., Chou, M., Christiansen, C., Christie, D.A., Chu, G., Chuang, P.-P., Cini Castagnoli, G., Clague, J.J., Clarke, G.H., Clausen, H.B., Cleef, A.M., Clegg, B.F., Cohen, A.L., Cohen, A.S., Cohen, M.C.L., Collerson, K.D., Conrad, M.E., Cook, E.R., Cook, T.L., Cooper, G.R.J., Corbett, D.G., Corona, C., Cremer, H., Cronin, T.M., Cucchi, F., Cui, H.T., Cumming, B.F., Cundy, A., Curry, B.B., Curry, W., Curtis, J.H., D’Arrigo, R., Dabrio, C.J., Dahl, S.O., Dahl-Jensen, D., Daimaru, H., Dallimore, A., Daniels, J.M., Dansgaard, W., Darbyshire, I., Daryin, A.V., Das, M., Datsenko, N.M., Davi, N., Davis, M.E., Dawson, A.G., Dawson, S., De Deckker, P., de Vernal, A., Dean, W.E., Debenay, J.-P., Degiovanni, C., Delany, D.L., Deline, P., deMenocal, P., Demezhko, D.Yu., Demory, F., Denelle, N., Denton, G.H., Desmet, M., Desprat, S., Diekmann, B., Dinelli, E., Dippner, J.W., Dominguez-Vazquez, G., Drenzek, N.J., Dullo, W.-C., Dutta, K., Dwyer, G.S., Eden, D.N, Edouard, J.-L., Edwards, R.L., Edwards, T.W.D., Eglinton, T.I., Eiríksson, J., Eitel, B., Elliott, L., Emslie, S.D., Engstrom, D.R., Eniou, Z., Erasto, P., Eronen, M., Esper, J., Ezat, U., Fallot, J.-M., Fang, X., Fastook, J.L., Feliks, Y., Fengming, C., Fiebig, J., Field, D.B., Figueroa, D., Figueroa-Rangel, B.L., Filippi, M.L., Fjellsa, A., Flower, B.P., Flower, R.J., Fontugne, M., Fortin, M.-C., Foster, I., Fowler, A., Fraedrich, K., Franca, Z., Francus, P., Frank, D.C., Frisia, S., Fritz, S.C., Frogley, M., Gaggeler, H.W., Gajewski, K., Gao, S., Garcia, M.J.G., Garcia-Rodeja, E., Gasiorowski, M., Gauthier, E., Gavin, D.G., Gayo, E., Ge, Q., Geirsdóttir, A., Gemmer, M., Gerstengarbe, F.-W., Ghil, M., Gil, I.M., Giraudi, C., Gischler, E., Goldberg, E., Golovanova, I.V., Goni, M.A., Goni, M.F.S., Gonzalez-Samperiz, P., Goto, S., Graumlich, L.J., Gray, S.T., Gregory, T.R., Griessinger, J., Grimalt, J.O., Grinsted, A., Grosjean, M., Grøsfjeld, K., Grudd, H., Gu, Z., Guibal, F., Guijian, L., Guilderson, T., Guilizzoni, P., Guiot, J., Gulliksen, B., Gundestrup, N., Gunnarson, B.E., Gupta, A.K., Hadley, E.A., Haflidason, H., Hald, M., Hall, B.L., Hall, V.A., Hallett, D.J., Haltia-Hovi, E., Hamamoto, H., Hammer, C.U., Hansen, C.V., Hansson, M., Hantemirov, R.M., Hao, Z., Harff, J., Harris, P.T., Hass, H.C., Hassan, F.A., Hay, M.B., He, S.-F., Hebbeln, D., Hebda, R.J., Heikkila, M., Heinemeier, J., Heiri, O., Heiss, G.A., Helama, S., Helle, G., Hemer, M.A., Henderson, A.C.G., Hendy, C.H., Herve, F., Hickey, K., Hidalgo, H.G., Hille, S., Hiller, A., Hills, L.V., Hodell, D.A., Hoelzel, A.R., Hoffmann-Wieck, G., Hollander, D.J., Holmes, C.W., Holmgren, K., Holmstrom, L., Holopainen, J., Holt, T., Holzhauser, H., Holzkamper, S., Hong, B., Hong, Y.T., Honghan, Z., Hood, J.S.R., Hooghiemstra, H., Hu, F.S., Huang, J., Huang, S.-Y., Huang, Y., Hubberten, H.-W., Huffman, T.N., Hughen, K.A., Hughes, M.K., Hughes, P.D.M., Husum, K., Hunziker, J., Hutterli, M., Ikeda, S., Ingram, B.L., Irino, T., Irving, W.N., Isaksson, E., Islebe, G.A., Isono, D., Ito, E., Ivanova, E., Jackson, S.T., Jacob, J., Jacoby, G., Jansen, E., Jarockis, R., Jaubert, R., Jennings, A.E., Jensen, K.G., Jewson, D., Ji, J., Ji, S., Jianfeng, H., Jiang, H., Jiang, H.B., Jiang, J., Jin, H.J., Johnsen, G., Johnsen, S.J., Johnson, C., Johnson, T.C., Jolly, D., Jount III, E.H., Jun, Y., Jones, P.D., Jones, V.J., Jordan, J., Jordan, T.E., Julia, R., Jull, A.J.T., Justwan, A., Kadereit, A., Kagan, E.J., Kajimoto, T., Kalugin, I.A., Kamenik, C., Kamite, M., Kamiya, T., Kandiano, E., Kang, C.Y., Kang, S.J., Kang, X., Kaniewski, D., Kaplan, A., Kaplan, M.R., Karhu, J.A., Karlen, W., Karlsson, S., Kaufman, D.S., Kauppila, T., Kausrud, K.L., Kawahata, H., Kawamura, K., Keigwin, L.D., Kekonen, T., Kellerhals, T., Kenward, H.K., Khassanov, B.F., Khim, B.-K., Khlystov, O., Khromova, N., King, D.N.T., King, J.C., Kiseleva, N.K., Kissel, C., Kitagawa, H., Kjallgren, L., Knox, J.C., Knudsen, K.L., Knusel, S., Kobashi, T., Koffman, T., Kohn, M.H., Kolstrom, T., Kondrashov, D., Kong, Z.-C., Kongshavn, K., Konradi, P., Korhola, A., Koç, N., Kremenetski, C., Kremenetski, K.V., Kromer, B., Ku, T.-L., Kubler, B., Kuhl, N., Kuhry, P., Kuijpers, A., Kukkonen, M., Kullman, L., Kumon, F., Kunzendorf, H., Kurdyla, D., Kuttel, M., Kutzbach, J.E., Kutzbach, J.K., Laird, K.R., Lamb, H.F., Lambert, P., Lambiel, C., Lami, A., Lamy, F., Langdon, P.G., Lange, C., Langone, L., Laperriere, L., Lara, A., Lara, R.J., Larocque, I., Larsen, D.J., Larsen, J.A., Lassen, S.J., Latalowa, M., Latorre, C., Le Boeuf, B.J., Le Roux, J.P., Lebreiro, S., Lee, J.-Y., Lee, P.-F., Lee, T.-Q., Lee-Thorp, J.A., Lefèvre, C., Lehman, S.J., Leipe, T., Leng, M.J., Leng, X.T., Leonard, J.A., León, T., Leroy, V., Li, B.-Y., Li, D.-L., Li, G.X., Li, H.-C., Li, H.E., Li, M.-Q., Li, Q., Li, S.-F., Li, T.-G., Li, X.-S., Li, Y.Y., Li, Z., Lihua, Z., Lin, P.-N., Lin, Q.-H., Linderholm, H.W., Lindholm, M., Linsley, B.K., Liu, C.-Q., Liu, J., Liu, L., Liu, T., Liu, T.S., Liu, Xiaodong, Liu, Xingqi, Liu, Yong, Liu, Yu, Liu, Zhengyu, Liu, Zhonghui, Lloyd, A.H., Lloyd, J.M., Loader, N.J., Lockett, P., Loope, D.B., Lopes, C., Lopez-Pamo, E., Lorrey, A., Loso, M.G., Loutre, M.-F., Lowell, T.V., Lu, H., Lucchini, F., Lucke, A., Luckge, A., Luckman, B.H., Lund, D.C., Lund, S.P., Lundblad, K., Luoto, T.P., Luterbacher, J., Ma, C.-M., Ma, H., Ma, Y.Y., MacDonald, G.M., MacGregor, A., Machtle, B., Mackay, A.W., Maddy, D., Magny, M., Makaya, M., Maley, J., Malmgren, B.A., Malmström, M., Man, Z., Manca, M., Mangini, A., Marchetto, A., Martin, T., Martín-Chivelet, J., Martinez-Cortizas, A., Martma, T., Mashiotta, T.A., Mason, J.A., Masse, G., Masson-Delmotte, V., Mathewes, R.W., Matthews, J.A., Matsumoto, E., Mauquoy, D., Mayes, M.T., Mayewski, P., Mazepa, V.S., McGann, M., McHugh, C., McKay, N.P., Mediavilla, R., Meeker, L.D., Meitao, L., Melles, M., Menier, D., Merilainen, J., Meyer, G.A., Meyer, N., Michelutti, N., Mickelson, D.M., Mielikainen, K., Mikkelsen, N., Mill
ar, C.E., Miller, G.H., Miller, H., Miller, U., Millet, L., Mischke, S., Moberg, A., Moller, P., Montanari, B., Moore, J.C.B, Moore, J.J., Morales, M., Mordenti, A., Moreno, A., Moros, M., Moschen, R., Mosley-Thompson, E., Muller-Karger, F., Mullins, H.T., Muñoz-García, M.B., Murayama, M., Murdmaa, I., Musazzi, S., Muscheler, R., Nakaegawa, T., Nakamura, T., Naurzbaev, M.M., Nefedov, V.S., Neil, H., Nelson, D.M., Nester, P.L., Neukom, R., Newton, A., Ngomanda, A., Ni, J., Nicolussi, K., Nievergelt, D., Nilsen, F., Nitsche, F., Noon, P.E., Noone, D., Noone, S., Nordberg, K., Nordt, L., Notaro, M., Novoa-Muñoz, J.C., Nowaczyk, N., Nyberg, J., Nørgaard-Pedersen, N., Oba, T., Oberg, L., Odada, E., Oglesby, R.J., Ogurtsov, M.G., Ohtani, Y., Ojala, A.E.K., Okamoto, T., Okuno, M., Olafsdottir, K.B., Oliveira, P., Olvera-Vargas, M., Oppo, D.W., Orombelli, G., Ortega, A.I., Ortiz, J., Oschmann, W., Oslisly, R., Overpeck, J.T., Overturf, B., Page, M.J., Palmer, J., Panin, A.V., Pant, R.K., Pantoja, S., Park, J., Partridge, T.C., Patridge, W., Patterson, W.P., Paulissen, E., Paulsen, D.E., Payette, S., Pederson, D.C., Peeters, F.J.C., Peltola, H., Peramaki, P., Perez-Cruz, L., Perner, K., Persico, L., Peteet, D.M., Peters, S., Peterson, L. C., Petit, J.R., Peyron, O., Phadtare, N.R., Pienitz, R., Pierau, R., Pierce, J.L., Pla, S., Plessen, B., Podritske, B., Pohjola, V., Polissar, P.J., Polyak, L., Pontevedra-Pombal, X., Poore, R.Z., Porter, S.C., Possnert, G., Power, M., Proust, J.-N., Qian, W., Qiang, M., Qin, D., Qin, N.-S., Qin, X.G., Quamar, M.F., Quattrocchio, M., Quinn, T.M., Rabenkogo, N., Railsback, L.B., Ramesh, R., Rampino, M.R., Ran, L., Reech, N., Reeder, P.P., Reimer, P.J., Rein B., Reinhardt, L., Ren, J., Rey, D., Reynard, E., Reynolds, C.P., Reyss, J.L., Richey, J.N., Richter, T.O., Rico, M., Riera, S., Rioual, P., Risberg, J., Risebrobakken, B., Rittenour, T., Robert, C., Robertson, I., Rodrigues, T., Rolland, N., Roncaglia, L., Rosen, P., Rosenbaum, J., Rosenthal, Y., Rosqvist, G., Rossignol, I., Roth, M., Rousse, S., Rowe, C.M., Rørvik, K.-L., Röhl, U., Rubenstone, J., Rubio, B., Rull, V., Russell, J.M., Ryan, W.B.F., Ryves, D.B., Saarinen, T., Saarnisto, M., Sabbe, K., Saenger, C., Saito, S., Saito, Y., Saito-Kato, M., Saliège, J.F., Salinger, J., Sandgren, P., Sannel, A.B.K., Santisteban, J.I., Santos, C., Sarnthein, M., Saurer, M., Savinetsky, A.B., Scapozza, C., Schevin, P., Schilman, B.,, Schleser, G.H., Schmidhalter, M., Schmidt, R., Schoeneich, P., Scholz, D., Schwede, S., Schwikowski, M., Scott, L., Seager, R., Seiriene, V., Sejrup, H.P., Selegei, V., Semah, A.-M., Seppa, H., Sepúlveda, J., Seret, G., Severi, M., Severinghaus, J.P., Shah, S.K., Shao, X., Sharma, J., Shemesh, A., Shen, C., Shen, J., Shi, J., Shi, X.-H., Shinn, E.A., Shinozuka, Y., Shishov, V.V., Shiyatov, S.G. Shotyk, W., Sial, A.N., Sicre, M.-A., Sidorova, O.V., Sienkiewicz, E., Sigl, M., Singh, I.B., Sinha, A., Sinkunas, P., Sirocko, F., Sithaldeen, R., Slagle, A., Slagstad, D., Smart, C.W., Smith, D.E., Smol, J.P., Smolyaninova, L.G., Snowball, I., Solari, M.A., Soliz-Gamboa, C., Solomina, O., Somayajulu, B.L.K., Sonechkin, D.M., Song, H., Sorensen, S.A., Sorrel, P., Spielhagen, R.F., Spotl, C., Sridhar, V., Srur, A., St. Jacques, J.-M., Stager, J.C., Stahle, D.W., Stancikaite, M., Steffensen, J.P., Stenseth, N.C., Sterken, M., Stevens, L., Stige, L.C., Stiger, M., Stoner, J.S., Stott, L.D., Sturm, M., Sumin, W., Sun, J., Sun, L., Sun, Q., Sun, X.Y., Sundqvist, H.S., Svanered, O., Svarverud, R., Sveinbjörnsdottir, A.E., Swarzenski, P.W., Swieta-Musznicka, J., Swinehart, J.B., Szmeja, J., Takahashi, H.A., Talma, A.S., Tan, L., Tanabe, S., Tandong, Y., Tappa, E.J., Taricco, C., Taylor, A.H., Teece, M.A., Tegu, C., Telford, R.J., Tessier, B., Tesson, M., Thomas, A., Thompson, L.G., Thomson, R.E., Thordarson, T., Thorndycraft, V.R., Thouveny, N., Thunell, R.C., Tian, H., Tian, J., Tiegang, L., Tierney, J.E., Tieszen, L., Tiljander, M., Tillman, P.K., Timonen, M., Tinner, W., Topf, A.L., Trachsel, M., Traini, C., Traversi, R., Treydte, K.S., Tubbs, J., Tuomenvirta, H., Turon, J.-L., Turrero, M.J., Tyson, P.D., Udisti, R., Umer, M., Unkel, I., Urban, D.L., Urrutia, R., Vaganov, E.A., Valero-Garces, B.L., Van Campo, E., van Geel, B., Van Lerberghe, K., van Weering, T.C.E., Vance, R.E., Vanhoutte, K., Vanniere, B., Vare, L.L., Varela, R., Vartiainen, M., Velle, G., Verdes, P., Verleyen, E., Vermot-Desroches, B., Verneaux, V., Verschuren, D., Verstege, A., Vigliotti, L., Vilas, F., Villa, I.M., Villalba, R., Vinther, B.M., Virkkunen, K., Vivaldo, G., Voelker, A.H.L., Vogel, J.C., Vollweiler, N., von Fischer, J., von Gunten, L., Vos, H., Voss, M., Vu, Q.L., Vyverman, W., Wacker, L., Wadhams, P., Wagner, B., Wagner, G., Walker, I.R., Walker, R.C., Wambach, E., Wang, F.-B., Wang, L., Wang, L.-C., Wang, Q.-C., Wang, S., Wang, S.L., Wang, W., Wang, W.-C., Wang, Yongji, Wang, Yu., Wang, Yuhong, Wang, Yun-Sen, Wanner, H., Wansard, G., Wastegard, S., Wayne, R.K., Weber, N., Weber, O., Webster, J.W., Weckstrom, J., Wefer, G., Wehrli, M., Weijian, Z., Weimer, L.M., Weiner, N.J., Weiss, H., Wells, S.G., Wen, X., Werner, K., Werner, P.C., West, D.L., Westerberg, L.-O., Westfall, R.D., White, J., Whitlock, C., Wiles, G.C., Willard, D.A., Williams, D., Williams, P.W., Willis, K.J., Wilson, A.T., Wilson, R., Wilson, R.J.S., Winter, A., Wirrmann, D., Witkowski, A., Witon, E., Witt, L., Wolf, A., Wolfe, A.P., Woodworth, M.P., Wu, J.-T., Xia, X.-C., Xia, W.-L., Xiaozhong, L., Xie, Z., Xoplaki, E., Xuexian, H., Yadava, M.G., Yafeng, S., Yamada, K., Yamamoto, M., Yamano, M., Yan, H., Yan, S., Yang, D.Y., Yang, T.-N., Yang, Y., Yang, Z.-J., Yao, T., Yasuda, Y., Yasuyuki, S., Yi, L., Yi, S., Yiou, P., Yoon, H.I., Yoshioka, T., Zabenskie, S., Zamelczyk, K., Zapata, M.B.R., Zhang, C., Zhang, E.L., Zhang, J., Zhang, P., Zhang, P.-Z., Zhang, Qi-Bin, Zhang, Qiang, Zhang, X., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Z., Zhangdong, J., Zhao, J.-X., Zhao, L., Zhao, M.-X., Zheng, J., Zhou, A., Zhou, L.P., Zhu, H.-F., Zhu, L.-P., Zhu, X.-D., Zhu, Y., Zhu, Y.-X., Zicheng, P., Zumbuhl, H.J., ,
Are you saying that each of these persons listed are paleoclimatologists who have published evidence refuting Mann’s original work? I seriously doubt this.
Dinesh F said @ur momisugly March 19, 2012 at 8:59 am
For exactly the same reasons as we infer global temperatures from the ice cores taken from the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps. If a rising tide raises all ships, it matters not where you measure the tide, even though the timing be different in different places.
The Pompous Git says:
March 19, 2012 at 9:15 am
“For exactly the same reasons as we infer global temperatures from the ice cores taken from the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps. If a rising tide raises all ships, it matters not where you measure the tide, even though the timing be different in different places.”
===============================================
Giving another example of someone else using the same method does not prove the method is correct.
To your example with tide, if we want to prove, that a worldwide tide exists, we can not just point out to a single raised ship.
THE INCREDIBLE MYSTERY OF HUGH PEPPER’S SEVEN PROOFS
Something truly odd is happening in these pages. Our Hugh Pepper inadvertantly uttered what we can only assume is a deep secret from The Algorythmic Mysteries of the Al Gorian Meditation, and rather than reveal the hidden proovings, Hugh has heroically faced inquiries, questions, mockery, pressures and no soon, no doubt, unbearable agonies, as the Grand Inquisitore Smoccaius (a.k.a., “Smokey”) prepares the irons and the rack.
The Prime Utterance
Hugh Pepper to Smokey: My view is that “facts” follow acceptable (yes, peer reviewed) empirical research. YOu often mock Michael Mann and his “hockey stick”, failing to acknowledge that his work has been replicated seven times.
Smokey: Folks, we have a comedian!
Hugh Pepper: ….I mentioned in another post that the ground-breaking work of Mann et al has been repeated seven times. Each of the other researchers, in this instance, got a similar result, thereby conforming the original hypothesis. Science is all about repetition and the journals are full of this work, which is often confirming, but not always.
Anthony to Hugh: Then provide citations to prove it, otherwise you are just babbling.
Hugh to Anthony: Read Michael Mann’s book Rocky. There are several references to this research in the book. From Mann’s references you can locate the original research.
Hugh to no one in particular: The literature is FULL of both confirming and disconfirming information. Everywhere you look you will finds this data, hundreds of relevant papers in any given month. I don’t think this needs specific citation.
Smokey: BTW, still waiting for those citations showing that Mann’s MBH98/99 papers have been “replicated seven times.” That’s a new one, so I’d like to see the source. While you’re at it, Hugh, show us where Mann’s original MBH99 graph was published by the IPCC after 2007.
Hugh (still no Seven): With just a little effort Smokey you will discover that Mann’s original hypothesis s now accepted in the climate science community, that is by the people who devote their lives to the study of climate systems. I’m sorry, you may actually have to read Mann’s book to discover that the science of paleoclimatology is robust.
Smokey: ….Keep in mind that rather than having his work validated “seven times”, Michael Mann was forced to issue a Correction regarding his own paper. A Correction is a fairly rare occurrence, and it only happens when there are major errors uncovered. In Mann’s case, the errors were uncovered by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick……..Time to man up if you can, Pepper, and provide those seven citations that you claim exist. Or everyone will see that you’re just making up stories as you go along.
People are Beginning to Notice
boston12gs: Having something validated 7 or 70 or 700 or 7,000 times is meaningless in terms of the scientific method, if that same “thing” can be invalidated even once.
Hugh (the red herring thrown): Smokey and Rockyroad: Please check out the interview with Michael Smerconish (5 days ago) and Michael Mann. All your concerns about his (Mann’s) work are addressed in the 15 minute interview.
A brilliant move by Hugh, alas the aluring scent of the red herrings failed to throw off the remorseless Smokey.
Smokey: Using Mann’s own self-serving apologia for his anti-science hardly qualifies as a citation….Either provide 7 verifiable citations for your mendacious claim that Mann’s MBH98/99 paper has been validated, as you previously asserted, or concede that you were making it up.
Now, People are Talking
Andrew: C’mon Pepper stop stalling – otherwise we will necessarily have to assume that you are unable to substantiate your foolish and frankly hysterically funny claim that the con-Mann’s fabricated findings have been independently varified (repeated) no less than 7 times!!
Louis: Reproducing Mann’s hockey stick 7 times is certainly possible given this finding in the Wegman report: “the MBH method creates a hockey-stick shape even when supplied with random input data”. So how could they miss? To replicate Mann’s work correctly you would need the raw data, which is apparently missing. Otherwise, you are simply using the same doctored data and same methods that Mann used, which are pretty much guaranteed to give you a hockey-stick shape no matter what you do.
Peter Kovachev: LOL! That’s harsh, Smokey, let me see if I can help old Hugh out in his Dark Night of the Soul. How’s ’bout we start with, “Define seven!” Ah-hah?
Bill Tuttle: Hugh Pepper (March 18, 2012 at 4:19 pm) said ,”The literature is FULL of both confirming and disconfirming information. Everywhere you look you will finds this data, hundreds of relevant papers in any given month. I don’t think this needs specific citation.”……Translation: I (Hugh) couldn’t find what I was looking for.
Johanna: I’m guessing that ‘seven’ is the output of a model in this instance.
But wait, there’s more!
Hugh: Mann, deals with the question you raise in his book The Hockey Stick….. . He asserts that the findings of the original published studies, MBH98 and MBH99, have been independently replicated, using available data and algorithm description, and that there are “nearly a dozen” studies using different types of proxy data and alternative statistical methods.
More than dozen! That means Hugh may proovide us with a couple, or even just one example to tease our growing apetites. But no. Instead rebellion and forget seven or dozens, try THOUSANDS!
Hugh: I am not going to play your game Smokey. You can do your own investigation of the evidence. it’s out there in the form of thousands of independent studies, and summarized in books written by authors much more expert than me.
Peter Kovachev:
Fool : The reason why the seven stars are no more than seven is a pretty reason.
King Lear : Because they are not eight?
Fool : Yes, indeed, thou wouldst make a good fool.
The plot thickens as it no doubt continues.
Hugh Pepper says:
March 19, 2012 at 7:26 am
Mann, deals with the question you raise in his book The Hockey Stick….. . He asserts that the findings of the original published studies, MBH98 and MBH99, have been independently replicated, using available data and algorithm description, and that there are “nearly a dozen” studies using different types of proxy data and alternative statistical methods.
My emphasis. Using Mann’s algor(e)ithm, any data, including random numbers plucked from a telephone book, will result in the Hockey Stick.
The original conclusion has been conformed, namely: it is likely that the warmest period of the past thousand years is the late twentieth century.
It may have been conformed, but it certainly wasn’t confirmed. If the late twentieth century was the warmest period in the past thousand years, why aren’t the Greenlanders able to grow the same crops — and in the same abundance — today that the Viking settlers were growing there a millennium ago?
But please note, mistergunby, these studies are only a small part of the evidentiary puzzle. The conclusion that humans are altering the climate has been independently confirmed.
It’s been confirmed that we’ve been able to alter local temperatures, i.e., UHI. Local temperatures are not climate.
The case does not depend on paleoclimate evidence compiled by Mann. his cohorts, and all the others who have provided confirming evidence.
Mann and his cohorts *ignore* the evidence that the Medieval, Roman, and Minoan Warm Periods were warmer than the present.
TimM: “I think it’s meant to be the rate rose to over a million per annum, not necessarily within 12 months of the ban.”
That sounds reasonable, although it would be interesting to know when the “worldwide ban” on DDT came into force.
Hugh Pepper says:
“I am not going to play your game Smokey.”
It’s not a game, it’s a credibility test. You made the assertion, I simply asked you to cite your seven sources. Your modus operandi is to make incredible, fact-free assertions. You do it all the time. I think you are a serial fabricator because your only other option is to admit that skeptical climate realists have by far the best arguments. Rather than admit that, you make up stories. Maybe someone should nominate you for the Peter Gleick Ethics Award.☺
Greg House said @ur momisugly March 19, 2012 at 9:46 am
It is widely accepted that there is a reasonable correlation between GISP1 & 2 temperature reconstructions and Northern hemisphere temperatures. Likewise, the Law Dome & Vostock ice core temperature reconstructions correlate well with Southern hemisphere temperatures. For some odd reason, when “global” temperatures are referred to, the reconstruction is Northern hemisphere only. Or perhaps you haven’t read the IPCC Assessment Reports.
The Pompous Git says:
March 19, 2012 at 12:15 pm
It is widely accepted that there is a reasonable correlation between GISP1 & 2 temperature reconstructions and Northern hemisphere temperatures. Likewise, the Law Dome & Vostock ice core temperature reconstructions correlate well with Southern hemisphere temperatures.
============================================
Generally, correlation does not prove anything and is at most a reason to look into the matter. And of course, opposite trend may correlate well, too. Naturally temperatures always correlate well. You know, winter, summer, day, night…
Look, two opposite trends show a very good correlation: (5-5-5-5-5-5-55-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-6-7-8) and (5-5-5-5-5-5-55-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-4-3-2).
And please, give me a link to a scientific paper, that proves, that the “reconstructed” temperatures are representative.
Greg House said @ur momisugly March 19, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Try reading this: Frozen Annals – Greenland Ice Sheet Research by Professor Willi Dansgaard.