By Craig Idso
In the title of their newly published article in the journal Scientometrics, Jankó et al. (2017) ask the important question “Is climate change controversy good for science?”
Their answer, which we will divulge later, came about via a somewhat unique analysis, which compared the reference lists of two major reports published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC; AR4 and AR5) with that published by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC; Climate Change Reconsidered (CCR) and Climate Change Reconsidered II (CCRII)). More specifically, the comparison involved (1) entering all references from the four reports into a database, (2) sorting them by author and by journal, (3) comparing the overlap and differences in citations between the two publishing entities and (4) examining the evolution (i.e., similarities and differences) of citations by each entity between their two reports. And what did these several actions reveal?
Not surprisingly, there were some similarities and differences among the references cited in the IPCC and NIPCC reports. In terms of differences, the IPCC tended to favor citations from journals that are focused more on the modelling enterprise, whereas the NIPCC tended to favor publications in the paleo-sciences. By way of similarity, when comparing the AR4 and CCR reports, both organizations derived references from an overlapping set of 126 journals, which number increased to 198 for the ensuing AR5 and CCRII tomes. However, Jankó et al. report that “the sceptics have broadened their spectrum of journals more than the IPCC,” as the NIPCC added 170 new journals to their citation list between their two reports, while the IPCC added only 158.
Another interesting finding is seen in their examination of who each organization was citing. In-text analysis of the IPCC’s AR5 report revealed that 19 out of the 20 most frequently cited authors in that report were directly involved in the compilation of it. And though the remaining person, J. Hansen, was not officially involved in producing AR5, he participated in the production of at least one prior IPCC report (Third Assessment) as a Contributing Author. Similar analysis of the AR4 report revealed that 14 out of the 16 most frequently cited IPCC authors were involved with the writing of that report. Yet, here again, the remaining two individuals were directly involved in the production of the IPCC’s preceding Third Assessment Report. Such findings indicate the IPCC report authors are most intent on citing their own work, thereby promoting their own interests and findings above the work of others. In contrast, only four of the 18 most frequently cited authors of CCRII, and only one of the 13 most frequently cited authors of CCR, were involved in the compilation of those reports. Thus, the NIPCC reports present a greater degree of independence among its authors and the material they produce and cite than that of the IPCC.
Finally, returning to Jankó et al.’s question posed in the title of their paper — “Is climate change controversy good for science?” — in summing up their analysis they write that “the competitive situation created by the publications of the NIPCC reports … is beneficial for climate science in general; it fosters knowledge creation, i.e. the reviewing process, mobilizing a growing number of references into review.” And while this knowledge creation is important, Jankó et al. caution that “without an explicit dialogue between the [NIPCC and IPCC] reports, there is no chance to mitigate climate change controversy itself.” In other words, (1) there is no scientific consensus, (2) the debate is not settled, (3) nor will it ever go away until the closed-minded circular group-think of the IPCC authors properly recognize and address the counter-theories presented by the NIPCC in its reports. Good luck getting that to happen!
Paper Reviewed
Jankó, F., Vancsó, J.P. and Móricz, N. 2017. Is climate change controversy good for science? IPCC and contrarian reports in the light of bibliometrics. Scientometrics 112: 1745-1759.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Incredibly Jack,didn’t understand his own words as being contradictory,but here is my reply:
Jack writes,
“Yes, you have told be about a few thousand papers that do not support the consensus. I am skeptical of your assertion. Please show me the DOIs of those papers.”
1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
100+ Papers – Sun Drives Climate
http://notrickszone.com/100-papers-sun-drives-climate/#sthash.YBhZwOSh.dpbs
65 Papers: Low Sensitivity
http://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/#sthash.35WvaG1R.dpbs
Global Warming Disputed: 350 Graphs
http://notrickszone.com/global-warming-disputed-300-graphs/#sthash.hVY8UDoF.dpbs
You need to drop your Consensus DOGMA,since it holds back research freedom and reduces constructive debate.
Both Bretz and Wegener were treated really bad, because they dare to dispute the Consensus.
Science is NEVER settled Jack,you need to understand that.
Not a single DOI. I want you to show me original sources, not contextomized misrepresentations.
Get your our Kenneth and Pierre’s butts, try reading actual science.
I know that science is never settled. I learned much from Thomas Kuhn. The concept of paradigm shifts is his.
Jack,if you bothered to look around in the link, you would know WHERE all those 1350 paper were posted in.
Here is an example:
What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979? (PDF)
(Remote Sensing, Volume 2, Issue 9, pp. 2148-2169, September 2010)
– John R. Christy, Benjamin Herman, Roger Pielke Sr., Philip Klotzbach, Richard T. McNider, Justin J. Hnilo, Roy W. Spencer, Thomas Chase, David Douglass
Kenneth and Pierre did the same thing,show WERE the papers were published in.
Example:
Florides and Christodoulides, 2009 (2X CO2 = ~0.02°C)
A very recent development on the greenhouse phenomenon is a validated adiabatic model, based on laws of physics, forecasting a maximum temperature-increase of 0.01–0.03 °C for a value doubling the present concentration of atmospheric CO2. Moreover, data from palaeoclimatology show that the CO2-content in the atmosphere is at a minimum in this geological aeon. Finally it is stressed that the understanding of the functioning of Earth’s complex climate system (especially for water, solar radiation and so forth) is still poor and, hence, scientific knowledge is not at a level to give definite and precise answers for the causes of global warming.
Your objections are absurd.
sunsettommy – I am invoking Proverbs 26:4.
Then it is clear you have no counterpoint to the proven examples of Consensus failures. You behave like a troll when you keep ignoring all the evidence I post that you don’t counter. You keep right on supporting Consensus fallacies,your desperate appeal to Thomas Kuhn, who doesn’t defend your Consensus nonsense.
Exposed your ignorance of Dr. Crichton’s career,exposed your lack of defense over your Consensus fallacy. Exposed your ignorance of nearly 2,000 published science papers and presentations,that doesn’t support AGW conjecture.
It is YOU who is the fool,I merely exposed YOU as a fool in it, with a lot of evidence,you provided no evidence at all,just a lot of bluster.
I posted evidence of disputing published science papers. You came back with the worn out boring ad hom fallacy.
“Not a single DOI. I want you to show me original sources, not contextomized misrepresentations.
Get your our Kenneth and Pierre’s butts, try reading actual science. ”
LOL.
I posted well supported examples of consensus failures. You came back with… he he… Thomas Kuhn,which means you don’t have an answer to my supported consensus failure examples. He can’t wish it away with his PHILOSOPHIC musings. You can’t be that dumb?
“You may wish to read Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, especially the postscript, to understand the role of consensus on scientific paradigms.”
No thanks.
I invoke an appropriate verse just for you,it pegs you extremely well, since you offered no rational defense of your silly consensus claims. You never post any counter to my examples of Consensus failures of which there are many. You completely ignored the IPCC Per Decade post I made, to show a glaring example of the AGW conjecture predictive failure
Hebrews 5.
“11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand. 12 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.”
Why are you still drinking Butter Milk?
Here is more about the worthlessness of Consensus paradigms:
This is a PARTIAL quote from a Speech Dr. Crichton made at Caltech in 2003
The speech was titled,
Aliens caused global warming
” I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever.
In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.
In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.
In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.
Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra.
The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/09/aliens-cause-global-warming-a-caltech-lecture-by-michael-crichton/
Jack, you need to drop the Consensus baloney.
Really – a science fiction writer?
But since you quoted him “What is relevant is reproducible results.”
Here are over 3 dozen hockey sticks by different researcher using different data set and different methodologies:
Crowley, T. J. 2000. Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years. Science 289:270-277: Used both his own and Mann et al. (1999)’s hockey sticks to examine the cause of temperature changes over the past 1,000 years. Found that natural forcings could not explain twentieth century warming without the effect of greenhouse gases.
Huang, S, H. N. Pollack, and P. Shen. 2000. Temperature Trends over the past five centuries reconstructed from borehole temperatures. Nature 403:756-758: Reconstructed global average temperatures since AD 1500 using temperature data from 616 boreholes from around the globe.
Bertrand, C., M. Loutre, M. Crucifix, and A. Berger. 2002. Climate of the Last Millenium: A Sensitivity Study. Tellus 54A:221-244.: Reconstructed solar output, volcanic activity, land use changes, and greenhouse gas concentrations since AD 1000, then computed the expected temperature changes due to those forcings. Compared the computed temperature changes with two independent temperature reconstructions.
Esper, J., E. R. Cook, and F. H. Schweingruber. 2002. Low-frequency Signals in Long Tree-ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability. Science 295:2250-2253: Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 800 and AD 2000 using tree ring chronologies.
Cronin, T. M., G. S. Dwyer, T. Kamiya, S. Schwede, and D. A. Willard. 2003. Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and 20th Century Temperature Variability from Chesapeake Bay. Global and Planetary Change 36: 17-29: Reconstructed temperatures between 200 BC and AD 2000 around Chesapeake Bay, USA, using sediment core records.
Pollack, H. N. and J. E. Smerdon. 2004. Borehole Climate Reconstructions: Spatial Structure and Hemispheric Averages. Journal of Geophysical Research 109:D11106: Reconstructed global average temperatures since AD 1500 using temperature data from 695 boreholes from around the globe.
Esper, J., R. J. S. Wilson, D. C. Frank, A. Moberg, H. Wanner, and J. Luterbacher. 2005. Climate: Past Ranges and Future Changes. Quarternary Science Reviews 24:2164-2166: Compared and averaged five independent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1000 to AD 2000.
Moberg, A., D. M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N. M. Datsenko, and W. Karlen. 2005. Highly Variable Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Reconstructed from Low- and High-resolution Proxy Data. Nature 433:613-617: Combined tree ring proxies with glacial ice cores, stalagmite, and lake sediment proxies to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1 to AD 2000.
Oerlemans, J. 2005. Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records. Science 308:675-677: Reconstructed global temperatures from AD 1500 to AD 2000 using 169 glacial ice proxies from around the globe.
Rutherford, S., M. E. Mann, T. J. Osborn, R. S. Bradley, K. R. Briffa, M. K. Hughes, and P. D. Jones. 2005. Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstructions: Sensitivity to Method, Predictor Network, Target Season, and Target Domain. Journal of Climate 18:2308-2329: Compared two multi-proxy temperature reconstructions and tested the results of each reconstruction for sensitivity to type of statistics used, proxy characteristics, seasonal variation, and geographic location. Concluded that the reconstructions were robust to various sources of error.
D’Arrigo, R. R. Wilson, and G. Jacoby. 2006. On the Long-term Context for Late Twentieth Century Warming. Journal of Geophysical Research 111:D03103: Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 700 and AD 2000 from multiple tree ring proxies using a new statistical technique called Regional Curve Standardization. Concluded that their new technique was superior to the older technique used by previous reconstructions.
Osborn, T. J. and K. R. Briffa. 2006. The Spatial Extent of 20th-century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years. Science 841-844: Used 14 regional temperature reconstructions between AD 800 and AD 2000 to compare spatial extent of changes in Northern Hemisphere temperatures. Found that twentieth century warming was more widespread than any other temperature change of the past 1,200 years.
Hegerl, G. C., T. J. Crowley, M. Allen, W. T. Hyde, H. N. Pollack, J. Smerdon, and E. Zorita. 2007. Detection of Human Influence on a New, Validated 1500-year Temperature Reconstruction. Journal of Climate 20:650-666: Combined borehole temperatures and tree ring proxies to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the past 1,450 years. Introduced a new calibration technique between proxy temperatures and instrumental temperatures.
Juckes, M. N., M. R. Allen, K. R. Briffa, J. Esper, G. C. Hegerl, A. Moberg, T. J. Osborn, and S. L. Weber. 2007. Millenial Temperature Reconstruction Intercomparison and Evaluation. Climate of the Past 3:591-609: Combined multiple older reconstructions into a meta-analysis. Also used existing proxies to calculate a new Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction.
Wahl, E. R. and C. M. Ammann. 2007. Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes Reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperatures: Examination of Criticisms Based on the Nature and Processing of Proxy Climate Evidence. Climatic Change 85:33-69: Used the tree ring proxies, glacial proxies, and borehole proxies used by Mann et al. (1998, 1999) to recalculate Northern Hemisphere temperatures since AD 800. Refuted the McIntyre and McKitrick criticisms and showed that those criticisms were based on flawed statistical techniques.
Wilson, R., R. D’Arrigo, B. Buckley, U. Büntgen, J. Esper, D. Frank, B. Luckman, S. Payette, R. Vose, and D. Youngblut. 2007. A Matter of Divergence: Tracking Recent Warming at Hemispheric Scales Using Tree Ring Data. Journal of Geophysical Research 112:D17103: Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1750 to AD 2000 using tree ring proxies that did not show a divergence problem after AD 1960.
Mann, M. E., Z. Zhang, M. K. Hughes, R. S. Bradley, S. K. Miller, S. Rutherford, and F. Ni. 2008. Proxy-based Reconstructions of Hemispheric and Global Surface Temperature Variations over the Past Two Millenium. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105:13252-13257: Reconstructed global temperatures between AD 200 and AD 2000 using 1,209 independent proxies ranging from tree rings to boreholes to sediment cores to stalagmite cores to Greenland and Antarctic ice cores.
Kaufman, D. S., D. P. Schneider, N. P. McKay, C. M. Ammann, R. S. Bradley, K. R. Briffa, G. H. Miller, B. L. Otto-Bliesner, J. T. Overpeck, B. M. Vinther, and Arctic Lakes 2k Project Members. 2009. Recent Warming Reverses Long-term Arctic Cooling. Science 325:1236-1239: Used tree rings, lake sediment cores, and glacial ice cores to reconstruct Arctic temperatures between 1 BC and 2000 AD.
von Storch, H., E. Zorita, and F. González-Rouco. 2009. Assessment of Three Temperature Reconstruction Methods in the Virtual Reality of a Climate Simulation. International Journal of Earth Science 98:67-82: Tested three different temperature reconstruction techniques to show that the Composite plus Scaling method was better than the other two methods.
Frank, D., J. Esper, E. Zorita, and R. Wilson. 2010. A Noodle, Hockey Stick, and Spaghetti Plate: A Perspective on High-resolution Paleoclimatology. Climate Change 1:507-516: A brief history of proxy temperature reconstructions, as well as analysis of the main questions remaining in temperature reconstructions.
Kellerhals, T., S. Brütsch, M. Sigl, S. Knüsel, H. W. Gäggeler, and M. Schwikowski. 2010. Ammonium Concentration in Ice Cores: A New Proxy for Regional Reconstruction? Journal of Geophysical Research 115:D16123: Used ammonium concentration in a glacial ice core to reconstruct tropical South American temperatures over the past 1,600 years.
Ljungqvist, F. C. 2010. A New Reconstruction of Temperature Variability in the Extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere During the Last Two Millenia. Geografiska Annaler: Series A Physical Geography 92:339-351 : Reconstructed extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1 to AD 2000 using historical records, sediment cores, tree rings, and stalagmites.
Thibodeau, B., A. de Vernal, C. Hillaire-Marcel, and A. Mucci. 2010. Twentieth Century Warming in Deep Waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence: A Unique Feature of the Last Millenium. Geophysical Research Letters 37:L17604: Reconstructed temperatures at the bottom of the Gulf of St. Lawrence since AD 1000 via sediment cores.
Tingley, M. P. and P. Huybers. 2010. A Bayesian Algorithm for Reconstructing Climate Anomalies in Space and Time. Part I: Development and Application to Paleoclimate Reconstruction Problems. Journal of Climate 23:2759-2781.
Tingley, M. P. and P. Huybers. 2010. A Bayesian Algorithm for Reconstructing Climate Anomalies in Space and Time. Part II: Comparison with the Regularized Expectation Maximum Algorithm. Journal of Climate 23:2782-2800. Both Tingley and Huybers papers revolved around the same reconstruction, in which they derived and used a Bayesian approach to reconstruct North American temperatures.
Büntgen, U., W. Tegel, K. Nicolussi, M. McCormick, D. Frank, V. Trouet, J. O. Kaplan, F. Herzig, K. Heussner, H. Wanner, J. Luterbacher, and J. Esper. 2011. 2500 Years of European Climate Variability and Human Susceptibility. Science 331:578-582: Used tree ring proxies to reconstruct Central European temperatures between 500 BC and AD 2000.
Kemp, A. C., B. P. Horton, J. P. Donnelly, M. E. Mann, M. Vermeer, and S. Rahmstorf. 2011. Climate Related Sea-level Variations Over the Past Two Millenia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108:11017-11022: Reconstructed sea levels off North Carolina, USA from 100 BC to AD 2000 using sediment cores. They also showed that sea levels changed with global temperature for at least the past millennium.
Kinnard, C. C. M. Zdanowicz, D. A. Fisher, E. Isaksson, A. de Vernal, and L. G. Thompson. 2011. Reconstructed Changes in Arctic Sea Ice Over the Past 1,450 Years. Nature 479:509-512: Used multiple proxies to reconstruct late summer Arctic sea ice between AD 561 and AD 1995, using instrumental data to extend their record to AD 2000.
Martín-Chivelet, J., M. B. Muñoz-García, R. L. Edwards, M. J. Turrero, and A. L. Ortega. 2011. Land Surface Temperature Changes in Northern Iberia Since 4000 yr BP, Based on δ13C of Speleothems. Global and Planetary Change 77:1-12: Reconstructed temperatures in the Iberian Peninsula from 2000 BC to AD 2000 using stalagmites.
Spielhagen, R. F., K. Werner, S. A. Sørensen, K. Zamelczyk, E. Kandiano, G. Budeus, K. Husum, T. M. Marchitto, and M. Hald. 2011. Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water. Science 331:450-453 : Reconstructed marine temperatures in the Fram Strait from 100 BC to AD 2000 using sediment cores.
Esper et al. 2012: Used tree ring proxies to reconstruct Northern Scandinavian temperatures 100 BC to AD 2000. May have solved the post-AD 1960 tree ring divergence problem.
Ljungqvist et al. 2012: Used a network of 120 tree ring proxies, ice core proxies, pollen records, sediment cores, and historical documents to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 800 and AD 2000, with emphasis on proxies recording the Medieval Warm Period.
Melvin, T. M., H. Grudd, and K. R. Briffa. 2012. Potential Bias in ‘Updating’ Tree-ring Chronologies Using Regional Curve Standardisation: Re-processing 1500 Years of Torneträsk Density and Ring-width Data. The Holocene 23:364-373: Reanalyzed tree ring data for the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden.
Abram, N. J., R. Mulvaney, E. W. Wolff, J. Triest, S. Kipfstuhl, L. D. Trusel, F. Vimeux, L. Fleet, and C. Arrowsmith. 2013. Acceleration of Snow Melt in an Antarctic Peninsula Ice Core During the Twentieth Century. Nature Geoscience 6:404-411: Reconstructed snow melt records and temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula since AD 1000 using ice core records.
Marcott, S. A., J. D. Shakun, P. U. Clark, and A. C. Mix. 2013. A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years. Science 339:1198-1201: Reconstructed global temperatures over the past 11,000 years using sediment cores. Data ended at AD 1940.
PAGES 2k Consortium. 2013. Continental-scale Temperature Variability During the Past Two Millennia. Nature Geoscience 6:339-346: Used multiple proxies (tree rings, sediment cores, ice cores, stalagmites, pollen, etc) to reconstruct regional and global temperatures since AD 1.
Rohde, R., R. A. Muller, R. Jacobsen, E. Muller, S. Perimutter, A. Rosenfeld, J. Wurtele, D. Groom, and C. Wickham. 2013. A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011. Geoinformatics and Geostatistics: An Overview 1:1-7: Used proxy and instrumental records to reconstruct global temperatures from AD 1753 to AD 2011.
Wilson, R., K. Anchukaitis, K. R. Briffa, U. Büntgen, E. Cook, R. D’Arrigo, N. Davi, J. Esper, D. Frank, B. Gunnarson, G. Hegerl, S. Helama, S. Klesse, P. J. Krusic, H. W. Linderholm, V. Myglan, T. J. Osborn, M. Rydval, L. Schneider, A. Schurer, G. Wiles, P. Zhang, and E. Zorita. 2016. Last Millennium Northern Hemisphere Summer Temperatures from Tree rings: Part I: The Long Term Context. Quarternary Science Reviews 134:1-18. Introduces and details the new N-TREND2015 temperature reconstruction using 54 proxy records.
Links available here: http://environmentalforest.blogspot.ca/2013/10/enough-hockey-sticks-for-team.html
Yes, I have spend some time confirming them.
The PAGES 2k Consortium. 2013 is probably the most comprehensive. This is a more recent study https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788
“Here we present a community-sourced database of temperature-sensitive proxy records from the PAGES2k initiative. The database gathers 692 records from 648 locations, including all continental regions and major ocean basins. The records are from trees, ice, sediment, corals, speleothems, documentary evidence, and other archives. They range in length from 50 to 2000 years, with a median of 547 years, while temporal resolution ranges from biweekly to centennial.”
The PAGES 2k Consortium authoring this study is a subgroup of the larger PAGES 2k Network. It comprises 98 regional experts from 22 countries.
I see that Jack,failing to counter my central point that Consensus errors are many and provable,rushed in defending a paper that even DR.Mann partially abandoned years later.
LOL.
Consensus has been wrong many times,which you didn’t counter at all.
This article shows that Dr. Crichton was a very talented,intelligent man:
“Michael Crichton dies at 66; bestselling author of ‘Jurassic Park’ and other thrillers
Crichton was still in Harvard Medical School when he wrote his first bestseller: “The Andromeda Strain,” a fast-paced, scientifically and technologically detailed 1969 thriller about a team of scientists attempting to save mankind from a deadly microorganism brought to earth by a military satellite. It was made into a movie in 1971.
With his success at writing thrillers, Crichton abandoned medicine to become a full-time writer whose novels in the ’70s and ’80s included “The Terminal Man,” “The Great Train Robbery,” “Eaters of the Dead,” “Congo” and “Sphere.”
Crichton made his feature film directing debut in 1973 with “Westworld,” which he also wrote, about a fantasy theme park for wealthy vacationers whose fun is spoiled when malfunctioning androids turn deadly.
He directed five other movies in the ’70s and ’80s: “Coma,” “The Great Train Robbery,” “Looker,” “Runaway” and “Physical Evidence.”
As a novelist, Crichton came back stronger than ever in the 1990s with bestsellers such as “Jurassic Park,” “Rising Sun,” “Disclosure,” “The Lost World,” “Airframe” and “Timeline.”
During the same decade, he co-wrote the screenplay for “Jurassic Park,” the 1993 Spielberg-directed blockbuster hit; and he co-wrote the screenplay for the 1996 action-thriller “Twister” with his fourth wife, actress Anne-Marie Martin, with whom he had a daughter, Taylor.
Crichton also created “ER,” the long-running NBC medical drama that debuted in 1994 and became the No. 1-rated series the next year.
Dubbed “the Hit Man” by Time magazine in a 1995 cover story chronicling his “golden touch,” Crichton had more than 100 million copies of his books in print at the time. Indeed, the prolific writer who closely guarded his private life had become a dominant figure in popular culture.
His books, as Washington Post writer Linton Weeks once wrote, “are often dark portraits of science gone awry and technology that brings out the rot in the human heart.”
They also occasionally spurred controversy over significant current issues, including sexual harassment in the workplace in “Disclosure,” Japanese business practices in “Rising Sun” and global warming in “State of Fear.”
Known for his intellectual curiosity, energy and drive, Crichton was a self-described workaholic.
“He works hard,” Martin told Vanity Fair in 1994. “Toward the end of a book, it’s like living with a body and Michael is somewhere else. Then, when the book’s finished, Michael comes back.”
When he wasn’t writing fiction, Crichton periodically turned to nonfiction, including “Jasper Johns,” a 1977 portrait of the artist; and “Travels,” a 1988 collection of autobiographical tales spanning his medical-school days to his adventures scuba diving and climbing mountains.
He also wrote a book on information technology, “Electronic Life” (1983), formed a small software company in the early ’80s, designed a computer game and shared a 1995 Academy Award for technical achievement for pioneering computerized motion picture budgeting and scheduling.
“What I admire about Michael is the way that he can so easily do so many things and do them all so easily well,” Sonny Mehta, Crichton’s editor at Alfred A. Knopf his longtime publishing house before he moved to HarperCollins earlier this decade, told the Washington Post. “There are not too many people who are polymathic these days.”
and,
“In third grade, he wrote a nine-page play for a puppet show. At 13, he started submitting short stories to magazines, and he sold a travel article to the New York Times when he was 14. He also covered high school sports for the local newspaper and later wrote for the Harvard Crimson.
Intending to become a writer, he entered Harvard as an English major in 1960.
But after his professors criticized his writing style, he changed his major to anthropology.
After graduating summa cum laude in 1964, he spent a year on a fellowship as a visiting lecturer on anthropology at Cambridge University in England.
Returning home, he entered Harvard Medical School and was soon writing paperback thrillers under the pen names John Lange and Jeffery Hudson.
His 1968 medical thriller “A Case of Need,” written under his Hudson pseudonym, won an Edgar Allan Poe Award for best novel from the Mystery Writers of America.
His 1969 novel “The Andromeda Strain” was his first book published under his own name.
He also co-wrote “Dealing: Or the Berkeley-to-Boston Forty-Brick Lost-Bag Blues,” a 1970 novel with his brother Douglas under the name Michael Douglas.
After receiving his medical degree in 1969, Crichton spent the next year as a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla.
But he continued to write, including “Five Patients: The Hospital Explained,” a 1970 nonfiction book that earned him a writer of the year award from the American Medical Writers Assn.
His most recent novel, “Next,” which dealt with genetics and the law, was published in 2006.”
http://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-crichton6-2008nov06-story.html
Your consensus argument is feeble.