Posts Tagged ‘Steve McIntyre’

The Big Lie: Marotzke’s Broken Promise

Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013

Source: Climate Audit  Big-Lie

A few days ago, Jochem Marotzke, an IPCC Coordinating Lead Author and, according to Der Spiegel, “president of the German Climate Consortium and Germany’s top scientific representative in Stockholm”, was praised (e.g. Judy Curry here) for his promise that the IPCC would address the global warming hiatus “head on” despite pressures from green factions in government ministries and for his declaration that “climate researchers have an obligation not to environmental policy but to the truth”.

However, it turned out that Marotzke’s promise was merely another trick. Worse, it turns out that Marotzke already knew that the report would not properly deal with the hiatus – which, in a revealing interview, Marotzke blamed on an ” oversight” (h/t to Judy Curry here). Worse, it turns out that IPCC authors were themselves complicit during the plenary session in causing information about the discrepancy between models and observations to be withheld from the SPM, as shown by thus far undiscussed minutes of the IPCC plenary session. (more…)

Michael Mann — the ghost of climate past

Thursday, August 23rd, 2012

Following is a series of articles updating the Mann Hockey Stick fiasco, with sources provided per each post.

Michael Mann

Source: PJ Media

People who have been following the climate debate closely know that one of the most controversial and key elements of the controversy is the so-called “hockey stick” — a graph of supposed global temperature over the past centuries that ostensibly shows a dramatic increase in average temperature in the last century or so (the upward swoop of the graph at that point is the business end of the stick, with regard to the puck). It vaulted its inventor, Michael Mann of Penn State University, to climate stardom, with associated acclaim and government grants, when he first presented it in the late ’90s. It was the visual basis of much of the hysteria in recent years, from Al Gore’s Oscar-winning crockumentary to bogus reports from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Unfortunately for those promoting the theory (and the potentially economically catastrophic policy recommendations supposedly supported by it), recent events indicate that the last basis of scientific support for the hockey stick may be crumbling. But to understand this, a little background is necessary. (more…)

EPA: the Endangerment Finding was not a “highly influential scientific assessment”

Wednesday, October 5th, 2011

Source: Climate audit

by Steve McIntyre

The recent report of the EPA Office of Inspector General(OIG) contains a remarkable dispute between the OIG on the one hand and EPA and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the other as to whether the Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Endangerment Finding was a “highly influential scientific assessment”, a defined category under OMB peer review policy. It would doubtless seem self-evident to most readers that, if any scientific assessment were to meet any criteria of being “highly influential”, the TSD for the Endangerment Finding would meet such criteria. (more…)

Flashback: Steve McIntyre on EPA Endangerment Finding

Thursday, September 29th, 2011

by Russell Cook

Remember that Steve McIntyre, the whistleblower on Michael Mann’s IPCC hockey stick graph, protested about EPA lack of science due dilignece in June 2009 at his blog here:  http://climateaudit.org/2009/06/23/climate-audit-submission-to-epa/

“…EPA guidelines require that highly influential scientific assessments meet a variety of sensible standards for transparency, data availability and due diligence – policies that [ClimateAudit] readers know not to have been implemented by the IPCC. I discussed these issues in my prior post and have amplified these arguments in my submission which is online…EPA submission 3951.1 …”

 

NOAA’s Pillars of Climate

Sunday, July 31st, 2011

Source:  Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

Obviously US federal spending is under a lot of pressure given budgetary problems. In the course of cutting curtailing federal spending, there will be great pressure to curtail even the most worthy programs, such as NOAA’s sponsorship of the display Pillars of Climate at the recent American Meteorological Society’s Applied Climatology and Climate Change Adaptation conference in Asheville. Other sponsors are the University of North Carolina, NOAA, ARC, ArtPLex Solutions and Monotour Productions. The Pillars of Climate is described as follows:

“Pillars of Climate” is an installation that investigates the issues of perception and dissemination of data in climate change. The sculpture invites the audience to go beyond ‘face value’ and inspect more closely the integration of humanity, nature and fossil fuels.

Pillars of Climate depicts four scientists, described in the accompanying legend as follows:

The four scientists depicted in the piece were chosen for their unique carreers [sic], which blend science, communication and activism in climate science. They represent the forward thinking that gives raw data meaning in everyday life. (more…)

ICO Orders UEA to Produce CRUTEM Station Data

Tuesday, June 28th, 2011

Source: Climate Audit

Breaking news: Today probably marks the closing chapter of the longstanding FOI request for CRUTEM station data. The UK Information Commissioner (ICO) has rendered a decision (see here) on Jonathan Jones’ appeal of the UEA’s refusal to provide Prof J. Jones with the CRUTEM station data that they had previously provided to Georgia Tech. The decision that can only be characterized as a total thrashing of the University of East Anglia.

Professor Jonathan Jones of Oxford University (like me, an alumnus of Corpus Christi, Oxford), is a Bishop Hill and CA reader and was one of several CA readers who requested the CRUTEM version sent to Georgia Tech earlier that year. (Contrary to disinformation from Nature, relatively few readers requested CRUTEM data; most FOI requests at the time were for the supposed confidentiality agreements prohibiting data being sent to “non-academics” – agreements that the University was unable to produce. (more…)

The IPCC loses its last credibility: GreenPeace Secrets

Saturday, June 18th, 2011

Source: Financial Post

The period from November 2009 to March 2010 was a bad time for climate-change alarmists. That four-month period included the posting of thousands of emails and computer files from leading climate scientists showing that they had been cooking their global-warming data, working together to keep independent researchers from examining their raw figures and pressuring academic journals against publishing studies that contradicted the man-made climate-change orthodoxy. (more…)

Ignoring Real World Data: Peter Gleick and the Fourth Horseman

Friday, May 27th, 2011

Source:  Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

In 2009, Peter Gleick wrote: “Fear is an effective tool.” A lesson, it seems, that was not lost on Gleick himself, who used the occasion of the recent tornado outbreak to prophesy “accelerating” “death and destruction”. While Gleick’s opportunistic attempt to exploit the tornado event has been criticized (e.g. Pielke here, it seems to me that Gleick’s apocalyptic rhetoric has attracted insufficient attention, especially when measured against his prior editorials on fearmongering.

Gleick categorically asserted that science says that “climate is worsening”:

Violent tornadoes throughout the southeastern U.S. must be a front-page reminder that no matter how successful climate deniers are in confusing the public or delaying action on climate change in Congress or globally, the science is clear: Our climate is worsening. (more…)

“Hockey Stick” Data Stonewalling Continues

Friday, May 27th, 2011

Source: Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

Yamal FOI Appeal

As I reported a month or so ago, the University of East Anglia refused a request under the Environmental Information Regulations for the regional chronology combining Polar Urals, Yamal and other shorter chronologies, referred to in a Climategate email. Their refusal is here UEA Refusal.

The refusal took place on March 28 and I plan to submit an appeal within 60 days. I’ve uploaded my draft appeal and would welcome any comments in the next 2 hours or so, following which I will send it.

Appeal of UEA Refusal

More Data Refusal – Nothing Changes

Friday, January 14th, 2011

Source:  Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

Jan 6, 2011 – 8:10 PM

Phil Jones and his coauthors in the recent multiproxy study (Neukom et al 2010, (Climate Dynamics) Multiproxy summer and winter surface air temperature field reconstructions for southern South America covering the past centuries) did not archive proxy data in the Supplementary Information. Many proxy series used in the study are not otherwise publicly archived.

I wrote to lead author Raphael Neukom as follows:

Dear Dr Neukom,
I notice that your recent multiproxy article uses a number of proxies that aren’t publicly archived. Do you plan to provide an archive of the data as used in your study? If not, could you please send me a copy of the data as used. Thanks for your attention.
Regards, Steve McIntyre

I received the following answer refusing the data:

Dear Steve,

Thanks for your interest in our work. Most of the non-publicly available records were provided to us for use within the PAGES LOTRED-SA initiative only and I am not authorized to further distribute them. You would need to directly contact the authors. I am sorry for that.

If you are interested in a particular record, let me know and I can provide the contact details.

Cheers,
Raphael

Every inquiry into paleoclimate controversies, no matter how much whitewash was applied, concluded that climate scientists should archive data. If Neukom, Jones and their coauthors publish a multiproxy article, that means the multiproxy data, not just the output. If the contributing authors are not willing to archive their data, then it shouldn’t be used in a study in a climate journal. End of story. (more…)

A man for all (climate) seasons?

Tuesday, September 28th, 2010
Source:  UK Telegraph
by James Dlingpole
Stephen McIntyre: total bloody hero.

Stephen McIntyre: total bloody hero.

Steve McIntyre has been named one of the 50 People Who Matter by the left-wing journal New Statesman. He comes in at number 32. (Below a motley crew including Osama Bin Laden, Hugo Chavez, David Cameron, Julian Assange, Barack Obama, and the like). (H/T Roddy Campbell)

Here’s what his entry says:

When the mining expert Stephen McIntyre challenged the basis of climate science on his blog, he became a figurehead for many climate-change sceptics.

His subsequent involvement in the 2009 “Climategate” controversy at the University of East Anglia (he was referred to in the hacked emails over 100 times) emboldened the sceptics further and changed global opinion: the number of people who believe man is responsible for global warming has fallen.

The influence might not be positive, but there’s no doubt he has shaped the debate. (more…)

More temperature data tampering

Thursday, August 12th, 2010

Source:  Wattsupwiththat?

More Gunsmoke, This Time In Nepal

[SPPI Note: we will be adding this example to our on-going paper here: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html?Itemid=0]

Note to Readers: This is an important post, as Willis demonstrates that NASA GISS has taken a cooling trend and converted it into a warming trend for the one GHCN station in Nepal which covers the Himalayas. I offer NASA GISS, either via Jim Hansen or Gavin Schmidt, rebuttal opportunity to this issue on WUWT anytime. -Anthony

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I read the excellent and interesting guest post by Marc Hendrickx about the IPCC and the Himalayas. My first big surprise was the size of the claimed warming. He cites IPCC Table 10.2 which says:

Nepal:  0.09°C per year in Himalayas and 0.04°C in Terai region, more in winter

Well, my bad number detector started ringing like crazy. A warming of nine degrees C (16°F) per century in the mountains, four degrees C per century in the lowlands? … I don’t think so. Those numbers are far too big. I know of no place on earth that is warming in general at 9°C per century. (more…)

NOAA, CONGRESS, USHCNV2 and an Expensive New Climate Network

Tuesday, August 10th, 2010

Source: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog

By Joseph D’Aleo

The Inspector General wrote on behalf of NOAA a response to Congressman Barton and Rohrabacher and the other committee members about the issues raised about the US climate data base (USHCN) (see attached letter and report here). They spoke with the NWS, NCDC, ATDD, several state climatologists, the AASC, the USGRP and the AMS to form their response. They examined quality control procedures, background documentation, operating procedures, budget requirements and management plans. (more…)

Blatant Misrepresentation by Muir Russell Panel

Friday, July 23rd, 2010

Source:  Climate Audit

The Muir Russell panel blatantly misrepresented the facts surrounding Jones’ notorious request to “delete all emails”, a misrepresentation that, in my opinion, was done, at a minimum, either recklessly or out of gross negligence.

The Muir Russell Report
Muir Russell’s findings on the “delete any emails” incident are contained in chapter 10 paragraph 28. Obviously the issuing of an FOI request affects the right of Jones or anyone else to delete documents. Muir Russell purported to exonerate CRU on this count on the empirical basis that the “delete any emails” request had not occurred in the context of a prior FOI request – a claim that is totally untrue. (more…)

Oxburgh and the Jones Admission

Sunday, July 11th, 2010

Source: ClimateAudit

by  Steve Mcintyre

A bombshell from the Oxburgh “inquiry”.

Obviously, the most contentious issue in the Hockey Stick controversy has been, uh, the hockey sticks – an area where CRU scientists Jones, Briffa and Osborn have been intimately involved as authors of key proxies, authors of multiproxy studies in the IPCC spaghetti graph, peer reviewers of journal articles and IPCC assessment authors. The core position of Climate Audit in respect to these studies is that the data and methods used in these studies do not permit assertions about the medieval-modern relationship to be made with any confidence. This gets played out in numerous disputes over individual proxies and individual statistical methods, but these do not deflect from the overall issue. (more…)