Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 17951 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2020 1:35 pm Post subject:
by email wrote:
Much as one might prefer to stay on neutral ground, unfortunately, if you want to understand the bigger picture, it isn't possible.
There are three key reasons why you have to take the climate scam into account:
the use and abuse of dodgy science; science used to support an agenda rather than the other way around
the same bad actors appear - in the climate scam as in the globalist WEF plot to control us forever
the policies that result from the scam
The global illness is just a pretext to terrify us, destroy our economy and justify what comes next - ie The Great Reset aka Build Back Better.
1. The Science
As far as I know both attached graphs are based on the same data. The Hockey Stick was manipulated deliberately so as to smooth out the Medieval Warm Period and the Maunder Minimum and the Dalton Minimum. They don't want the awkward questions.
I am aware of the idea that Tiffany mentioned which is that the Medieval warming was not universal. But it still happened - the Vikings were farming Greenland - and it happened without manmade carbon being involved. And why the extreme cold, such as when there were C17th ice fairs on the Thames?
Regardless of whether or not CO2 is rising, correlation does not equal causation.
Even now we see incredible variations in the weather, from one day to the next - extremes of heat, cold, wet, dry. None of which is explained by a constant production of manmade toxins, but is explicable when looking at the jet stream. I have never seen a convincing argument that explains how CO2 influences the jet stream.
There is also a massive hole in the atmosphere above the Antarctic which does not suggest a greenhouse.
What this particular Psy-Op means is that people do not look at the real driver of climate which is the Sun. I don't bother with people like Icke for my info. I go straight to the scientists - Dr Willie Soon https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/willie-soon
- I strongly recommend watching any talk by him. He is v funny apart from anything); Prof Richard Lindzen (Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT); Dr John Christy (a climate scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville who oversees NASAâ€™s satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures); Dr Roy Spencer (Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville); Dr Tim Ball (a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba, Canada) who successfully had his libel case brought by Dr Michael Mann dropped.
Polar Bears are not in decline - Dr Suzanne Crockford
Sea ice is not shrinking - the Greenland glacier is growing
Sea levels are not rising - Nils Axel Morner (former head of the paleogeophysics and geodynamics department at Stockholm University.)
Coral reefs are not dying - Prof Peter Ridd
There is no consensus in science. There are only hypotheses. Being led by the data means being led by tools of propaganda and that is how we are now seeing science being abused. Back in the day, the scandal was the discovery of the UEA emails (climate gate). Dr Michael Mann was the bad actor involved then. He has also been the bad actor involved in the sacking of Dr Crockford and tried to unsuccessfully sue Dr Tim Ball. Mann is v close to Gore et al.
Michael Shellenberger is one activist who has seen the light -
Science similarly abused under the Covid regime: BMJ on the politicisation of medical science. Witless and UnBalanced select the data they want to frighten the people. SAGE mostly made up of psychologists - why?!
2. Bad Actors
Curious how the same bad actors crop up in the climate scam at the top of the tree as in the current Club of Rome/UN/WEF scam. People like Bloomberg, Mark Carney former BofE governor; companies like Goldman Sachs.
They are desperate to force us to accept that we are unacceptable consumers of carbon and so should be controlled accordingly.
Tedros at WHO seized the opportunity to talk climate change as soon as possible
- as if that has anything to do with a disease?!?
Groups like XR are just tools of these people, as is Greta T.
Rosa Koire and Rupert Darwell as well as James Delingpole have all written about this.
3. The Policies
Same guilt trip emotional blackmail ("killing people if you don't wear a mask"/"killing the planet if you don't adopt Agenda 2030"): we can be monitored as biohazards and as carbon consumers.
$11trn has been shaken out of the Pension Funds from Big Oil into 'green schemes' - the eco ones that rely on rare earths, child labour and damaging extraction methods.
The Great Reset is a fusion of UN Sustainable Development Goals, ie climate change, with WEF's 4th Industrial Revolution.
Crashed our economies and seized our resources.
'Build Back Better' with everything digitised, tracked and traced. And businesses denied finance if they do not conform to the carbon requirements.
Not suggesting that there aren't pollution problems. But the loss of the carbon car is the loss of freedom to go where and when we want. Electric cars, esp driverless ones, can more easily be controlled.
WEF never addresses the issue of control. Who owns the data? Who owns the land we are no longer allowed to inhabit [Nature Needs Half]. On Exmoor where there are plans to stop farmers grazing so that we can meet our UN biodiversity commitment, they are calling it out as a way of creating a playground for the super rich.
Socialism for most, but global elitism carries on for them.
The latest fear porn from WEF -
This is Earth in the next 100 years if we don't act on climate change | Ways to Change the World
9,989 views•14 Oct 2020
I research and write about science and technology in policy, politics and in sport
Super Snow Moon
The full super snow moon rises, Saturday, Feb. 8, 2020, at Smith Rock State Park in Oregon. (AP ... [+] ASSOCIATED PRESS
A climate advocacy group called Skeptical Science hosts a list of academics that it has labeled “climate misinformers.” The list includes 17 academics and is intended as a blacklist. We know of this intent because one of the principals of Skeptical Science, a blogger named Dana Nuccitelli, said so last Friday, writing of one academic on their list, “if you look at the statements we cataloged and debunked on her [Skeptical Science] page, it should make her unhirable in academia.”
That so-called “unhirable” academic is Professor Judy Curry, formerly the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, and a Fellow of both the American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Society. By any conventional academic metric, Curry has compiled an impressive record over many decades. The idea that she would be unhirable would seem laughable.
But there is nothing funny about Skeptical Science. Today, Curry should be a senior statesperson in the atmospheric sciences community. Instead, she is out of academia. She attributes that, at least in part, to being placed on the Skeptical Science blacklist and its use, as expressed by Nuccitelli, to make her “unhirable.”
I asked Professor Curry about this situation. She explained, “In 2012 I was informed by my Dean that the administration wanted me to step down as Chair. While there were several reasons for this, one obvious reason was extreme displeasure by several activist climate scientists who had a very direct pipeline to the Dean.”
So Curry stepped down and started looking for administrative positions at other universities, “At the time, I was getting numerous inquiries from academic headhunters encouraging me to apply for major administration positions, ranging from Dean to Vice Chancellor for Research. I applied for several of these, and actually interviewed for two of them. I did not make it to the final short list.”
MORE FOR YOU
The Green Revolution Is In Trouble: Here’s Why Indian Farmers Are Protesting
Will The Biden Administration Transform U.S. Climate Policy?
Amazon’s Climate Pledge Arena: Virtue Signaling Or A Game-Changer?
The headhunter gave Curry the following feedback from the universities: “They thought I was an outstanding candidate, looked excellent on paper, articulated a strong vision, and interviewed very well in person. The show stopper was my public profile in the climate debate, as evidenced by a simple Google search.”
Indeed, in my own Google search of “Judy Curry,” and confirmed by others on my Twitter timeline, the Skeptical Science blacklist page for her appears on the first page of Google results, and for me it was the top listing.
How can it be that a website, founded by an Australian cartoonist named John Cook and run mainly by volunteer non-academics and amateur scientists, can rise to the position of not just claiming to arbitrate who is and who is not an appropriate hire for universities, but actually fulfilling that role?
Skeptical Science emerged in 2007, the peak of the climate blogging era. It was also a time when the pursuit of “climate skeptics” (or “deniers”) really took off. The website soon found a large audience and was promoted as an ally in the battle against climate skeptics and deniers. For instance, according to Wikipedia, “The Washington Post has praised it as the "most prominent and detailed" website to counter arguments by global warming deniers.”
But the main legitimizing factor in the rise of Skeptical Science as a powerful climate advocacy group was its endorsement by prominent scientists, such as by widely-known climate scientists Michael Mann of Penn State University and Katherine Hayhoe, of Texas Tech. Like Skeptical Science, Mann and Hayhoe focus much of their advocacy efforts on identifying and denigrating so-called climate skeptics or deniers.
The American Geophysical Union (AGU), a leading scientific association that includes many climate scientists, has routinely endorsed Skeptical Science. The AGU has even invoked the Skeptical Science blacklist, as recently as last December, when one of its writers dismissed an Australian academic by observing simply that he “has his own page on John Cook’s Skeptical Science site.” The mere fact of being listed on the Skeptical Science blacklist appears to be sufficient to be dismissed on the official website of the AGU, where Curry was elected a Fellow.
But what has happened to Curry is just the tip of the iceberg.
Upon discussing on Twitter the Skeptical Science claim that their “debunking” of Curry should make her “unhirable in academia,” a follower of mine pointed to a trove of hacked internal discussions among the Skeptical Science team. In those discussions from around 2010-2012, my father, Roger Pielke, Sr. — also a prominent atmospheric scientist — was mentioned some 3,700 times. Correspondingly, my father is also listed on the Skeptical Science blacklist.
I have read those internal discussions and what I saw is incredibly disturbing, for academic freedom and for simple human decency.
Let me take a step back and explain why I believe that it is appropriate to discuss the content of these hacked discussions. (Note: These hacked discussions are different than the Photoshopped imagery found in 2013 on an unprotected Skeptical Science website showing several Skeptical Science team members with their faces super imposed upon Nazi soldiers, with John Cook as Heinrich Himmler. According to Rob Honeycutt of Skeptical Science, those images were prepared as an in-group joke to make fun of a climate skeptic who appears on another of their lists, and were not intended for the public.)
The discussions in the hacked conversations – like those in the Wikileaks releases, those of President Emanuel Macron’s hacked conversations, or even the Climategate emails – are legitimately in the public interest.
There are at least three reasons for this. One, the hacked forum reveals that Skeptical Science – a foreign advocacy group — in collaboration with the Center for American Progress (a DC-based progressive advocacy group), improperly obtained Congressional testimony in advance from several U.S. scientists and were engaged to help Democrats in the House to impeach the testimony of these scientists. Second, the leaked discussions reveal a coordinated effort to lobby U.S. elected officials by a foreign-based entity. While such coordination may or may not meet the legal definition of “lobbying,” the appropriateness of such foreign influence efforts in U.S. politics is certainly fair to question. Third, Skeptical Science has positioned itself as a public arbiter of truth, including rendering judgments as to who is or who is not employable by universities. Their claims to service in the public interest mean that evidence contrary to such claims is also in the public interest.
For these reasons I have made the judgment that discussing the leaked discussions relevant to their stated public interest mission – and which have been in the public domain for many years – is not only fair, it is important. As the editor of the Times of London wrote in 1852, “We are bound to tell the truth as we find it, without fear of consequences.”
Knowing full well the considerable power and influence wielded by Skeptical Science and their allies, I am fearful indeed, but truth matters more. And the truth here is ugly.
The internal discussions among the Skeptical Science team, with the 3,700 mentions of Pielke Sr., reveal a years-long campaign to destroy his reputation, and to elevate their stature at his expense. The effort was coordinated and brutal.
In one representative exchange, they said, “We are HUNTING Pielke” and in another, “We are trying to bring him down,” and still another, “My vote is to take the b****** down!” Across 3,700 mentions in the dataset, there is no shortage of such expressed intent to damage, if not end, my father’s distinguished career.
Their strategy was sinister. They sought to define Pielke Sr. as a “climate denier,” and to use his prominent status in the field as the basis for elevating their own by then taking him down. Often they commented on how pleased they were to be able to use the stature of Pielke Sr. to elevate their own profile in the climate debate, “"The fact that Pielke even acknowledges SkS is a good thing."
At times the Skeptical Science team was confused at why Pielke Sr. was engaging with them: “Why does a scientist of Dr. Pielke's stature choose to spend so much of his time and enrgy posting on SkS? Doesn't he have more important things to do?”
What they did not understand is that Pielke Sr. is a science nerd and is willing to talk atmospheric science with anyone – alarmist, skeptic, expert, non-expert – 24/7/365. They took advantage of this openness to discussion, and perhaps his naivete as to their motives, to seek to destroy him. They went so far as to strategically have one team member contact him by email on multiple occasions to appear friendly and engage in a side discussion to see if they could gather further information via a good cop/bad cop routine.
Some of the discussions of Pielke Sr. veered into the paranoid, with Skeptical Science team members on several occasions fantasizing that Pielke Sr. was perhaps the point man in a global climate denier conspiracy. If only they could somehow access his university emails, one mused, “Look, if the deniers' emails are exposed I have no doubt that what we see will be unbelieveable, mind blowing, maybe even criminal. Why none has tried legitimitely (i.e., through FOIA) to access their emails is beyond me.”
The idea that Pielke Sr. is a climate denier is laughable. Skeptical Science consistently interpreted Pielke Sr.’s willingness to engage with their mortal enemies (such as Anthony Watts of the skeptical blog WattsUpWithThat) not as a sign of a magnanimous senior statesman willing to help anyone bring their ideas to the peer-reviewed literature, but as evidence of some sort of deep and irreparable moral turpitude. The hacked discussions are infused with such Manichean paranoia.
As time went by the Skeptical Science team’s attitude toward Pielke Sr. became increasingly unhinged and personal. John Cook, the founder of Skeptical Science, wrote, “"I'm finding myself very annoyed when I think about Pielke, having trouble thinking purely rationally and strategically when I think about him.” One team member expressed some concern about their attacks, “It looks like a great lion being mobbed by snarling jackals. I don't like it.”
But in the end, the political aims of Skeptical Science meant that Pielke Sr. needed to be destroyed: “he lends the camouflage of scientific respectability to what is likely to be a very dangerous policy of fossil-fuel appeasement. I don't care how Pielke is behaving: I'm playing to win."
And win they have.
Even given my obvious biases, Pielke Sr. is undoubtedly a giant in the atmospheric sciences. It is hard to find any scientist of his generation with a stronger record of achievement. He was an early pioneer of computer modeling of weather, contributing to demonstrably better weather forecasts. He was also a leader in recognizing the role of land surface processes in regional and global climate. A full recounting of his achievements would span many columns here. At a time when he should be receiving lifetime achievement awards and celebrated for his contributions to science, he is instead ostracized and is still being denigrated by Skeptical Science and their followers.
My bias is not simply familial. You see, I am also on the Skeptical Science blacklist. Rarely does a day go by that this is not used on social media or, at times, in personal interactions to illustrate my lack of fitness to participate in scientific discussions, to damage my career and reputation.
Like Curry and Pielke Sr., I have seen firsthand the consequences of a public and behind-the-scenes campaign by Skeptical Science against me. Despite the widespread aversion of professor blacklisting, in climate science at least, such blacklisting is allowed and even encouraged by the community, and as a result, it works.
I have been locked out from Twitter for sharing some of the information from the hacked Skeptical Science discussions. Several Skeptical Science team members have contacted me by email in the past hours with vaguely sinister but eminently deniable threats. I expect they will come after this column next. And if you hear that I have left academia, like Curry, you’ll know why.
Even so, everything here is true, and truth matters more than fear.
The sun’s activity is in free fall, according to a leading space physicist. But don’t expect a little ice age. “Solar activity is declining very fast at the moment,” Mike Lockwood, professor of space environmental physics at Reading University, UK, told New Scientist. “We estimate faster than at any time in the last 9300 years.”
Lockwood and his colleagues are reassessing the chances of this decline continuing over decades to become the first “grand solar minimum” for four centuries. During a grand minimum the normal 11-year solar cycle is suppressed and the sun has virtually no sunspots for several decades. This summer should have seen a peak in the number of sunspots, but it didn’t happen.
Lockwood thinks there is now a 25 per cent chance of a repetition of the last grand minimum, the late 17th century Maunder Minimum, when there were no sunspots for 70 years. Two years ago, Lockwood put the chances of this happening at less than 10 per cent (Journal of Geophysical Research, DOI: 10.1029/2011JD017013).
Little ice age
The Maunder Minimum coincided with the worst European winters of the little ice age, a period lasting centuries when several regions around the globe experienced unusual cooling. Tree ring studies suggest it cooled the northern hemisphere by up to 0.4 °C.
But Lockwood says we should not expect a new grand minimum to bring on a new little ice age. Human-induced global warming, he says, is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles. Temperatures have risen by 0.85 °C since 1880, with more expected, according to the most recent assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
There may still be noticeable consequences. For instance, long term cold winters in the UK are common when solar activity is low. And less solar activity can slow the jet stream, triggering a suite of interlinked extreme weather events like the Russian heatwave of 2010, and the devastating floods in Pakistan that same year.
There have been 24 grand solar minima in the past 10,000 years. Their history is reconstructed by looking for isotopes like carbon-14 that cosmic rays generate in the atmosphere. Solar activity boosts the solar wind which deflects cosmic rays coming at Earth, so less solar activity means more cosmic rays and more of these isotopes.
How the isotopes vary over time can be measured by looking at things like tree rings, which absorb carbon-14, or ice cores, which accumulate beryllium-10.
The current long-term decline in solar activity set in after the last grand solar maximum peaked in 1956, says Lockwood. The decline has accelerated recently, and the absence of sunspots this summer has set alarm bells ringing.
The precise extent to which solar cycles influence global temperatures is still debated, including whether the recent decline may have helped cause the current hiatus in the pace of global warming.
“Mike is probably right that there is a chance of the sun returning to a level of activity similar to the Maunder Minimum,” says atmospheric physicist Joanna Haigh of Imperial College. But she adds: “Even under the most optimistic scenario [of minimal global warming and a deep solar minimum] the solar cooling would only just offset greenhouse gas warming. So no ice age.”
It is more likely that it will simply reduce the warming a little, and set us up for greater warming if it receded.
News Pamphlet illustration depicting the Great Flood in the Bristol Channel Jan 1607
The British Library
Bristol chronicle 1564 entry Freeze and Plague
University of Bristol
Flood Plaque Jan 1607 – Plaque in Kingston Seymour, one of the churches flooded in Jan 1607 (plaque says 1606 because the start of the year was normally taken to be 25 March in this period)
University of Bristol
Share this article
Press release issued: 1 February 2021
Historians from the University of Bristol have discovered contemporary accounts of numerous weird weather events that happened in the Bristol area around the turn of the 16th/17th century including devastating floods, massive snowfalls and frosts that saw rivers frozen for months.
The detail comes from a chronicle that was acquired by Bristol Archives in 1932 but then declared as ‘unfit for production’ due to its extremely fragile nature. Access to the manuscript was very limited making it difficult to investigate its contents.
Using digital photography, a team led by Dr Evan Jones from the University of Bristol’s Department of History, has now painstakingly transcribed the document which is named 09594/1.
Chronicle writing dates back to the early medieval period and record events of a community that are relevant to it as a reference work for future readers. Early chronicles were mostly produced by religious communities but as time went on town clerks and private families kept them as well. They recorded the most memorable events of that particular year – such as wars, rebellions, plagues and fires.
Dr Jones and his team concluded that 09594/1 was probably not begun until the late 17th century. It was then updated regularly until 1735 by different people (probably from the same family). It also includes detail dating back as far as the 13th century which would have been taken from older chronicles or manuscripts.
What drew the researchers’ particular attention amongst the more expected entries, was a vivid series of descriptions of extreme weather-related events that occurred in the Bristol area from the 1560s to the 1620s.
Together with an environmental scientist from University College London (UCL), the Bristol researchers have written about what they discovered, and the impact of this climatic deterioration on the city of Bristol, in the Royal Meteorological Society’s journal Weather.
Four hundred years ago, England experienced some of its worst weather ever. In the depths of the Little Ice Age (1300-1800), huge volcanic eruptions in the Americas pushed dust and gases high into the atmosphere, blocking out the sun. The related cooling phase is known as the ‘Grindelwald Fluctuation’ (1560-1630).
The chronicle entries, seemingly written by a Jacobean weather enthusiast, describe how Bristol and its wider region was affected. Crop failures, famines, great freezes, floods, unseasonal blizzards, tempests and droughts all feature in the accounts of these ‘strangely altered’ times.
1596: A great famine in diverse places and in the city of Bristol all kinds of grain were very dear so that the poor was in very great want.
1603: This year upon the fourth of October was the greatest snow that ever was known by the memory of man.
1607-8: November the 20th 1607 began a frost which lasted till February 8 following at which time the River of Severn and Wye were so hard frozen that people did pass on foot from side unto the other and played gambols and made fires to roast meat upon the ice.
1610-11: The winter proved very stormy in so much that it occasioned the greatest shipwrecks that ever was known in England.
These are just a few of the chronicle’s entries, the severity of which can be corroborated from other sources. Some of the events were even illustrated in news pamphlets - the popular press of the day.
It was not just in Bristol that the weather was extreme. The Freeze of 1607-8 led to the first Frost Fair upon the Thames in London. The storms and famines discussed in the Bristol chronicle wrecked shipping and caused mass starvation across the world.
In Shakespeare’s England, tempests were well known and the ‘strange alterations of times and seasons’ was recognised by the journalists of the day. As one 1613 news pamphlet reports: ‘We have within these few years, as well within this our native country of England as in foreign nations, been most grievously stricken... by dry summers, and parching heats, droughts...to cause barrenness with scarcity, then freezing and cold winters’.
Professor Anson Mackay, one of the co-authors of the article from UCL, said: “The Little Ice Age was the coldest period since the start of the Holocene (almost 12,000 years ago).
“The cooling period from 1300-1800 was a time of global climatic change, but one that was very different to modern global warming. Back then, volcanic eruptions and changes in the world’s ocean circulation all played a role. Today, increases in greenhouse gases are the driving force behind global warming.”
Dr Jones added: “What I love about this chronicle is the vividness of the language. But the author was still trying to be measured and fact-based. Contemporary observers didn’t have objective systems of weather measurement, but they made an honest attempt to evaluate these events in relative terms.”
One such episode was the Great Flood of 1607, recorded in the chronicle. The flood is currently being studied by Rose Hewlett, the article’s third author, who notes that the height of the water can still be seen on flood markers in churches around the estuary.
The chronicle states that in Bristol itself ‘all the lower part were drowned about four or five foot’ while the flood 'came so fast and high at Henbury that the waters continued a long time a fathom deep that the people were obliged to abide on the trees two or three days’.
What these colourful accounts suggest is that the Grindelwald Fluctuation did not just make the world cold. The disturbed global climate led to more catastrophic weather events.
This, suggests Professor Mackay, is where this study holds lessons for today. He added: “Modern climate change isn’t just making the world warmer, it is also causing more severe weather, which will only get worse. Current modelling suggests that weather-related fatalities in Europe could increase fifty-fold in the coming decades.
“If this proves correct, the news headlines of the future could be as bleak as those of the seventeenth century.”
‘Weird weather in Bristol during the Grindelwald Fluctuation (1560-1630)’ by E. T. Jones, R. Hewlett and A. W. Mackay in Weather.
Evan T. Jones (ed.), Bristol Annal: Bristol Archives 09594/1 (2019)
Hockey stick graph
The pioneering 'hockey stick' graph collected proxy temperature data from tree rings, lake sediments and ice cores
It is a persuasive image. The "hockey stick" graph shows the average global temperature over the past 1,000 years. For the first 900 years there is little variation, like the shaft of an ice-hockey stick. Then, in the 20th century, comes a sharp rise like the stick's blade.
The graph was a pioneering attempt to put together data from hundreds of studies of past temperature using "proxies" from analysing things like tree rings, lake sediments and ice cores. The resulting shape, first published by Professor Mike Mann of Pennsylvania State University in 1998, has become a symbol of the conflict between mainstream climate scientists and their critics. The deniers say it is a lie. Climate scientist stand by it.
As yet, the university has not confirmed the authenticity of the emails apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit. Nevertheless the emails reveal that in 1999 there were huge rows about whether the new graph, should be given prominence in the next IPCC report due in 2001. The revelation raises questions about the transparency of the IPCC process.
On 22 September 1999, Met Office scientist Chris Folland, an IPCC lead author, alerted key researchers that a diagram of temperature change over the past thousand years "is a clear favourite for the policy makers' summary". But there were two competing graphs – Mann's hockey stick and another, by Phil Jones, Keith Briffa and others, which sought to ascertain temperatures over the past millennium using, among other things, tree rings, ice cores and coral.
Mann's graph was clearly the more compelling image of man-made climate change. Jones and Briffa's "dilutes the message rather significantly," said Folland. "We want the truth. Mike [Mann] thinks it lies nearer his result."
But Briffa did not. Three hours later, he sent a long and passionate email. "It should not be taken as read that Mike's series is THE CORRECT ONE," he warned. "I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data', but in reality the situation is not quite so simple... For the record, I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago."
The row had been going on for months. Most of the correspondence is missing. But in April 1999, Ray Bradley, a co-author with Mann on the hockey stick study, was apologising for Mann's stance. "I would like to dissociate myself from Mike Mann's view [expressed in a complaint Mann had made the previous summer to the journal Science]… I find this notion quite absurd. I have worked with the UEA group for 20+ years and have great respect for them. Of course, I don't agree with everything they write, and we often have long (but cordial) arguments about what they think versus my views, but that is life… As for thinking that is it 'better that nothing appear, than something unacceptable to us'… as though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant."
Mann and Briffa eventually settled their differences. And the hockey stick was given pride of place in the IPCC report, alongside the claim that "it is likely that the 1990s have been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium". Most researchers, including Briffa, now believe that statement was correct. But the emails reveal how deeply controversial it was at the time.
• This article was amended on 9 February 2010. In the original, the graph competing with Mike Mann's "hockey stick" depiction was said to be by Keith Briffa. This has been corrected. A paragraph referring to a Ray Bradley remark in April 1999 has been amended to make clear that he was referring to an earlier complaint to the journal Science by Mike Mann. The original final sentence - saying that no reader of the IPCC report would have guessed the extent of the controversies described in the story above - has been deleted, because these controversies were widely discussed by those in the field.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum