You write, concerning the NAS report, “It is hard to agree with you that ‘this is a near-complete vindication of Mann’s work’,…”

Yes, I was extremely surprised to see that quote attributed to Roger. I thought he must have been misquoted…but apparently not. I don’t see how a report that observes that this is the warmest time since 1600 (the start of the “Little Ice Age”), and that it’s “plausible” that this is the warmest time in the last 1000 years, constitutes a “near-complete vindication.”

You also write, “Now you may retreat behind the claim that this has no policy implications, but the implications are very serious. In this debate, the policy choices are based on the scientific findings.”

However, there is something much larger that clearly *does* have policy implications: that is the “projections” in the IPCC TAR (e.g. “1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius warming” from 1990 to 2100).

The IPCC TAR (Third Assessment Report) “projections” are completely pseudoscientific nonsense. In fact, the IPCC itself acknowledges this to be so, when they write in the IPCC TAR:

“Scenarios are images of the future or alternative futures. They are neither predictions nor forecasts.”

If the IPCC TAR scenarios are NOT “predictions or forecasts” then they can NOT be falsified (shown to be incorrect) by future events.

An absolutely bedrock foundation of science is that it involves FALSIFIABLE predictions of future events.

It’s remarkable to me that Roger Pielke Jr. has never really explored this issue…instead seemingly accepting the “1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius” range as somehow valid. It clearly is not!

Mark

P.S. I wonder how in the world Roger Pielke Jr. can give his upcoming Congressional testimony on “Climate Change: Understanding the Degree of the Problem”…without addressing the massive and blatant scientific fraud in the IPCC TAR “projections”?

It is hard to agree with you that “this is a near-complete vindication of Mann’s work”, especially after the release of the Wegman report. Quite the contrary, the Wegman report combined with the NAS report are a complete vindication of Steve McIntyre’s work.

Now you may retreat behind the claim that this has no policy implications, but the implications are very serious. In this debate, the policy choices are based on the scientific findings. If the scientific process has been hijacked by a “clique” of scientists with an ideological bias, then clearly the policy makers will not have access to all the relevant information.

There are by now many indications that the IPCC process, behind its veil of openness and objectivity, is basically flawed. The frantic search for a “consensus” inevitably means that dissident views are hidden under the rug. Scientists do not normally seek for a consensus. The consensus that emerges time and time again in the scientific practice is a state of fact, when competing theories run short of arguments, but that can take many years, decades or even centuries (e.g. darwinism). Furthermore, a scientific consensus is never a “hard” one, as some would like it to be. The science is never “settled” as is often proclaimed in the global warming debate. The scientific consensus, whenever it occurs, is a soft one. It can be reversed overnight by new and significant results. But for that to happen, dissident views must have enough room to be heard, especially in the peer reviewed litterature, but also must be able to find support from grant agencies.

The hijacking of the climate debate by a group of ideologically biased scientists à la Jim Hansen or Michael Mann has meant that it is very difficult for competing theories to be heard. The acrimonious politicization of the debate serves the ideologists on both sides, who inevitably use it to question the political motives of competing, but scientifically honest, research. Objective science loses on all counts, and so do policy makers.

Roger, you have read the NAS report from a non-scientist point of view, and have missed its true significance. Can’t you read between the lines? The NAS panel was composed of climatologists who were themselves too intimidated to openly criticize members of their own community. But a careful reading of the whole report shows clearly how they all had to agree with Steve McIntyre’s analysis. It’s in there for all to read, and no doubt the scientists involved will have understood, as shown by Drs. Zorita and Von Storch’s reaction. The Wegman committee is composed of statisticians, who are independent of that community, and their assessment is far more objective, and quite blunt. But to me both reports say the same thing about the science.

This may be a turning point in the debate. Turning points are not always obvious, and are only recognized in hindsight. But what Steve McIntyre has accomplished, and only a total outsider like him could do it, is to expose the weakness of the scientific process that has so far guided the policy debate. If the hockey stick was poorly audited, what can be said of the rest of the IPCC report? There is a clear need to reassess the way policy makers get their facts from the scientific community. The demand for a consensus doesn’t work: it just reinforces biases. Should we look more closely at the idea of a “scientific court”, where both sides are exposed to an panel of “independent” judges? Maybe. But one way or another, climate science has to find a way out of this political polarization, and regain the serenity required for real scientific progress.

Sincerely,

François Ouellette

As Mann’s hockey stick methodology is to a great deal statistics, other scientists, like economics, will be able to enter the discussion and to evaluate the results of the North Panel and surely will be surprised how data are used and handled in some parts of climate science.

What Barton will think when he reads Von Storch’s co-author” Eduardo Zorita’s comment on McIntyre’s web-side : Hopefully he will call his specialists on statistics and will ask them “what critical position is right , not only possible”.

Zorita’s comment

“
Eduardo Zorita’s take posted up below was:
in my opinion the Panel adopted the most critical position to MBH nowadays possible. I agree with you that it is in many parts ambivalent and some parts are inconsistent with others. It would have been unrealistic to expect a report with a summary stating that MBH98 and MBH99 were wrong (and therefore the IPC TAR had serious problems) when the Fourth Report is in the making. I was indeed surprised by the extensive and deep criticism of the MBH methodology in Chapters 9 and 11 .
„

Bernd Ströher

I did a google search today on the media coverage of the NAS report
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2006/06/24/2003315399

The spin and deceiptive headlines are staggering:

Backing for ‘hockey stick’ graph
BBC News, UK – 23 Jun 2006

Prestigious scientific panel backs global-warming data
Seattle Times, United States – 23 Jun 2006

National panel supports ‘98 global warming evidence
Boston Globe, United States – 23 Jun 2006

US Panel Backs Data on Global Warming
Los Angeles Times, CA – 23 Jun 2006

US scientists back manmade warming claim
Guardian Unlimited, UK – 22 Jun 2006

Scientists believe world is at its hottest for 2,000 years
Scotsman, United Kingdom – 22 Jun 2006

Earth is hottest it’s been in 2,000 years, study says, and humans are to blame
Canada.com, Canada – 22 Jun 2006

Research: Earth Running a Slight Fever
ABC News – 22 Jun 2006

Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate
New York Times, United States – 22 Jun 2006

Earth Hottest It’s Been in 2,000 Years
Forbes – 22 Jun 2006

Earth has a ‘fever’
Advertiser Adelaide, Australia – 22 Jun 2006

Earth’s Temp May Be at 2,000-Year High
ABC News – 22 Jun 2006

Earth is hottest now in 2,000 years
Ireland Online, Ireland – 22 Jun 2006

Report backs global warming claims
Boston Globe, United States – 22 Jun 2006

Study: Earth is hottest now in 2,000 years; humans responsible for much of the warming
USA Today – 22 Jun 2006

Now, compare the cant listed above with the ingenuous WSJ headline: “PANEL STUDY FAILS TO SETTLE DEBATE ON PAST CLIMATES”

It would appear that the Wall Street Journal is one of the few media outlets to have covered the NAS report in an even-handed manner (see below). No wonder that the interested public has been losing trust in global warming campaign journalism in much of the traditional media.

————-
PANEL STUDY FAILS TO SETTLE DEBATE ON PAST CLIMATES

The Wall Street Journal, 23 June 2006

By ANTONIO REGALADO

An expert panel called on to resolve a politically charged scientific debate said that the key conclusion of a widely cited study of past temperatures is “plausible” but not proved.

The report by the 12-member committee of the National Research Council was prepared after a political fight broke out over the “hockey stick,” a reconstruction of past temperatures from tree rings, buried ice and other records.

Far from resolving the debate, the panel’s findings yesterday drew widely different reactions among climate experts and on Capitol Hill, where the hockey-stick graphic has long been a lightning rod in the debate over global warming.

The graphic, created in 1998 by climatologist Michael E. Mann and colleagues, gets its name from the rapid, blade-like rise of recent temperatures compared with past centuries. The hockey stick became a prominent scientific symbol after it appeared in an influential 2001 United Nations report. Citing the work of Dr. Mann and others, the U.N. concluded there was a 60% to 90% chance that temperatures in the 1990s had been the warmest since 1000, and that 1998 was the warmest single year.

Panel chairman Gerald R. North, a climatologist at Texas A&M University, said his committee’s findings couldn’t support that claim. Dr. North said the limited data available on ancient climate means that scientists can say with high confidence only that the “last few decades” of the 20th century were the warmest period in the past 400 years, and with “less confidence” that they were the warmest in the past 900 years.

Skeptics of global warming yesterday embraced the panel’s findings. Sen. James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican who has called global warming a “hoax” and is opposed to limits on greenhouse gases, said in a written statement that the report proved “the hockey stick is broken.”

However, the study also noted that there was very little evidence to suggest that Dr. Mann’s claim wasn’t correct, leading others to take an opposite view. Roger Pielke Jr., head of the University of Colorado’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, called the study a “near-complete vindication” of Dr. Mann’s work and reputation.

Thermometer measurements have shown a more than one-degree rise in temperature over the past century, and the rise has been linked by other research to man-made greenhouse gases, primarily the carbon dioxide produced by burning coal or gasoline.

Scientists predict the planet will warm between two and more than 10 degrees more this century, a development that many fear will prove disastrous.

Some skeptics think the danger of global warming is overstated. The hockey stick became a special focus of criticism after an amateur Canadian mathematician and petroleum consultant, Stephen McIntyre, published articles charging serious flaws in the work.

Texas Rep. Joe Barton, the Republican head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, launched a probe of the hockey stick last July. That probe is continuing, according to the committee.

Mr. Barton’s investigation drew criticism from scientific groups, as well as fellow Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R., N.Y.), who called on the National Research Council, a private, nonpartisan advisory group, to carry out the study published yesterday.

Mr. Boehlert said the report shows scientists still have work to do understanding ancient temperatures. “Congress ought to let them go about that work without political interference,” he said in a prepared statement.

I mean, really, was it worth all the invective, character assassination, attempts to ruin MBH’s reputations & careers just to whittle down that, at most, maybe the peak temps of the Medieval Warm Period were higher than the past decade?

First, they expressed “very little confidence” that temperatures can be estimated prior to about 900 A.D. and “even less confidence” in claims made about the decade of the ‘90s, and the year 1998 in particular as having been the hottest in 1000 years. They do, however, suggest that there was indeed a medieval Warm Period around 1000 AD, and a Little Ice Age around 1700. That’s a serious crack at the hockey stick chart.

Second, and I think more important from the standpoint of the public debate over climate change, is the fact that they admit such reconstructions are not of much use with regard to assigning attribution to people, observing that they are “not the primary evidence.” that humanity is causing climate change.

Third, they stated at the briefing that Mann et al. under-represented the uncertainties relevant to the early proxies, and expressed the sentiment that the IPCC probably gave too much visibility to what was then a new, untested study.

Finally, when asked at the briefing what they meant by “plausible,” they basically said that their research couldn’t say whether Mann’s full claim was or wasn’t correct beyond 400 years, but that it’s “plausible” simply because other climate dynamics suggest a linkage between GHG concentrations and temperature. I think this was simply a bone thrown to Mann et. al. (along with conspicuous avoidance of the names of Ross McKitrick or Steve McIntyre) so that he could save face, and claim that at least a major part of his original thesis was valid.

As for the way the media is carrying this, I’m simply aghast at how badly some outlets are covering the issue, having *completely* missed the key finding of the NAS report, which is that you can say very little about the climate more than 400 years ago with any significant certainty. I think one of the guys at the press briefing (Cuffey) used the word “murky” more than a dozen times in that hour to refer to anything earlier than 1600 AD.

Cheers,

Ken Green

One would think the UN would want to heavily investigate the potential for increased food supply from enhanced flora food in the atmosphere, instead of just dismissing the possibility.

Exactly, with respect to cimate policy. See Hans von Storch’s comments on this thread.

From the standpoint of climate science policy issues, the report is more relevant, however, the committee did not engage these issues.

Thanks.

Thanks much. However, I am not optimistic that unceratinties about the distant climate future can be reduced, or if they can, how certain we can actually be. SO from a policy perspective, I am already sold on the notion that deicsions must be made under fundamental uncertainty. This need not precluse effective climate policies.

Thanks!