[Vision2020] Vision2020 Witch-Hunt: "The National Academy of Sciences thinks the Hockey Stick is still A-okay...Blahdeblahblahblah?"

[Ted Moffett]

http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2011-August/078030.html

Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com
Mon Aug 29 21:53:05 PDT 2011 wrote in post at website above:

"The National Academy of Sciences thinks the Hockey
Stick is still A-okay.  The earth is now at it's hottest in 2,000 years,
so the Hockey Stick must be correct.  Blahdeblahblahblah.

What they conspicuously don't do is show where they were wrong from a
scientific or mathematical point of view.  It's just damage control."
--------------------
And later in the same post:

"And you have not addressed the criticisms of the Hockey Stick chart, the
subject of my post."
---------------------
Your post quoted above continues your witch-hunt against professional
climate scientists, and again does not address your numerous mistakes
and misrepresentations of climate science that I presented.

Furthermore, as you refuse to acknowledge your mistakes on climate
science, you claim I did not address the criticisms of the Hockey
Stick chart, which is absolutely false.  The website I gave refers to
an in-depth analysis of this controversy by the National Academy of
Sciences: "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph"
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2010/02/12/deep-climate-investigation-of-denialist-and-%E2%80%9Cskeptic%E2%80%9D-attack-on-hockey-stick-temperature-record/

I don't have to reinvent the climate science wheel, as it were, on
this issue.  If you did extensive research of peer reviewed studies
into Earth's paleoclimate temperature trends, instead of referencing
junk climate science websites, you would find studies that demonstrate
the temperature trends that are the basis for the great concern and
need for action to mitigate human impacts on climate, that are not
connected to scientist Mann's work.  Maybe Mann's work is somehow
connected to this paper, but I could not find Mann sourced as a
reference among the 44 listed at the bottom: "Global temperature
change" James Hansen * , † , ‡ , Makiko Sato * , † , Reto Ruedy * , §
, Ken Lo * , § , David W. Lea ¶ , and Martin Medina-Elizade ¶
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288.full

I provide a reference to a National Academy of Sciences analysis of
the "Hockey Stick," and your response is "Blahdeblahblahblah?"  The
National Academy of Sciences is just engaging in "damage control?"

You appear to think you are more competent and knowledgeable about
climate science than the climate scientists involved with the National
Academy of Sciences. Or is it that you are more honest, have more
integrity than they do, as they promote their poltical, economic or
career promoting agenda, while hiding or manipulating data?

Your approach logically demands it be one or the other or both.  It's
simply not credible that you are more knowledgeable and competent on
climate science than scientists involved with the National Academy of
Sciences.  And given your repeated refusal to admit to your mistakes
and misrepresenations of climate science, I do not think it credible
you are more honest, have more integrity, than scientists at the NAS

I recommend you abandon your bias against climate scientists, stop
frequenting junk climate science websites, and read the National
Academy of Sciences report referred to in the website I previously
referenced.

First is commentary on the NAS report under discussion, from science
journal Nature, that on the Nature website requires a log-in to read:

http://super-structure.newsvine.com/_news/2006/06/29/272830-academy-affirms-hockey-stick-graph

US National Academy of Science affirms hockey-stick graph but it
criticizes the way the controversial climate result was used.

"We roughly agree with the substance of their findings," says Gerald
North, the committee's chair and a climate scientist at Texas A&M
University in College Station. In particular, he says, the committee
has a "high level of confidence" that the second half of the twentieth
century was warmer than any other period in the past four centuries.
But, he adds, claims for the earlier period covered by the study, from
AD 900 to 1600, are less certain. This earlier period is particularly
important because global-warming sceptics claim that the current
warming trend is a rebound from a 'little ice age' around 1600.
Overall, the committee thought the temperature reconstructions from
that era had only a two-to-one chance of being right.

The graph arose from the work of Michael Mann, a climatologist now at
Pennsylvania State University in University Park, and two colleagues.
In two papers published in 1998 and 1999, Mann's team examined tree
rings, ice cores and other 'proxies' of past climate, and used them to
reconstruct the Northern Hemisphere's temperature over the past
millennium.

The academy essentially upholds Mann's findings, although the panel
concluded that systematic uncertainties in climate records from before
1600 were not communicated as clearly as they could have been. The NAS
also confirmed some problems with the statistics. But the mistakes had
a relatively minor impact on the overall finding, says Peter
Bloomfield, a statistician at North Carolina State University in
Raleigh, who was involved in the latest report. This study was the
first of its kind, and they had to make choices at various stages
about how the data were processed, he says, adding that he would not
be embarrassed to have been involved in the work
-------------------------
SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTIONS FOR THE LAST 2,000 YEARS

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Surface_Temps_final.pdf

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1

Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate

Division on Earth and Life Studies

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett