Thread: The Australian newspaper article - Global Cooling!?

From Poptech’s list published in post# 18 above :

1. Discredited by serious science because they a) either have links to Exxon sourced ‘libertarian’ organisations, or parrot the propaganda of those organisations & b) they have not published their ‘research, if it is in peer-reviewed journals, c) if they have published their research in a peer-reviewed journal it has subsequently be debunked and d) They have expertise in a subject that is unrelated to Climatology. Some obviously fall into several categories :-

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Ph.D. Astrophysicist
Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics
Robert (Bob) M. Carter, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Paleontology
R. Timothy (Tim) Patterson, B.Sc. Biology, Ph.D. Professor of Geology
Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysicist
Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian of the Nanjing Normal University in China
Henrik Svensmark, Director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research, Danish Anthony Watts, Meteorologist
Dennis T. Avery, M.S. Agricultural Economics
Philip K. Chapman, B.S. Physics and Mathematics, M.S. Aeronautics and Astronautics, Ph.D. Instrumentation

For independent proof of their discredibility, google their names, or go to Wiki, or go to the logical science link I’ve given elsewhere.

2. Proof required ( a specific statement against AGW representative of the whole organisation)

Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Which leaves :-
3. Credible scientific sources.

NOAA
National Space Center (assuming this is the Goddard Space centre)

In the respect of these credible sources, please supply proof as in section 2. On the other hand to contradict your fraudulent assumptions, visit these links :-
NCDC: Climate of 2008 - February
- which clearly says GW is continuing
&

in respect of the Goddard Space centre, you do realise that the director is James Hansen and the likes of Gavin Schmidt ( co-founder of real Climate) and Michael Mann of the consensus believed Hockey stick work there.

So your are trying to kid us readers here that they disbelieve AGW ?
Incredible!!!!!!!!!
( the comment I wish to make about your sanity would get me banned ).

Now, I am fed up with your continued trolling of this quite fraudulent ‘evidence’ and will not respond to any further post unless you can specify the source & exact original statements.

Originally Posted by Clippo

1. Discredited by serious science because they a) either have links to Exxon sourced ‘libertarian’ organisations, or parrot the propaganda of those organisations & b) they have not published their ‘research, if it is in peer-reviewed journals, c) if they have published their research in a peer-reviewed journal it has subsequently be debunked and d) They have expertise in a subject that is unrelated to Climatology. Some obviously fall into several categories :-

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Ph.D. Astrophysicist
Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics
Robert (Bob) M. Carter, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Paleontology
R. Timothy (Tim) Patterson, B.Sc. Biology, Ph.D. Professor of Geology
Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysicist
Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian of the Nanjing Normal University in China
Henrik Svensmark, Director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research, Danish Anthony Watts, Meteorologist
Dennis T. Avery, M.S. Agricultural Economics
Philip K. Chapman, B.S. Physics and Mathematics, M.S. Aeronautics and Astronautics, Ph.D. Instrumentation

Now you are a liar. Now please prove they have links to Exxon without using an alarmist propaganda site. Almost everyone has published real scientific research in a Peer-Review Journal and having someone at RealClimate make a statement against this does not mean it has been debunked. In relation to this topic of Global Cooling there is clear Peer-Reviewed papers supporting the position of global cooling:

Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years
(Springer Wien, Volume 95, January, 2007)
- Lin Zhen-Shan, Sun Xian

New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 327-350, 1 May 2003)
- Landscheidt T.

Your paper on the the other hand has NOT been Peer-Reviewed and thus the evidence I have presented is the same. But Peer-Review does not mean truth, perhaps you can learn more about this here:

Peer Review, Publication in Top Journals, Scientific Consensus, and So Forth (Robert Higgs, Ph.D. Economics)

Originally Posted by Clippo

For independent proof of their discredibility, google their names, or go to Wiki, or go to the logical science link I’ve given elsewhere.

I have thoroughly discredited Wikipedia:

The Faith-Based Encyclopedia (Robert McHenry, Former Editor in Chief, the Encyclopedia Britannica)
Wikipedia's Zealots (National Post, Canada)
- The real climate Martians (Financial Post, Canada)

A false Wikipedia 'biography' (USA Today)
A History Department Bans Citing Wikipedia as a Research Source (The New York Times)
Wikipedia "broken beyond repair", co-founder says (The Inquirer)
Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems (The Register)
Wikipedia - I have the power (Penny Arcade)

Your other site alarmist propaganda: "logical science".

Originally Posted by Clippo

2. Proof required ( a specific statement against AGW representative of the whole organisation)

This debate is about Global Cooling! Did you think people would not notice you trying to change the subject?

Originally Posted by Clippo

...in respect of the Goddard Space centre, you do realise that the director is James Hansen

Again you lie. The Director of the Nasa Goddard Space Center is Dr. Edward J. Weiler.

Originally Posted by Clippo

Now, I am fed up with your continued trolling of this quite fraudulent ‘evidence’ and will not respond to any further post unless you can specify the source & exact original statements.

I am quite tired of you blatant lies spoken over and over and you pathetic attempt to define an argument for proganda purposes.

The Hockey Stick has been thoroughly Debunked:

"Simulations with red noise do lead to hockey sticks. McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticism on the hockey stick from 1998 is entirely valid on this particular point." - Hans von Storch, Ph.D. Climate Statistics Specialist

What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About? (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, April 4, 2005)



Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (PDF) (National Academy of Sciences, 2006)

Originally Posted by National Academy of Sciences

Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium" because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods [...]

Prior to about 1600, ...periods of medieval warmth are seen in a number of diverse records, including historical information from Europe and Asia; cave deposits; marine and lake sediments; and ice cores from Greenland, Ellesmere Island, Tibet, and the equatorial Andes. [...]

Using proxies sensitive to hydrologic variables (including moisture-sensitive trees...) to take advantage of observed correlations with surface temperature could lead to problems [...]

For tree ring chronologies, the process of removing biological trends from ringwidth data potentially obscures information on long-term changes in climate. [...]

Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence and extent of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents. Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse ...set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia

Von Storch, Zorita and Gonzalez-Raucen statement on the NAS Panel Report (Climate Audit, June 22, 2006)

We share the assessment of the NRC committee that the evidence for unprecedented warming of a single decade or even a single year in times prior to 1500, or so, is stretching the scientific evidence too far. However, this was the key claim made in the contested 1998-nature and 1999-GRL-papers by Mann et al.

With respect to methods, the committee is showing reservations concerning the methodology of Mann et al.. The committee notes explicitly on pages 91 and 111 that the method has no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. [...]

Thus, the public perception that the hockeystick as truthfully describing the temperature history was definitely false.

We find it disappointing that the method of Mann et al. was not sufficiently described in the original publication, and thus not peer-reviewed prior to publication, and that no serious efforts were made to allow independent researchers to check the performance of the methods and of the data used.

Spin can’t hide the facts concerning the hockey stick (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Ross McKitrick Ph.D. Economics, July 26, 2006)

Papers:
Ad Hoc Committee Report on the 'Hockey Stick' Global Climate Reconstruction (PDF) (Wegman Report, July 14th, 2006)
- Response of Dr. Edward Wegman to Questions Posed by the Honorable Mr. Bart Stupak in Connection with Testimony to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (PDF)
Presentation to the National Academy of Sciences Expert Panel, "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 1,000-2,000 Years." (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, March 2, 2006)
- Supplementary Presentations to the National Academy of Sciences Panel (PDF) (April 3, 2006)
Presentation to the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, July 19, 2006)
Presentation to the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, July 27, 2006)
Huybers’ and von Storch-Zorita Comments, and Our Replies (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, November 2005)
More on Hockey Sticks: the Case of Jones et al (1998) (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Nov 14, 2005)
The Mann et al. Northern Hemisphere "Hockey Stick" Climate Index: A Tale of Due Diligence (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, May 2, 2005)
Is Climate Really Changing Adnormally? (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, April 1, 2005)
Kyoto Protocol Based On Flawed Statistics - Proof That Mankind Causes Global Warming Is Refuted (PDF) (Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, The Netherlands, February 2005)
Backgrounder for McIntyre and McKitrick “Hockey Stick Project” (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, January 27 2005)
Breaking the “Hockey Stick” (PDF) (David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology, July 12, 2004)
The IPCC, the "Hockey Stick" Curve, and the Illusion of Experience (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, November 18, 2003)
Lessons & Limits of Climate History: Was the 20th Century Climate Unusual? (PDF) (Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Willie Soon, Ph.D., April 2003)
The 'Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Science (John L. Daly, B.Sc. Economics, November 12, 2000)

Peer-Reviewed Papers:
Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The "Hockey-Stick" Affair and Its Implications (PDF) (David Holland, Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 951-983, December 2007)
Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, February 2005)
- Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, October 2005)
- Reply to comment by Huybers on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, October 2005)
The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003)

Editorials:
The decay of the hockey stick (Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Climate Feedback, Nature, May 03, 2007)
Congressional Hearings Break 'Hockey Stick' (H. Sterling Burnett, The Heartland Institute, October 1, 2006)
Statisticians blast Hockey Stick (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Financial Post, Canada, August 23, 2006)
Hockey sticks and hatchets (Financial Post, August 23, 2006)
Hockey Stick Hokum (The Wall Street Journal, July 14, 2006)
See the Truth on climate history (Financial Post, Canada, July 12, 2006)
Misled again: The Hockey Stick climate (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Financial Post, Canada, July 12, 2006)
Does the hockey stick "matter"? (Stephen McIntyre, Prometheus, November 14, 2005)
Why Does the Hockey Stick Debate Matter? (Ross McKitrick, Prometheus, November 14, 2005)
Re-visiting the Stick (Stephen McIntyre, National Post, June 17th, 2005)
Bring the Proxies Up to Date!! (Stephen McIntyre, February 20th, 2005)
In Climate Debate, The 'Hockey Stick' Leads to a Face-Off (The Wall Street Journal, February 20th, 2005)
Hockey Stick on Ice (The Wall Street Journal, February 18th, 2005)
Some Thoughts on Disclosure and Due Diligence in Climate Science (Stephen McIntyre, National Post, Canada, February 15th, 2005)
Global Warming Bombshell (MIT Technology Review, October 15, 2004)
Nature Admits Widely Cited Global Warming Graph Was Erroneous (The Hearland Institute, September 1, 2004)
The Broken Stick (Financial Post, Canada, July 13, 2004)
High-sticking the Senate (Patrick J. Michaels, The Heartland Institute, August 1, 2000)

Originally Posted by Akria

Sorry, but very few of those support the claim of global cooling. Most of them are merely commenting on particular cool events rather than global cooling, and of those commenting on global cooling

Most of them directly mention Global Cooling the handful of others all talk about significant cooling events such as the oceans cooling. Thus supporting the claim of global cooling.

Originally Posted by Akria

- in particular I found the World Climate Report link very interesting, backed as it was by a scientific paper (even if said paper offers support for the theory of anthropogenic global warming - CO2 responsible for 40% of temperature variation (a figure that I would find rather high, to be honest), even if it then does seem to confuse CO2 with all GHGs).

Their argument is clear, that the CO2 greenhouse effect would only cause a partial warming that would be unable to override natural climatic forces and thus the current global cooling. Hardly a conclusion to fuel your hysteria and clearly backs Global Cooling.

Originally Posted by Akria

Also, though the long list of links looks very intimidating, there is actually very little evidence there

There is a wealth of evidence for those who wishes to read it.

Poptech wrote:-

Now you are a liar. Now please prove they have links to Exxon without using an alarmist propaganda site. Almost everyone has published real scientific research in a Peer-Review Journal and having someone at RealClimate make a statement against this does not mean it has been debunked. In relation to this topic of Global Cooling there is clear Peer-Reviewed papers supporting the position of global cooling:

It’s considered very bad practice here to call somebody a liar. Moderators please note.
If you read what I wrote very carefully, I said their credibility could be due to one or several of four factors. Publish the Exact papers where they make the claim of global cooling and then I will try to search for specific papers which rebut those claims.
&

Your paper on the other hand has NOT been Peer-Reviewed and thus the evidence I have presented is the same. But Peer-Review does not mean truth, perhaps you can learn more about this here:

My reference wasn’t a paper – it was to a report from Nasa’ satellite data collecting organisation.
Then, you have the cheek to spam us again with cr@p from the Independent Institute.
BTW, in my first extract above you claim

Almost everyone (my addition -on your list ) has published real scientific research in a Peer-Review Journal

So you are claiming at as virtue for your references but flawed for everybody else.
Like you attitude to wiki-
You’re are deluding yourself if you believe your quote :-

I have thoroughly discredited Wikipedia:

&

Again you lie. The Director of the Nasa Goddard Space Center is Dr. Edward J. Weiler.

An honest mistake but you are being picky! I was referring to the Goddard Institute of Space Studies which is a laboratory of the National space center. The director of research there is James Hansen – but do you deny that that organisation’s belief is the world isn’t cooling and that the current warming phase is due to mankind’s activities ?
(Actually, to make this clear I inadvertently put National Space center into your list - surprised you missed that)