Arctic ice melting at 'amazing' speed

[BlasterBates]

Care to explain that or provide a link. Have googled and not found anything...

I've used realclimate in some links as they seem to do better than most in explaining quite technical reports to the layman.

Hiding the Decline | Climate Etc.

It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest (I agree with Muller on this one). The authors defend themselves by stating that there has been no attempt to hide the divergence problem in the literature, and that the relevant paper was referenced. I infer then that there is something in the IPCC process or the authors’ interpretation of the IPCC process (i.e. don’t dilute the message) that corrupted the scientists into deleting the adverse data in these diagrams.

McIntyre’s analysis is sufficiently well documented that it is difficult to imagine that his analysis is incorrect in any significant way. If his analysis is incorrect, it should be refuted. I would like to know what the heck Mann, Briffa, Jones et al. were thinking when they did this and why they did this, and how they can defend this, although the emails provide pretty strong clues. Does the IPCC regard this as acceptable? I sure don’t.

Can anyone defend “hide the decline”? I would much prefer to be wrong in my interpretation, but I fear that I am not.

The scientists she refers are the ones who run Real Climate. You won´t get a scientific viewpoint there just biased analyses and massaged data.

[IR35FanClub]

So what has been the trend for the past 5000 years then?

DYOR... post a link if you find anything suspect in the data.

[EternalOptimist]

DYOR... post a link if you find anything suspect in the data.

Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

[doodab]

Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

The history of redistributing wealth is the history of mankind.

[EternalOptimist]

The history of redistributing wealth is the history of mankind.

this is the IPCC. supposedly concerned with climate ???

saying 'actually, fck the climate. thats not really what we are here for'



alarm bells ?? no

[EternalOptimist]

The history of redistributing wealth is the history of mankind.

"We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."

Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency:



doodab ?

[BlasterBates]

it was the media misleading .....

No there was a published paper (from Steve McIntyre) which showed their analysis was wrong, and Professor Judith Curry atriculates what a lot of scientists think, that deleting data that didn´t suit their analysis was misleading and indefensible.

Basically there is no evidence/proof that the climate was unchanging for 1000 years and has now shot up. Hubert Lamb´s history of the climate published prior to the paper showed temperatures higher than today during the medieval period. The "Hockey Stick" was junk science.

[doodab]

"We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."

Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency:



doodab ?

My only semi serious point was that an awful lot of history is about redistribution of wealth. We redistributed loads of it, so did the romans, egyptians and so on.

[pjclarke]

BB you said that Judith Curry accused the RealClimate team of fraud. To support this a quote about work that predates the formation of Realclimate and by only one of the team members , Professor Michael Mann, and does not mention the word fraud is produced...

McIntyre’s analysis is sufficiently well documented that it is difficult to imagine that his analysis is incorrect in any significant way.

Dr Curry is a distinguished atmospheric climate scientist, but when she strays out of her specialty and into paleo-climate she has a habit of getting it badly wrong, as Gavin Schmidt of NASA points out in the comments

You have gone significantly over the line with this post. Accusations of dishonesty are way beyond a difference of opinion on how a graph should be displayed.

Problems with modern divergence – which only applies to the Briffa et al curve in any case – are issues to be dealt with in the technical literature, as they still are.

If you thought that a single, smoothed graph of estimates of paleo-temperature told the whole story of paleo-climate reconstructions is far more a failing at your end than it is the authors involved. How can a single graph say everything that can possibly be said [...] your method of argument in the top post and the conclusions you draw can be argued and drawn for any subjective decision about pretty much any presentation of complex data. Once you do it based on your prior prejudices against one set of researchers, the flood gates are open to apply it to anyone. We therefore end up with a situation where any difference of opinion is put down to dishonesty, and the process of objective scientific analysis has been tossed to the wolves.

As for McIntyre's 'analysis', at least one commenter found that McIntyre's interpretation of the emails was just a little, erm 'creative'

Thus, once again, McIntyre’s speculations are shown to be utterly without foundation.

and on his claim of adverse data being deleted, which is what Dr Curry found objectionable,

So, once again, the accusation that Mann “truncated” or “chopped off” the data set is proven to be utterly false.

McIntyre provides fodder for skeptics | Deep Climate
Revisiting TAR Figure 2-21, part 1: Another false claim from Steve McIntyre | Deep Climate

[DodgyAgent]

BB you said that Judith Curry accused the RealClimate team of fraud. To support this a quote about work that predates the formation of Realclimate and by only one of the team members , Professor Michael Mann, and does not mention the word fraud is produced...



Dr Curry is a distinguished atmospheric climate scientist, but when she strays out of her specialty and into paleo-climate she has a habit of getting it badly wrong, as Gavin Schmidt of NASA points out in the comments



As for McIntyre's 'analysis', at least one commenter found that McIntyre's interpretation of the emails was just a little, erm 'creative'



and on his claim of adverse data being deleted, which is what Dr Curry found objectionable,



McIntyre provides fodder for skeptics | Deep Climate
Revisiting TAR Figure 2-21, part 1: Another false claim from Steve McIntyre | Deep Climate

What convinces me that people like PJ Clarke are politically motivated/nutters is their absolute refusal to doubt any argument or evidence that is put forward to support their claim.