Now in polls many people not only have lost faith in science many say they believe data is forged.
Alarmists like to hide the truth because the truth isn't very good for the Cause, to use Hansen's appropriate phrase.
The Hockey Stick Illusion by Montford which I read a few years ago provides a very extensive review of McIntyre's exposure of Mann's really pathetic work. Mann's hockey stick was little more than a lie , although Montford didn't go there (but I will). I wouldn't call those stolen emails. I would call it whistleblowing and exposing fraud. Much of their studies were paid for by public money so there is no reason their emails should be hidden from those who fund it.
The climate scientist which you are quoting (from an illegally obtained email) is Dr Heinz Manner (as Ottawa Mike already pointed out).
Re-printing the text of a 2005 email might sound impressive,it only gives a cherry-picked instance as experienced at the moment of writing by one single person. It sure sounds alarming.
But I am happy to inform you there is no need for alarm. Dr Wanner was also a Review Editor for the latest IPCC report (AR5) and in his final note (openly available at the IPCC) he wrote (excerpts):
"Thanks to a commendable job and the competence of the LAs under the leadership of both
CLAs the editorial process for chapter 5 has been brought to a successful end. After the
edition of the ZOD and the FOD, the main areas of concern arising from the review
comments were discussed. Based on this discussion the structure of the chapters was
reorganized. A strong effort was dedicated to the assessment character of the whole text as
well as to a clear handling of the uncertainty problem. The LAs of the chapter have been
interactively active, making necessary links with other chapters, as well as with the glossary
team. The same procedure was applied based on the SOD draft. Pending open questions
were intensively discussed and, if necessary, incorporated in the final draft. "
&
""Several key actions and decisions were taken during the whole editing process, including:
- Putting more emphasis on orbital temperature trends and on the Holocene prior to the last
2000 years;
- Discussing the reconstructions individually, including the hockey stick controversies; .."
&
""Final remarks
The Chapter 5 RE team congratulates both CLAs [Chapter Lead Authors] and all LAs Lead Authors] for their intensive and successful work. We are convinced that this chapter will notably contribute to the IPCC AR5."
The whole team also thanks both CLAs and all LAs for the fruitful collaboration. "
Yes - There's the famous "hide the decline" emails that actually describe the methods used to "filter" out data that would be harmful to the so-called "global warming" cause. And scientists are on record stating that they will not provide the data and methodology to the public, that we should just trust them. (and give them more money) They also rely on the low standard of peer review which is nothing more that like minded people agreeing with each other. If this "science" were in the open, it would collapse on itself in days. And that's why it needs to be protected.
Well, climate science seems to highlight a problem within all science, it's no longer a search for truth, but a tool to generate money, sentiment(positive, or negative), and general leverage of 1 scientist-group, over the other.
In other words, Modern-Science = Political-Science, not the actual search for truth it once was.
This is just one of the many criticisms of Michael Mann's 1998 Hockey Stick paper. Those are the words of Dr. Heinz Wanner and can be read from the Climategate emails here: http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/1104.tx...
There are many, many other negative comments on that paper which is why it is head-scratching that some still defend it. Here is a sample for those who like to forget these things:
_______________________________________...
3373.txt: Raymond Bradley: ” Furthermore, the model output is very much determined by the time series of forcing that is selected, and the model sensitivity which essentially scales the range. Mike only likes these because they seem to match his idea of what went on in the last millennium, whereas he would savage them if they did not. Also–& I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”. ” This refers to a 2003 paper “Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia” by Mann and Jones, that shows ‘hockey stick’ temperature graphs and was used by the IPCC in its 2007 report.
0435.txt: Ed Cook, on the same Mann & Jones paper: ” I am afraid the Mike and Phil are too personally invested in things now (i.e. the 2003 GRL paper that is probably the worst paper Phil has ever been involved in – Bradley hates it as well), “
1527.txt: Dendrochronologist Rob Wilson writes: ” There has been criticism by Macintyre of Mann’s sole reliance on RE, and I am now starting to believe the accusations. “
4241.txt: Rob Wilson again: ” The whole Macintyre issue got me thinking…I first generated 1000 random time-series in Excel … The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about. “
4369.txt: Tim Osborn says ” This completely removes most of Mike’s arguments… ” and Ed Cook replies “I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.”
4758.txt: Tim Osborn: ” Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data ‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it! “
2346.txt: Osborn: ” Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures – another way of “correcting” for the decline, though may be not defensible! “
2009.txt: Keith Briffa: ” I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here! “
3994.txt: John Mitchell (Met Office) commenting on draft IPCC report: ” Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no. “
0562.txt: Simon Tett (Met Office), discussing revising a paper: ” No justification for regional reconstructions rather than what Mann et al did (I don’t think we can say we didn’t do Mann et al because we think it is crap!) “.
2383.txt: Tim Barnett in 2004: ” maybe someone(s) ought to have another look at Mann’s paper. His statistics were suspect as i remember… “
1656.txt: Douglas Maraun (UEA): ” I think, that “our” reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not especially honest. “
4005.txt: Osborn: ” Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were “
4133.txt: David Rind (NASA GISS): ” what Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is that there is practically no reliable tropical data for most of the time period, and without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm) the globe actually got. “
1738.txt: Tree expert Rod Savidge writes: ” What troubles me even more than the inexactness attending chronological estimates is how much absolute nonsense — really nothing but imaginative speculation — about the environment of the past is being deduced from tree rings and published in dendrochronology journals. “
3219.txt: Savidge again: ” As a tree physiologist who has devoted his career to understanding how trees make wood, I have made sufficient observations on tree rings and cambial growth to know that dendrochronology is not at all an exact science. Indeed, its activities include subjective interpretations of what does and what does not constitute an annual ring, statistical manipulation of data to fulfill subjective expectations, and discarding of perfectly good data sets when they contradict other data sets that have already been accepted. “
_______________________________________...
And they give a Nobel Prize for that!
making things up is not honest.
No it isn't.
From a climate scientist:
I had to give several interviews (TV, radio, newspapers) but tried just to explain science. Now an old story is warmed up. I was a reviewer of the IPCC-TAR report 2001. In my review which I can not find again in its precise wording I critcized the fact that the whole Mann hockeytick is being printed in its full length in the IPCC-TAR report. In 1999 I made the following comments:
The spatial, temporal (tree-ring data in the midlatitudes mainly contain "summer information") and spectral coverage and behaviour of the data is questionable, mainly before 1500-1600 AD. 2. It is in my opinion not appropriate already to make statements for the southern hemisphere and for the period prior to 1500 AD.
My review was classified "unsignificant" even I inquired several times. Now the internationally well known newspaper SPIEGEL got the information about these early statements because I expressed my opinion in several talks, mainly in Germany, in 2002 and 2003. I just refused to give an exclusive interview to SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.
