NC Media Watch

A quest for reason and accuracy in letters to the editor, guest editorials and other issues of interest to the citizens of Western Nevada County.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Dutch give award for story about global warming hoax

The Dutch science magazine Natuurwetenschap & Techniek , published an article by Marcel Crok, examining Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick exposure of Professor Mann’s global warming hockey stick as a fraud, in their February 1, 2005 issue. Marcel Grok has won a prestigious Dutch prize (Glazen Griffioen) for science journalism from the Free University (VU) in Amsterdam, together with the VU Medical Center and Hogeschool Hindesheim.

I will post a link to the winning article when we return to broadband land. Watch for the update.

Link to the Dutch article here. (Dial up users be warned this is 851KB pdf)

Click here for a private e-mail comment. For public comment select comments below.


Blogger Frederic Christie said...

Mann's mistakes, if mistakes they be, are largely created by corporate-friendly intellectual property procedures and laws:

This site lists responses to IPCC and other studies (as you continue to ignore that the IPCC internally, though apparently Mann showed undue influence, still mostly agrees with the conclusions of global warming, their conclusions are relatively conservative, and they are FAR from the only scientists discussing global warming) that are flatly wrong and debunked, also not responsive to the IPCC:

Mann may be guilty of scientific chauvinism, but he is not bought off, as his critics are. "One of the main vehicles for attacks on climate change initiatives during the Rio Conference was a campaign known as the Information Council on the Environment "ICE," funded by energy companies-in particular, Edison Electric Institute, the Southern Company, and the Western Fuels Association. Like the more recent initiative by the American Petroleum Institute, the ICE campaign, launched in 1991, was designed to put scientists in front of the media to portray global warming as "theory rather than fact," and plant stories that would minimize the seriousness of the threat. The ICE campaign introduced the country to three major scientific critics, who became known as skeptics of the global warming process: Drs. Patrick J. Michaels, Robert C. Balling Jr. and Sherwood Idso."

As you continue to focus on the scientific community's back and forth on the hockey stick affair, the evidence continues to pile up.

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Global warming is caused primarily by humans and "nearly all climate scientists today" agree with that viewpoint, the new head of the National Academy of Sciences -- a climate scientist himself -- said Wednesday.

Ralph Cicerone's views contrasted with Bush administration officials' emphasis on uncertainty about how much carbon dioxide and other industrial gases warm the atmosphere like a greenhouse.

"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now at its highest level in 400,000 years and it continues to rise," said Cicerone, an atmospheric scientist who left as chancellor of University of California-Irvine to become academy president this month. "Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth's current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fuels."

Cicerone, testifying before a Senate Commerce subcommittee on global climate change, cited data from weather stations and ships indicating the surface of the Earth is generally hotter by about seven-tenths of 1 degree Fahrenheit just since the early 1970s."

Wed Oct 12, 03:06:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Russ Steele said...


Read the article, see the link I have posted. The IPCC politicians used Mann's work as the prime example, it became the poster child for global warming. It is just bad science. So is all the other studies, which are based on the same data sets.

More and more scientist want to know, why the Mann study and other studies based on the same data sets be replicated? This is the true test of valid science.

Wed Oct 12, 06:15:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Frederic Christie said...

"Read the article, see the link I have posted. The IPCC politicians used Mann's work as the prime example, it became the poster child for global warming. It is just bad science. So is all the other studies, which are based on the same data sets."

Not at all. The IPCC study was groundbreaking, but not even YOUR arguments prove the incredible work behind it was all verboten. Your very argument is that Mann ran away with the IPCC's conclusions in a cavalier way that not even the IPCC scientists agreed with. Is it just Mann, Russ? If so, my cites stand. If not, then you're being flatly disingenuous and now have to get past the "hockey stick" garbage. The fact is that numerous people have looked at the data, not just the IPCC's but other sets (hell, your own) and seen global warming occuring. This is why serious science discussion is NOT "Is anthropogenic warming happening?" but "What is its extent? How much of it is natural and how much human? What will be the positive and negative feedbacks? What will be the real impacts?"

Strikes me that, given the complexity of the system we're in, we should be proceeding with caution.

You're also conceding that Mann ain't unique in the universe. The first article I linked to, while very critical of Mann, was very clear that Mann's unwillingness to be transparent is hardly new in the industry.

Take this: . It's a graph, but you may note that the footnotes DON'T cite Mann.

And it is NOT established, but an ideological point, that Mann has been hiding from his critics. describes the back and forth of the debate.

Surely, no anti-anthropogenic-climate-change scientist has never made serious errors of documentation or methodology. ;)

Wed Oct 12, 11:28:00 PM PDT  

Post a Comment

<< Home