Gerald North Caught Fibbing About Hockey

Marc Morano sent this over :

Subject: Letter to Editor
From: “S. Fred Singer”
To: letters@washpost.com
CC:

Dear Editor

Pls consider the appended Letter for early publication.

It corrects a factually incorrect Letter published on Oct 17

Thank you

S. Fred Singer, PhD
Chm, Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

———————————————————————————

In responding to Congressman Joe Barton’s letter
of Oct 12, Prof Gerald North (Letter, Oct 17)
claims that “we have not found any evidence that
his [Prof Michael Mann’s] results were incorrect
or even out of line with other works published
since his original papers.” This statement is
factually incorrect: There are numerous papers,
published in peer-reviewed journals, which show
clearly that the 20th century was not the warmest
in the past 1000 years (as claimed by Mann).
Medieval temperatures were substantially greater
– and so were temperatures during the earlier
Roman Warm Period. All of this is in addition to
the valid criticism of the statistical
methodology used by Mann. Tellingly, Canadian
Prof. Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick showed
that even random data fed into the faulty Mann
theory would always yield a record-warmest 20th century.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Gerald North Caught Fibbing About Hockey

  1. James Sexton says:

    Lol, and they call skeptics denialists! Funny lot they are.

  2. Russell C says:

    This is the same Dr Singer that the AGW believers will say is hopelessly corrupted by big coal & oil money. The problem with that accusation is no one ever checked the voracity of the it. I did, and ended up writing a series of articles about the myriad faults with the accusation at American Thinker, see: http://www.americanthinker.com/russell_cook/

    • ChrisD says:

      Which article? All I came up with were two passing references to Singer in one of the articles. What did I miss?

      I thought that Singer’s connections to tobacco and energy were pretty well documented. I’m interested to see the refutation.

      • James Sexton says:

        No, they were inferred upon him only because he has the temerity to challenge the EPA on their findings.

        Here’s Fred Singer’s own words,

        “The ultimate purpose of these attacks, at least in my case, has been to discredit my work and publications on global warming. I’m a nonsmoker, find SHS to be an irritant and unpleasant, and have certainly never been paid by Phillip Morris and the tobacco lobby, and have never joined any of their front organizations, like TASSC [The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition].”

        Seems pretty clear and unambiguous.

      • Denis Ables says:

        If you read Singer’s books, or acquaint yourself with the science, you would understand that it would make no difference who the h— Dr. Singer was affiliated with== the facts are the FACTS!

      • ChrisD says:

        Seems pretty clear and unambiguous

        Sure, if you’re willing to accept the subject’s word for it.

        “never been paid by Phillip Morris and the tobacco lobby” is a cleverly worded non-denial denial–all he says is that he wasn’t paid by PM or the tobacco lobby. He doesn’t say that he wasn’t paid by anyone, only by PM or the lobby. He can’t say that he was never paid to write a pro-tobacco report, because he was.

        “have never joined any of their front organizations like TASSC” That’s true. He didn’t join TASSC; he just worked with a PR firm that TASSC had hired.

  3. Charles Higley says:

    Russell, it’s “veracity.”

  4. MikeTheDenier says:

    SEPP SCIENCE EDITORIAL: Second Hand Smoke [SHS] and Lung Cancer by S Fred Singer Chairman, and President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6483

  5. R. de Haan says:

    The hockey stick graph, the scientist who performed the “research”, the way it has been financed, pushed and defended is a typical example of Post Normal Science.

    See: From http://notrickszone.com/2010/10/15/climate-change-now-questioned-at-german-universities-professors-speaking-up/

    3. The controversy and politics of climate change
    Many meteorologists say about climate science: ” That’s political and has nothing to do with science.”
    Dr. Kirstein: “Climate change? – That’s political and has nothing to do with normal science, it’s post-normal science.” With post-normal science, politics is at the forefront and science is just a tool to promote and drive “good” policy” by spreading fear and sticking to a dogma. In the early 1980s, “scientists” projected that all trees would die in Europe by 2005. Dr Kirstein then quotes Hans von Storch:

    Climate science is not normal. It’s post-normal.

    Post-normal science is always for a good cause or a political agenda. The target is to achieve de-industrialisation – The Green Economy – The Great Transformation. The modus operandi: by spreading fear. Kirstein then quotes Maurice Strong, John Houghton, Stephen Schneider, and explains some of the recent and infamous PR scare campaigns. There’s even a Climate Change Hotel and tourism in Greenland where you can actually “see climate change taking place”.

    After viewing Dr Kirstein’s presentation, it is absolutely no wonder that Hal Lewis called “climate science” the greatest fraud he’s ever seen. Dr Rahmstorf, Dr Schellnhuber, your sham is up.

  6. John A says:

    Dear Fred Singer.
    Steve McIntyre is not a professor.
    Ross McKitrick is.
    Please correct.
    Best regards

    John

  7. Amino says:

    Here is what the National Academy of Science had to say about Michael Mann’s conclusions:

    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”

    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=4

    • ChrisD says:

      Here’s the money quote from the NAS report:

      Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.

      The quote you produced applies specifically to the shorter periods of one decade (1990s) and one year (1998). Producing this quote, and only this quote, hides the essential finding of the report, which was that the hockey stick was upheld.

      • Amino says:

        The quote you produced applies specifically to the shorter periods of one decade (1990s) and one year (1998).

        No. You are misrepresenting what it says. What they said covers more than 1000 years: “in at least a millennium”.

        Also, he word “plausible” is a relative term. You can make it say anything you want.

        Again, you are a global warming believer and you are seeing what you want to see. The glass is half what?

      • Amino says:

        ChrisD says:
        October 18, 2010 at 11:00 pm

        ….applies specifically to the shorter periods of one decade (1990s) and one year (1998)…..which was that the hockey stick was upheld

        Warped reasoning.

      • ChrisD says:

        No. You are misrepresenting what it says. What they said covers more than 1000 years: “in at least a millennium”.

        Huh? I misrepresented nothing. Here is what the report said.

        1. It’s plausible, i.e., reasonable to conclude from the evidence presented, that the last few decades of the 20th century were the warmest such period in at least a millenium.

        2. There’s less confidence that we can say the same thing about the decade of the 90s or the year 1998.

        It’s really pretty plain. To be honest, I can’t recall hearing anybody, ever, try to claim that the NAS report undermines Mann’s basic conclusions in any significant way. Ever. Congratulations.

        But you are a global warming denier and you are seeing what you want to see.

  8. Amino says:

    An outline of what the Hockey Stick is, from Ross McKitrick

  9. Amino says:

    Don Easterbrook PhD, “1900 papers in the geologic record” about the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age:

  10. Amino says:

    Hide The Decline, the original and best:

    • ChrisD says:

      Off topic. This has nothing to do with the topic of this post.

      Also duplicates an earlier post.

      And you have the chutzpah to label other people spammers.

      • Amino says:

        Ya, Michael Mann has nothing to do with this post. It’s waaay off topic.

        Again, you are seeing what you want to see. You are also mean spirited.

      • Amino says:

        ChrisD says:
        October 18, 2010 at 11:00 pm

        Also duplicates an earlier post.

        Repeating of known inaccuracies so as to dominate or derail a thread is spamming. Is that what you meant?

      • ChrisD says:

        Yeah, “hide the decline” has nothing to do with this post. Read Singer’s letter again. Re-posting a YouTube video is spam.

      • ChrisD says:

        Repeating of known inaccuracies so as to dominate or derail a thread is spamming.

        Well, no, it isn’t. That’s trolling, not spamming.

        But, in the case of this blog, both trolling and spamming appeared to have been redefined as “Posting anything we don’t agree with.”

  11. Gneiss says:

    Amino writes,
    “Don Easterbrook PhD, “1900 papers in the geologic record” about the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age:”

    More science-aware readers might notice that the Easterbrook talk linked here includes his infamous graphics purporting to show Medieval times warmer than modern, by the trick of defining 1895 as “modern,” and showing none of the recent warming. Easterbrook either doesn’t know what Alley’s GISP2 temperature reconstruction actually shows, or else he assumes that his readers do not.

  12. Gneiss says:

    Gerald North, on the other hand, is being honest. I wonder how many of Fred Singer’s “numerous papers” showing the 20th century cooler than MWP actually involve global data, and the late 20th century. Doing neither (for example, by focusing on Greenland Ice Sheet chronologies that actually end at the tail of the Little Ice Age, more than a century before present) are tricks often used to hide the incline.

  13. bubbagyro says:

    Gneiss says:
    October 19, 2010 at 12:55 am

    Honest??? You must be a comedian! North is just another one of the club, the Big Government Academic-Scientific elite that Eisenhower correctly prophesied about. North is just a little crook, not a major crook. Perjury for monetary gain of government monies is only an A Felony, as Mann will soon find out in VA court. Then one lies and the other swears to it.

    Since Singer’s pioneering work, hundreds of other papers—most using proxies like isotopes and seashells since the record is scarce indeed since few civilizations existed then and there— have corroborated the evidence that the MWP was worldwide. And more are being published every day. But if one believes that only half of the earth is 5°C warmer and the other half is normal, does that make any scientific sense at all? Can there be scientists at all that would believe this baloney? Sure, there exists a polar see-saw, but that is on yearly scales, not century scales.

    But the Emperor (warm-earthers) is completely clothed, isn’t he?

    • ChrisD says:

      Perjury for monetary gain of government monies is only an A Felony, as Mann will soon find out in VA court.

      There is zero chance that Kounsellor Kenny’s ridiculous charade will ever get to court. Even Kounsellor Kenny knows that. The only grant left on the table occurred before the law he’s using was passed, and it’s not even climate-related.

      The whole thing is strictly political pandering. He’s lusting after the state house and he thinks this will help get him there, but hopefully the Virginia electorate isn’t that naive. He has no case and he knows it.

  14. Gneiss says:

    bubbagyro writes,
    “You must be a comedian!”

    Nope, guess again.

  15. Joseph A Olson, PE says:

    On Wednesday, Jan 27, 2010 the Houston Forum hosted a noon climate debate between Dr Gerry North of TAMU and Dr Richard Lindzen of MIT. A follow-up debate was held that evening at Rice University. During both events Dr North stated that….

    “HE HAD NOT READ ANY OF THE CLIMATE-GATE EMAILS BECAUSE THEY WERE STOLEN PRIVATE PROPERTY”.

    He claimed to know nothing of this matter out of RESPECT for Mann, Jones et al. Yet just four days later, little Gerry did a half page interview with the Washington Post in which he claimed the ‘stolen emails’ in no way indicated bad behavior. Gerry claims to be an ‘expert’ on scientific ‘ethics’ and he must be an expert clarivoyant too.

    I scolded this errant school boy with my “No Loophole for Your Soul” posted at Canada Free Press. He gets my vote as the most shamefull academic in all of Texas.

    A quote from No Loophole: “The deaf, blind and mute monkey defense was not appreciated and should no longer be tolerated. If you chose to be uninformed on this falsification, suppression and exploitation that has been perpetrated in the name of science, then you do not deseerve a place at this debate.”

    Gerry North DOES NOT DESERVE A PLACE AT THIS DEBATE. I stand by those ‘ethical’ words.

    • Amino says:

      “HE HAD NOT READ ANY OF THE CLIMATE-GATE EMAILS BECAUSE THEY WERE STOLEN PRIVATE PROPERTY”.

      I didn’t know it had been concluded they were stolen. I think no one still knows, or at least aren’t yet saying, how they got out into the public. To say they were stolen shows he jumped to a biased conclusion.

      • Joseph A Olson, PE says:

        To say the emails were “stolen” ignores the fact that most of that material had been the subject of 50 previous Freedom of Information Act requests that were ILLEGALLY DENIED by Jones et al for years. Those previous FOIA requests had all expired the wierd 6 month UK criminal prosecution window, a FACT mentioned by these criminals in their own emails. The email material was all publicly funded, intentionally altered, intentionally concealed and then indignantly protected as PRIVATE PROPERTY…..OUTRAGEOUS.

        Gerry North has NO business claiming any knowledge of scientific ethics….or any ‘other’ form of ethics.

  16. Amino says:

    The Hockey Stick in perspective:

  17. Amino says:

    William Happer, of Princeton Univ., on the Orwellian rewriting of history in the Hockey Stick:

  18. change of thought says:

    AW yes the scientific elite… what is interesting is why would these profs, spend there entire life trying to figure out why climate change is going on for very little money. Compared to what they could be doing if they happened to sell there soul to Exxon mobil or Shell. Do you realize how much money is on the other side of the coin??? Dr. Lindzen of MIT realizes this i think. I won’t hold back if the science is there then we can’t let people like Lindzen win just because they are good at debate. Lindzen would argue that smoking does no harm to your lungs and win the debate. TAMU is turning into one of the best schools in the country, because of people like Dessler, Bowman, Willhite. North is not part of the “scientific elite”, but he has changed the way people think. TAMU is on top of it’s game.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s