Heartland Institute...a change of heart?

If Gleick is the creator of the fake document, that is even worse for him. It feeds into the paranoia that climate scientists fake their data.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/21/BA0R1NAEQI.DTL

Since it was a climate scientist instead of a reporter that did this, it may feed even more of the non-science. Shame on Gleick, and shame on the heartland institute. From the above link

If you look at my climate gate link above, you will see an email from phil jones to mann telling him to hide his data from the hockey stick and not to let anyone see the email or the real methods. PCA is a legitimate method, unfortunately mann did not do it properly. To his credit he eventually released his data and did not follow Jones conspiracy. Most of the other scientists in the emails also did not participate in the conspiracy, but they did also not discourage it. The fresh air of other eyes allows us to have a more correct picture of proxies, and we now reject the idea that tree rings give us a better picture of past climates than the other proxies that disagreed with mann. The new picture with a shaft that includes the LIA and MWP is more complete, and more consistent with the pre MBH literature. Nothing that mann did though casts any doubt that global warming is happening, nor did any of the analysis affect the temperature record of the blade of the hockey stick. Anyone who claims the blade is not happening simply is not looking properly at the data. Apologies to Mojo if this is not his position, and I leave it to him to clarify what he means. Mann himself in later papers has corrected his shaft to include the better proxies. Let's get the science right and keep the politics out of it.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2107364,00.html

 

....I take it back, now we have Climategate-II

 

Austingreen"Any one like Mojo that claims the blade is not happening simply is not looking properly at the data."

Never my position.Edit your post.

 

Thanks for the edit.
I dont know of anyone who has any contention with the Blade in Manns graph.
The blade is the spliced on instrumental data and is the only accurate data presented by Mann.
The handle of the stick is where Mann used trickery to eliminate the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age.
Also,the fact that Mann spliced on the blade to hide the dip in tree ring temperatures ("hide the decline") is devious and proof that Mann is a propagandist not a scientist.
Also its proof that tree rings are very inaccurate proxies for temp,unless you believe that world temps have been dropping since the 60s, as shown in Manns hidden data.

 

Austingreen "PCA is a legitimate method, unfortunately mann did not do it properly. To his credit he eventually released his data and did not follow Jones conspiracy."

Mann revealed his data only after Congress demanded it.No credit to Mann.

 

I'm not up on the topic, but I got an email link relating to "heartland" yesterday - and what is/isn't taught in schools:

http://climaterealityproject.org/20...itute-keep-climate-denial-out-of-our-schools/

I don't take issue with climate change because it's evident . . . . and because man-made amounts are speculative . . . . and because any "cure" for the "issue" colaterally solves more important issues such as carbon fuel/sustainability / political unrest, etc etc.

If schools want to teach (global warming) that the jury is still out (regarding man made elements of climate change) ... is that such a big deal? Debating what's 'true' or 'false' or 'unknown' is ok by me.

.

.

 

Well IMHO he should not have stalled, but if you read the link I posted near the beginning, Phil Jones was trying to get him to hide his methods and data and get around the foia. Mann did actually release the information so that the data and methods were reviewed long before climate gate exposed the emails. The science was then corrected through the peer review process. It would have been much worse for mann if he had followed Jones's directions.

 

I presume students in the USA are already being brainwashed with the likes of "An Inconvenient Truth".
A film so full of untruths its forbidden from UK schools,without showing an alternative viewpoint.

 

Sure, unless the debate is nonsense.

At least ping the Wikipedia before you decide how benign the debate is.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change]Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Key paragraph:

"Since 2007, when the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_of_Petroleum_Geologists"]American Association of Petroleum Geologists[/ame] released a revised statement,[101] no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[6][7]"

But like hey, if you're OK with teaching your (grand?) kids that the issue is still in doubt, mazel tov.

 

...the only paper I saved from high school was a report I did on global warming 40 years ago. I said we might be flooded out by year 2000 unless we banned fossil fuels and went to nukes. Only now after 2011 events do I think maybe nukes are not the answer, and maybe we continue using fossil fuels. The issue is not so much that Global Warming is taught, it is an interesting science topic. But it's the value judgements, bad guys, good guys and proposed actions is the problem.

 

Hogwash.

The UK review rejected (at the time) that a scientific concensus existed for a couple of details in the movie. The overarching message, that climate change was real and caused by humans, was not in doubt.

Go take your meds

 

The UK court didn't even touch upon the most aggregious lies in an Inconvenient Truth.
1)That Gore leads the audience to believe that CO2 rise causes temp rise in the ice core graphs.Without informing the audience that CO2 levels lag temp by 800 years.
2)That the hockey stick graph is exaggerated by having the graph rise over the top of the screen and having to use a cherry picker lift to point out present day temps.
When the truth is that temps were higher for most of the past 10,000 years.

 

I found that helpful. There was a recent article in NYTimes about why scientists fail to get into public office in the USA. Basically we seem to like our information to be politicized and hyped and black and white decisive (with no scientific hedging). On this basis, Gore's film is flawless (to one half of the audience anyway).

Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists? - NYTimes.com

 

Heartland is trying to play both sides of what is clearly a double standard. The source of funding is irrelevant. All that should matter is the truth, but sadly, that sounds hopelessly naive.

Here's another opinion with some additional information that speaks to both the immediate issue and the overall problem.

 

If you're going to apply a standard, at least apply it equally. The Heartland Institute is also supported by taxpayers, because it's non-profit and is exempt from taxes.