Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (12746)	5/20/2007 8:47:25 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 36917

31 Aug 2006 Followup to the ‘Hockeystick’ Hearings Filed under: Climate Science RC Forum— group @ 10:53 am The House Energy and Commerce committee held two hearings on the "Hockey Stick" and associated "Wegman Report" in July. We commented on the first of the two hearings previously. The hearings, while ostensibly concerning the studies of Mann and coworkers, were actually most remarkable for the (near) unanimity of the participating scientists on critical key points, such as the importance of confronting the issue of climate change, and the apparent acceptance of those points by the majority of congresspersons present. The committee subsequently provided followup opportunities to participants to clarify issues that were discussed at the hearings. Mike Mann (Penn State Professor and RealClimate blogger) participated in the second (July 27 2006) of the two hearings, "Questions Surrounding the ‘Hockey Stick’ Temperature Studies: Implications for Climate Change Assessments". He has posted his responses to five follow-up questions, along with supporting documents meteo.psu.edu . Among the more interesting of these documents are a letter and a series of email requests from emeritus Stanford Physics Professor David Ritson who has identified significant apparent problems with the calculations contained in the Wegman report, but curiously has been unable to obtain any clarification from Dr. Wegman or his co-authors in response to his inquiries. We hope that Dr. Wegman and his co-authors will soon display a willingness to practice the principle of 'openness' that they so recommend in their report.... Update: There is an interesting discussion of the Wegman and North reports by Gerald North (talking at TAMU) available through Andrew Dessler's site.... realclimate.org

To: neolib who wrote (12746)	5/20/2007 8:52:35 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Not a sign of alarm from you that Mann had to be forced to release the info. He fought it for years. In spite of the forced release, I had read that it was only partial. That's why I brought it up. You posted an early part of the Wikipedia entry that cited Mann's supporters. If the Wiki is right, then the refutation that you didn't post takes care of Mann. Overall, the committee believes that Mann's assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis. en.wikipedia.org; I know why you don't like REASON. Just doesn't fit with your beliefs. -- Mann published a retraction in the June 2004 issue of Geophysical Research, in which he admits underestimating the temperature variations indicated by the proxy data by more than one-third since 1400, which accounts for why he missed the Little Ice Age. Strangely, Mann still argues this considerable error doesn't impact his conclusions. reason.com; But none of this makes any difference to you religious Greens.