That's the only report? And you're telling me I have no idea what I'm talking about?

__________________
Democrats, finding new ways to destroy wealth for over 100 years.

Please, find me the studies that contradict the conclusions of the hockey stick graph.

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

Well, speaking as one who has been through the peer review process both as an author and as a reviewer, those things happening are few and very far between for a few reasons. Most importantly, because your name is on the line, whether you are an author or a reviewer. As an author, if you are found to do either of the things you mention, your career as a legitimate scientist is done. It will come up when you interview for any job, when you apply for any grant, it will follow you everywhere. If you fail as a reviewer, you lose with editors. And that's a very bad thing to happen when in this line of work you either publish or die. To do either thing that you mention puts you out of work. Second, authors don't usually know who their reviewers are. You communicate to your reviewers through an editor, who is never supposed to give you names. Sometimes you can figure it out (I have published papers on angelsharks, and there are very few people who do that work), but that is pretty hard to do on hot button issues like climate change where a lot of people are working in the field. So trying to collude on that issue would be difficult without an editor's help. And lastly, it's not a simple yeah or nay on a paper. On any review, you have to break down the paper, sometimes line by line, to write up a review. Your job is to catch any error or nebulous statement, no matter how small. It becomes part of the record for the process for that paper getting published, and any editor worth his or her salt will hold on to that. To not do so, is putting your journal's reputation on the line if something underhanded has happened. And in fact, reviews have surfaced for papers that have been very controversial.

So, for either of the things to happen that you mention, you are asking for a lot help from many people. In a field where you can make a career by bucking the trend and proving it. In short, you're totally wrong to think that peer review is covering up bad science.

__________________
He who learns but does not think is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger. --Confucius

Smooth seas do not make skillful sailors.
--African proverb

Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it.
--Albert Einstein

You're a smart guy, look it up.

__________________
Democrats, finding new ways to destroy wealth for over 100 years.

I didn't say it was necessarily true in this case, as a matter of fact I specifically qualified that I am not an expert. I stated it was possible. I honestly pay more attention to temperature graphs and trends and correlations therein than anything else on the subject, and I don't even pay much attention to those, because living on top of a biiig hill in the middle of the midwest, if global warming sets in, worst case scenario I have a private island. In short, it really doesn't concern me

However, I know enough to know that scientists are not only dependent on honest peer review for their credibility, but also government grants for studies. Science may not be beholden to politicians, but scientists can be. Just playing devils advocate.

__________________

He's come to save the day!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVFdAJRVm94

So in other words you can't find one?

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

Dr Michael Mann created the Hockey Stick graph, a graph which greatly conflicts with historical scientific data by eliminating the ‘little ice age’ and ‘Medieval Warming’ Periods. The IPCC adopted the Mann graph unquestioned while releasing Policy for Lawmakers claiming that the 1990’s were the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year in a millennium.

The Mann graph was literally marketed worldwide, and spread with movies like An Inconvenient Truth, while at the same time several other historical climate graphs conflicting with the Mann graph were ignored – such as graphs developed by Christie and Spencer.

Several governments worldwide like Canada for example, added the Mann graph to textbooks and even mailed nation wide in pamphlets promoting the Kyoto agreement.

Meanwhile, skeptical scientists asking for detailed information about the graph were stonewalled, stopping any real peer review from taking place.

In 2003 under pressure Mann finally released the MBH98 dataset used to formulate the graph. Statistical analysis did not verify, but rather found numerous mistakes including the overweight of tree ring data due to a mistake converting units.

A paper was published explaining the Mann graph errors. Mann responded by claiming they used the wrong dataset. (The dataset he supplied to them) Instead of the MBH98, he claimed they should have instead used a newly identified FTP archive.

This second, FTP dataset, was almost identical to the MBH98.

Mann next claimed that other scientists did not accurately replicate his computational sequence. All requests to see his computation code to this day have been refused, while Mann claims there is no reason to replicate the graph because global scientific consensus already exists.

Since then, Wahl and Ammann have created a NAS peer-reviewed graph nearly identical to the Mann graph, proving the legitimacy of the original . . . or does it? Several scientists have come forward claiming they reviewed and pointed out several mistakes with the original draft of the Wahl and Ammann graph. However, not a single one of the scientists who criticized the draft were again invited to review the final version. In fact, it was found that final peer review was not done by any experts in statistical analysis. All requests for release of the dataset and computational sequence have been refused.

Over and over, the pro-climate change crowd keeps manipulating science and refusing honest debate. Maybe, in the end, they are right about AGW. But my natural instincts are to avoid renting an apartment in a building with a cardboard foundation.


The above information came from many different sources. All of those sources have been linked to in the Global Warming catagory time and time again.

__________________
The (almost)Great SupPackFan Quotes:
"The more times you drive over a cat - the flatter it gets!"
"Differentiating legal and illegal immigration is as critical as separating child adoption from child abduction."

Drive Bias

Obviously, anytime you have to deal with people, you will have the potential for politics. But, that's why peer review exists in the first place. It makes it very hard for politics to determine the outcome of a manuscript. Nothing is foolproof, but peer review and a culture of rebuttal in print, has a very good track record in science in getting the best possible information out there.

And I totally agree that looking at the data is the way to go on this issue. But, unfortunately, a lot of people on this site seem to think that climate change exists due to some international scientists cabal bent on enriching themselves through grant money. It would be funny, except I see people argue that here all the time.

__________________
He who learns but does not think is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger. --Confucius

Smooth seas do not make skillful sailors.
--African proverb

Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it.
--Albert Einstein

In this case science has been politicized. The IPCC, NAS, and many other groups have been infiltrated by politicians too excited to pass by the proving of AGW on to the solutions. Why? Because every solution involves bigger government and bureacratic control over the freedom of individuals. Two things craved by socialists and dictators around the world. The soul purpose of Kyoto was to punish the United States for being wealthy. Geez, no wonder the rest of the world signed on so quickly!

Within the proposed solutions, nobody is allowed to question the definition of 'green'. Is a half million acres of windmills really more environmentally friendly than one ten acre coal plant? Is government subsidized ethanol any greener than standard gasoline? Over the lifetime of a hybrid vehicle, does it cause less environmental damage than a SUV? Are solar panels more environmentally freindly than burning natural gas? Arguements can be made in either direction for any one of these questions. Why should the government be put in charge of picking winners and losers within a supposedly free market? Power. This is why Global Warming grew on politicians around the world so quickly.

__________________
The (almost)Great SupPackFan Quotes:
"The more times you drive over a cat - the flatter it gets!"
"Differentiating legal and illegal immigration is as critical as separating child adoption from child abduction."

Drive Bias

You are mixing two issues here: "Does climate change exist?" and "What should we do about it?". You seem to assume here that if you think climate change exists, then you agree with Kyoto or cap and trade. They are very much separate questions. If you look at the peer reviewed science out there, there is loads of evidence out there for the existence of climate change. As to what to do about it, that is very much in the air in the literature.

__________________
He who learns but does not think is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger. --Confucius

Smooth seas do not make skillful sailors.
--African proverb

Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it.
--Albert Einstein

Its true that there was/is a debate about the methodology chosen by Mann et. al. But subsequent studies using multiple different proxies affirm the same conclusion. There has been a couple of recent studies in the arctic that show conclusively that 20th century warming in the arctic is unprecdented in the 2000 years. They even show a cooling trend that is abruptly reversed in the 20th century at a time when the orbit of the earth should have continued the cooling.

The issue about data availability is mainly just a red herring. The data has been publicly available for some time now and none of the critics of the original have done anything with it.

In regards to the hockey stick itself the evidence for AGW and rapid climate change does not depend on it in any great measure. Its popular because its been politicized, both by the IPCC and its critics.

Here is a good article that puts this all in perspective.

alexlockwood.net Hockey Stick: the first climate change metaphor

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

From all I have read, I know nothing of ‘subsequent studies using multiple different proxies affirming Mann’s conclusion’ I have only read of two. Wahl and Ammann, which is surrounded in controversy and secrecy as well. The second one is a group including Mann himself. I don’t belief that confirming your own conclusions really qualify as peer review. The other graphs referenced in the article Andrew linked to are short term, 1850 to 2000 graphs. The total One degree Celsius raise over that time period has nothing to do with the Mann graph controversy.

Technology has only allowed scientists to take temperature readings since 1850. Any re-creation of temperature readings before that are simply educated guesses. The actual temperatures we do have show a gradual warming throughout the 20th century leading up to the peak in 1998. This would include movement upward before the industrial revolution and population explosions even began, and also, a stop in movement since 1998, during the greatest increase in worldwide fossil fuel usage Earth has ever seen. Obviously, a decade snapshot is irrelevant in the discussion of long-term climate trends. So is the two-decade trend, 1986 to 1998, which Al Gore used to drum up international fear. Arguably, even a 100 year trend nothing more than a snapshot of Earth’s life. Truly, millennia of data are required to prove any trend.

So this is where the Mann graph again comes into play. His formula leveled out the past 2,000 years of temperatures, making the climate appear very consistent, with a significant spike occurring in the 20th century. Groups like the IPCC made political decisions to adopt the Mann graph rather than those of other reputable scientists out there that all showed the significant warming of the medieval period followed by a large dip over the ‘Little Ice Age’. These charts appear like earths 20th century warming only followed the expected cycle direction.

I find this article Andrew posted interesting, as it is a political analysis of the Mann graph rather than scientific. Rightfully so, as the entire subject has been politicized by the pro-warming crowd from the very beginning – just as I have said – while politicians were in a rush to move from the science portion to implementing political solutions. The article talks of how the ozone hole was a much easier sell, as average morons could visualize a hole in earth’s shield of armor with reference to Star Wars movies. By the way, what happened to that ozone hole that we were told in the 1980’s would give us all skin cancer by 2010? Well, stupid me, we are never supposed to analyze the accuracy of ‘sky is falling’ scientists, we are simply expected to believe their next prediction.

__________________
The (almost)Great SupPackFan Quotes:
"The more times you drive over a cat - the flatter it gets!"
"Differentiating legal and illegal immigration is as critical as separating child adoption from child abduction."

Drive Bias

You mean the one fueled by the usage of CFC's which are pretty much banned worldwide hence stopping the main cause of the hole in the ozone layer. A sure sign of the possibility of the world working together to solve a major environmental problem.

Chlorofluorocarbon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaOzone depletion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________

Very similar. Both BS.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher

A statement without any evidence to back it up. How did you determine that the ban on CFC's, which were determined to be the major cause of the ozone hole, were not effective in solving the problem?

__________________