July 7, 2010 Response to Independent Climate Change Email Review Prof. Ross McKitrick University of Guelph In comparison to previous inquiries by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, the Oxburgh Inquiry, and Penn State University, the Report of the ICCER under the direction of Sir Muir Russell has gone further in making a detailed review of the concerns arising out of the CRU emails. Some, but certainly not all, of the concerns, have been brought to resolution. •

For example, with regard to the famous “trick” to “hide the decline”, whereas earlier investigations (including Penn State) claimed it was a valid procedure, the ICCER found otherwise, concluding (p. 60 paragraph 26) that the figure published in the WMO Report “was misleading in not describing that one of the series was truncated post 1960 for the figure, and in not being clear on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together.” It is good to finally have agreement that Jones’ graph was misleading, and the attempts to explain this away as an innocent turn of phrase are invalid.



Likewise, the ICCER agrees that the CRU should have disclosed “an unambiguous list of the stations used in each of the versions” of their global temperature products, and their refusal to do so was “unhelpful and defensive” (p. 51 para. 32). This adds to the Science and Technology Committee’s criticism of the CRU for their secrecy and failure to attain good scientific practice.



Moreover the ICCER correctly noted that the build-up to the flood of requests for confidentiality agreements in the summer of 2009 was the fault of the CRU: “The Review believes that CRU helped create the conditions for this campaign by being unhelpful in its earlier response” (p. 95 para. 34).

In these cases, however, the ICCER seems unduly concerned to downplay the problems they found and to offer justifications. For instance, with regard to the WMO Report they state that “It does not have the status or importance of the IPCC reports” and it is an annual document, as if this in any way mitigates the publication of a misleading graph in a government report. There are a number of disappointing weaknesses in the report, however. •

In their dismissal of the “divergence” problem the ICCER made the same error as the Oxburgh panel, by noting (p. 59 para. 23) that divergence has been “openly and extensively discussed in the literature, including CRU papers” while overlooking the fact that the real issue has been how the matter was presented in the IPCC Reports, in particular the deletion of the post-1960 Briffa data. In this regard, their claims in paragraph 21 on page 59, in support of the finding that the IPCC graph was not misleading, are simply untrue. They claim that “the depiction of uncertainty is quite apparent to any reader” and “It presents all relevant published reconstructions we are aware of”. But it is not apparent to the reader that the post-1960 Briffa data has been deleted (which is why it took many years after the publication of the TAR for the deletion to be discovered), and the graph does not present “all” the published reconstructions, since one of them was deleted after 1960. The issue here was whether the CRU staff suppressed information.

Unfortunately the ICCER switched its attention to defending the suppression of information, without first acknowledging the troubling facts of the matter. •

In Section 9.3 the ICCER presented a detailed discussion of the issues surrounding the use of my 2004 paper with Patrick Michaels in the preparation of the IPCC Report. Unfortunately the ICCER seemed to lose its way on this issue, making a superficial attempt to pronounce on the scientific controversy (despite acknowledging on p. 76 para 22 that it is not their place to do so) while overlooking the procedural issues that were actually in their remit.



o

In paragraph 21 on page 75 they ask whether the decision to exclude the information from the IPCC drafts was “reasonable.” But they seemed to take the view that any decision would be reasonable since the IPCC had the job of making a decision. The ICCER ignored the problem of conflict of interest, and took at face value claims by Professor Jones (page 73, paragraph 15) that were either untrue (i.e. our results are compatible with satellite data, contrary to his assertion) or were unsubstantiated (i.e. his claim that our results are artifacts of ocean circulation patterns, which is the whole point under controversy). Consequently their finding on this point is baseless.

o

On page 76 paragraph 23, they asked whether the published IPCC claim was “invented”. In my submission of evidence I asked the ICCER to obtain from Professor Jones the evidence supporting the IPCC claim. Even though they acknowledge that the supporting evidence would consist of a p-value (p. 72 fn. 7) they did not receive any such evidence from Professor Jones. The ICCER provides no evidence to support the IPCC text except for reference to unnamed studies showing “that the large scale organisation of atmospheric circulation produces a spatially integrated response to forcing” (p. 76 para. 23), which is completely irrelevant to the discussion and is in any case a specific scientific claim well outside their remit. Despite presenting no evidence to support the claim in question, they write “we see no justification of the view that that this response was invented.” This finding is totally unsupported. The conspicuous failure of the ICCER to prove otherwise only reinforces the view that the IPCC claim was invented for the purpose.

o

The ICCER also concluded that Professor Jones did not actually write the paragraph, which I accept. They point out, however, that he supported its inclusion (p. 74, first bullet point) and they do not state who it was that inserted the paragraph.

o

In light of the discussion in Section 9.3, the claim by the ICCER (p. 77 para 25) that Jones was not biased in his handling of this issue is simply implausible. It does not enhance the credibility of the report for the ICCER to make such a claim.

The material in Chapter 6 in which the Review team produced a global temperature series from GHCN archives is largely beside the point, apparently aimed at a straw man claim that GHCN data is inaccessible or fabricated. The ICCER has shown, in effect, that the CRU products are very similar to unadjusted averages from public archives.

The Report covers a lot of ground and no doubt there will be detailed discussions in the days to follow.

2

July 7, 2010 Response to Independent Climate ... - Ross McKitrick

July 7, 2010. Response to Independent Climate Change Email Review. Prof. Ross McKitrick. University of Guelph. In comparison to previous inquiries by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, the. Oxburgh Inquiry, and Penn State University, the Report of the ICCER under the direction of Sir Muir.

26KB Sizes 0 Downloads 198 Views

Recommend Documents

July 7, 2010 Response to Independent Climate ... - Ross McKitrick
Jul 7, 2010 - Response to Independent Climate Change Email Review. Prof. Ross McKitrick. University of Guelph. In comparison to previous inquiries by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, the. Oxburgh Inquiry, and Penn State Universi

Submission to the Inter-Academy Council ... - Ross McKitrick
These kinds of issues came out with disturbing clarity in the CRU emails, and ... portion of the CRU data was attributable to land-use change, thus adding to the ..... 12 http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html ...

Submission to the Inter-Academy Council ... - Ross McKitrick
These kinds of issues came out with disturbing clarity in the CRU emails, and ... portion of the CRU data was attributable to land-use change, thus adding to the ..... 12 http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html ...

The Devil is in the Generalities - Ross McKitrick
from the prospect of measurement with real data. We can measure specific types of pollution, biological conditions, resource scarcity, etc. But there is no way to .... You can look up specific aspects of it: air pollution, water pollution, forest cov

North American versus European Global Warming ... - Ross McKitrick
Sep 28, 2007 - emission reduction goals. Instead, in 2002, they adopted a rather leisurely and non-binding target of reducing emissions intensity by 18% ...

(2010). From preferential response to parental
Jun 8, 2010 - All statistical analyses were performed with R software ... Statistical analysis of the effect of playback stimuli on behavioural response (number.

(2010). From preferential response to parental
Jun 8, 2010 - study confirms this general view, but also clearly indicates that this recognition may continue in the .... 360e380. Sunderland, Massachussetts: ...

the investor volume 3 issue 7 july 2010 -
Jul 7, 2010 - in the well to pick up at least part of the bill. The cost of the response to date ($3.12bn) includes the cost of the spill response, containment, relief well ...... has been there since Ram Rajya. Some of the latest developments includ

the investor volume 3 issue 7 july 2010 -
Jul 7, 2010 - a major appreciation or one-off revaluation. So the question arises whether this unpegging of currency .... acquisition, the two companies together-Fortis and. Parkway would create the largest healthcare pro- .... ance ADAG to merge Rel

Estimating the Contribution of Sea Ice Response to Climate Sensitivity ...
Nov 15, 2014 - defined as the initial tropopause energy imbalance divided. Denotes Open Access ... sea ice cover (i.e., cloud or water vapor changes). Thus,.

July 2010.pdf
Page 1 of 56. Serious & complex Crown Court cases. • Court of Appeal cases. • Confiscation & Proceeds of Cr. •. •. •. •. •. • ime Act Proceedings. Members of the VHCC Panel. SERIOUS AND. COMPLEX CRIME. PRISON LAW. TEL : 08458 73 73 33

2010 FORD IRONMAN USA, LAKE PLACID Sunday, July 25th 2010 ...
Jul 25, 2010 - 9:59:40 Loverich, Jacob STATE COLLEGE. PA. USA M30-34 ..... 10:13:42 Krebs, Andrew STATE COLLEGE. PA ...... MELBOURNE BEA. FL.

Investment Climate Reforms : An Independent Evaluation of World ...
Oct 6, 2015 - Investment Climate Reforms : An Independent Evaluation of World Bank Group Support to Reforms of Business Regulations.

McKitrick
e is the average level of educational attainment, and i ..... inadequate, and in the present context the results suggest that a spatial analogue to a higher-order .... 440. 0.297. 0.600. 0.001. 3.002 e. Literacy +Post-secondary education rates. 440.

Response of climate-growth relationships and water ...
availability usually increases as a result of thinning because of the reduction of crown interception or ...... as forest monitoring tools. Ecol. Appl. 9 (1), 216–227.

Drafting a Climate Change Response Plan
Methodology. 1. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment. Process a. Summary of VA process. 2. Priority Project Identification Process a. Process used to identify key responses and projects. 3. Stakeholder Workshops and Engagements a. IDP Forums b. Se

7 July 20115.pdf
their stock markets. This was on the back of the recent staunch losses in their stock markets which has seen The Shanghai Comp Index loose close on 30% this ...

7 SMMC July 2016.pdf
will do our best to hook you up. I hope to see you out at area events or FUNctions! Until then,. OPEN DOOR...BUCKLE UP...HAMMER DOWN...RUN. HARD!

July 7, 2011 - State of California
Jul 7, 2011 - Pursuant to Article II, Section 10(d) of the California Constitution, I hereby .... microblogs, social networking sites, or other means of direct or ...

July 7, 2011 - State of California
Jul 7, 2011 - Internet Web site, or otherwise, provided that both of the following conditions ... microblogs, social networking sites, or other means of direct or ...

Proc-Mock 7 2010 Questions.pdf
Page 1 of 16. Page 1 Proctored Mock CAT 7. Directions for questions 1 to 3: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the. most appropriate answer to each question. The Metamorphosis is so canonical, it's hard to offer an hone

Proc-Mock 7 2010 Explanations.pdf
realize that for the adoptive family racism was. 'intolerable'. Option (d) hence fits the answer as it. continues the same idea. All the other options bring. out unrelated aspects of the situation. 5. a The passage describes the destruction caused by