Why do people trust RealClimate.org?

Question

RealClimate has ties to Environmental Media Services, Fenton Communications and Al Gore. They make claims that tend to mislead and then censor any debate.

For example, they claim the NAS panel supported Michael Mann (one of their contributors) in the controversy with Stephen McIntyre over the Hockey Stick. Not true.

While the panel was polite to Mann, the NAS panel supported McIntyre on all the important points of science.

Mann claimed that his method was robust and not dependent on any one data set. McIntyre showed that his results were dependent on the bristlecone pine series and that when this series was taken out of the PC1, it yielded no hockey stick. The Wegman Report agreed. McIntyre further claimed the bristlecone pine series was not a temperature proxy. The NAS panel agreed with McIntyre that strip bark bristlecone pine series should not be used in temperature reconstructions.
Read page 52.

Download the NAS report free
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676

Mann claimed his reconstruction (MBH99) showed temperature was warmer in the late 20th century than at any time in the last 2,000 years. McIntyre disagreed. The NAS panel sided with McIntyre writing that the most that could be said is that it was warmer than the last 400 years:

“It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.” (Page 118)

So even though the NAS panel disagreed with Michael Mann's conclusions, Mann and RealClimate continue to proclaim victory. Certain people here are duped into thinking RealClimate is right.

Gerald North, the leader of the NAS panel said the NAS "roughly agreed" with the findings of Wegman.
http://www.groupsrv.com/science/post-2452668.html

Mann claimed he did not need to share his data, methods or source code with McIntyre or anyone else. McIntyre claimed this was contrary to the standards of science. The NAS panel agreed with McIntyre writing:

“Our view is that all research benefits from full and open access to published datasets and that a clear explanation of analytical methods is mandatory. Peers should have access to the information needed to reproduce published results, so that increased confidence in the outcome of the study can be generated inside and outside the scientific community.” (Page 118)

To suppress data is like a crime in science, somewhat akin to obstruction of justice in the legal system. But that is exactly what Michael Mann did "all in a good cause."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_data_archiving
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_sharing
http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/1editorialbody.lasso?-token.folder=2007-03-08&-token.story=154945.112113&-token.subpub=

Nobody has really discussed the issue. If RealClimate will misrepresent facts (such as I presented above) that are easily checked, they will misrepresent the science too. Mann, Ammann, Bradley - none of these guys have a habit of archiving their data. When data is requested, they refuse to provide it. They misrepresent what people say and will not allow them to set the record straight. Stephen McIntyre had to start ClimateAudit
http://climateaudit.org
just so he could set the record on his own blog. His blog was just named the top Science blog.

http://2007.weblogawards.org/polls/best-science-blog-1.php

Regarding the oil and coal industries, I don't have stock in either. I would be happy if alternative sources of energy put both out of business. For me, this comes down to the issue of how science is conducted. The alarmists, like Michael Mann, are not doing science any favors by refusing to uphold the standards of science. They look like they are hiding something.

Bubba, thank you for commenting. No one really doubts that the late 20th century was warmer than the last few hundreds years. The Little Ice Age lasted until about 1850. The real question is whether or not temps are warmer than natural climate variation. The argument Mann was making - and the argument many people found credible until it was examined - was that CO2 had caused temps to increase beyond the bounds of normal climate variation. So the real measuring stick is the Medieval Warm Period. Up until Mann's study, every other scientist had said the MWP was warmer. Mann tried to photoshop the paleo temp record with his study and got caught. The NAS panel agreed with McIntyre, in spite of the lofty claims Mann had made aobut his new statistical methods and the robustness of his study. McIntyre said the facts simply do not support Mann's conclusions. The NAS panel agreed.

Trainer, you are right. The NAS panel did not investigate the issues of fraud and the decentering of data that led to the artificial hockey stick. Without doubt, these are two of the bigger issues of the debate. I cannot explain why they did not look at these issues, except they were afraid of what they might find.

Bob, you are not paying attention. You are the one guy I was trying to reach with this question. I provided point after point where the NAS panel disagreed with Mann. I provided page numbers where you could look it up. I quoted the leader of the NAS panel saying they "roughly agreed" with Wegman. Have you read the Wegman Report or the Fact Sheet? Read the NAS Report for yourself. Don't believe what RealClimate or Eli Rabbett or whoever says about it. Read it for yourself.

Bob, I placed a comment on the New Scientist page you linked to. The article appears designed to mislead. The "array of evidence" they point to has now been refuted. All of the other studies were based on the strip bark bristlecone pine series the NAS panel said should not be used in reconstructions. I requested New Scientist to withdraw the article or modify it.

Answer 1

Global warming is an "Us vs Them" science based on emotions rather than facts. We choose what facts we need to back up what we believe and call that science.

Realclimate gives the believers the information they seek to justify their beliefs.

I'm not making a decision either way until I get objective information that proves one side right.

Answer 2

Guess I'm not sure what your saying. I read the report. The NAS investigated the techniques used tho reconstruct regional climates and found that the further back in time you go, the more difficult it becomes to reconstruct temperature signal. They found nothing malicious. The NAS found that there is very little confidence in the hypothesis that the 1990s were the warmest years on record for the past 1000 years and decided that statement more accurately reflects the past 400 years. However, they indicated high confidence in the climate models and now I think the 2000s have exceeded the records set in the 1990s. Are you trying to find evidence global warming is occurring? The report you cite supports that idea fine. Although I really like the U.S. NAS, there are also other organizations that deal with this issue too. IPCC, NASA, NOAA and may NASs on other countries. The NAS pulls in great minds to review the science form these sources too,

Answer 3

You gotta be kidding. Realclimate's content comes from some of the most distinguished climatologists (ones with actual degrees and a long list of publications) in the country. It's the best website for truly the latest climatology research. Their stuff has an enormous backup from the peer reviewed literature.

The only issue I have with it is that it's not all that well organized and it can be hard to find what you're looking for.

Who cares who registered the website? The content is what counts, and it's superb.

And Mann is acknowledged as an excellent scientist. The National Academy of Sciences said his conclusions were basically correct.

His work has been replicated many times, with more precise statistical methods. The bottom line is still the same. Ten peer reviewed studies here:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

More about it here:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11646

(I await with baited breath your ridiculous attempt to smear Newscientist, too)

And here:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/6/22/17224/2334

"The report from NAS today reaffirms the long-standing consensus of the climate science community: Mann's analytical tools were flawed and there are lingering uncertainties about early temperature records, but the basic finding -- that temperature has recently spiked, and the globe is warmer than any time in 1000 years -- is likely sound and has gained support from numerous other scientists and studies."

and any number of other places.

Criticizing Realclimate and posting a biased article by a Dutch journalist (as you did the last time you asked this, a few hours ago) as authoritative shows a lack of judgment about quality of sources. He doesn't even mention the NAS review, possibly because it would conflict with his bias.

I understand why you want to try to neutralize authoritative climatologists who debunk your favorite amateur "skeptics" and meteorologists. And do it with solid and unquestioned data, and professional analysis. It isn't going to happen. This is very lame.

EDIT - Ron - I sincerely appreciate the polite communication, particularly since my answer was harsh. I have read the NAS report. Every word. I put it together with this:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

Mann overly smoothed things. The fact that that caused the MWP and LIA to disappear is bad. But, using better statistical methods, you still get the same fundamental conclusion, the one the NAS report said was correct. To wit:

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence"

I note the NAS has not seen fit to retract that statement.

You've made your case to Newscientist on this. I'll look for their decision, which is surely more informed than mine or yours.

But, in order to take your side, it is necessary to reject all of: the IPCC, Newscientist, Realclimate, and all the climatologists involved in the above graphs. And I'm sure I could lengthen that list. In favor of Steve McIntyre, who's basically a bright amateur with an undergraduate degree in mathematics and graduate degrees outside science. You may be ready to do that - I'm not.

Answer 4

Okay, I did some reading. I looked at your links and some others.

RealClimate says:
"Finally, it is worth pointing out and emphasising that the report provides absolutely no support for the oft-heard claims that the original hockey stick was the result of 'programming errors', or was 'not reproducible', or there was some scientific misconduct involved. These claims were always spurious and should now finally be laid to rest. Hopefully, we can all start to move forward with the science again."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academies-synthesis-report/

While that may be true in part, it is also completely untrue in part. The NAS did not look at the issue of programming and the artificial hockey stick. The NAS also did not consider the issue of scientific misconduct leveled because Mann hid results in the CENSORED folder. The NAS did look at the charge that the dendro guys are not archiving and sharing data properly. For some reason, they let them off with a slap on the wrist for that one - but the report did not even discuss hiding the fact Mann could not get a hockey stick without the bristlecone pine series. Von Storch and Zorita looked into the artificial hockey stick and agreed with McIntyre. Marcel Crok looked into the CENSORED folder and agreed with McIntyre. Mann and his cronies really look dirty! Why hasn't Mann been punished for this kind of scientific fraud????

Answer 5

It's a personal failing of mine. After years of reading science it gets fairly easy to weed out the real science from the BS.

Did you see the NOVA special on the Intelligent Design "Science" debacle and the court case is Chester PA? The plaintiffs had some fun trotting out about 7 world class experts and had the courtroom enraptured for days with a science lesson that amazed them all. They had no idea how far the science of evolution had advanced. That rather than being full of holes, each new challenge and discovery only led to a strengthening of the theory. The creationists got it handed to them.

What amazes me is that after science has given us so much, the fact that our entire modern world runs on it -

- how little faith some people ascribe to it, and that politicians and pundits and can spin it so that the average person thinks scientists are a bunch of corrupt, do nothingings

Beyond belief.

edit:
Ok Ron, you got my attention. Like I said in response to the previous version of this question, give me a couple of weeks and I'll post my reply as a comment. I am genuinely interested in the truth. It’s entirely possible that overzealous environmental types stretch the truth in a game of ends justify the means. But that error in judgment can’t invalidate over 100 years of science. My gut tells me that it will come down to a difference of opinion and stalemate. And I'll eat crow if I'm wrong.

Answer 6

According to Wikipedia, Environmental Media Services is a, "a non-profit public relations firm." It also says that they, "exercise no control over the content [of RealClimate]." And, "The contributing scientists are not paid for their time."

Why are they so untrustworthy? They seem like a pretty respectable bunch of climate scientists to me.

Answer 7

So what one single paleo-climatologist got over-zealous in his use of proxies to reconstruct past climate. There's plenty of other proxies that point to the current temperature of the planet as being higher than any point in at least the past thousand years, among them being sediment cores, ice cores, and the microscopic fossils of sea-life who thrive in certain climates.

The true censors over the climate debate are the oil and coal industry. They are the most powerful industries the world has ever seen, stronger than even the railroad industry of 1800's America. Their entire business is under threat if people begin to believe in anthropogenic global warming, and they'll due their best to avoid this awakening of the American people until it's to late.

Answer 8

I seen the tar cooking and the bag of feathers as quickly as I got here in. i might tend to be basically a splash scared. incredibly once you caught karma & me final night in a compromising place. lol.

Answer 9

Why do you keep asking the same ridiculous question?