Bob Carter and John McLean: How we were censored March 29, 2010
Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.Tags: climate change, global warming
trackback
How we were censored
by Bob Carter and John McLean
Quadrant Online, March 29, 2010
Climate science censorship in action at the American Geophysical Union
On Friday last week, ABC’s PM programme carried a report about criticisms that have been made of a peer-reviewed paper published last July in the Journal of Geophysical Research, by John McLean, Chris de Freitas and Bob Carter (hereafter MFC).
The original paper compared the global atmospheric temperature since 1958 with variations in the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) climatic framework. This analysis supported earlier research that demonstrates a close link between these factors. It also indicated that ENSO variation accounts for a very large portion of the variability in global temperature, thus leaving little room for a substantial human influence on temperature.
ABC’s Sarah Clarke reported the story as “Another round in climate science wars”, and provided a balanced account of what she saw as the two science sides of the story. Unfortunately, in so doing she largely missed another significant aspect of the affair – the attempt by a number of scientists – who are known to be both alarmist and influential in advising on climate science policy – to stifle the results of a research paper that disagrees with their belief.
Those attempting this censorship include some with strong links to the IPCC, for example Phil Jones of the CRU and Michael Mann of hockey-stick notoriety, and remember that it is on the IPCC’s advice that the Rudd government relies in setting Australia’s national global warming policy. As the British press highlighted during January and February this year, it is a story of no small substance when corrupt, inaccurate or deliberately misleading advice emanates from the official United Nations advisory body on climate science or from scientists who are associated with it. Remember, too, that according to CEO Megan Clark no fewer than 40 CSIRO scientists have associations with the IPCC.
Read the rest here
An Honest Climate Debate 
Keep fighting Prof Carter. This global warming farce is in my opinion
one of the greatest crimes against humanity in modern times. Purely
to make money out of carbon trading and clean (so called) energy.
Of which Al Gore and Dr Pachauri have financial interests. Isn’t that
a conflict of interests.
Prof Carter,
Personally I think it would be the best thing in the world if Grant Fosters paper were published by the AGU. For those of us in the know it reads like a criminal confession wrung out of a defendant in some interrogation room.
They condemn you for using weather balloon data because it is 0.2 degrees celsius too warm to make a smooth splice with the UAH.
But then I find from Angell 2002 *(effect of Exclusion of Anomalous Tropical Stations on Temperature Trends from a 63-Station Radiosonde Network, and Comparison with Other Analysis )
that the team of Jones Mann and Schmidt created the very break in the record they complain about in order to rationalize their erasure of the 60’s-70’s global cooling.
Here is an excerpt from Angell.
Based on the 31 tropical stations in the full 63-station
network there is an 0.16 K decade21 cooling of the 300–
100-mb layer during 1958–2000 (curve at top left in
Fig. 3), whereas after the exclusion of the 9 anomalous
tropical stations there is a warming of 0.06 K decade21.
As shown at the top right, this is quite a significant
change in trend as estimated from twice the square root
of the sum of the 63-station and the after-exclusion variances
in station trend divided by respective number of
stations (Hoel 1947, p. 71). In addition, exclusion of
the anomalous stations results in a barely significant
increase in the warming of the tropical 850–300-mb
layer from 0.06 to 0.13 K decade21. The anomalous
cooling trends in the tropical 300–100-mb layer (see
Fig. 2) are often, but not always, accompanied by unrepresentatively
large cooling trends in the 850–300-
mb layer as well, so that the full 63-station network
underestimates the 850–300-mb warming in the Tropics
during 1958–2000. Indeed, Fig. 3 shows that in the
Tropics there is a reversal, from the surface warming
0.10 K decade21 more than the 850–300-mb layer in
the full 63-station network to the 850–300-mb layer
warming of 0.04 K decade21 more than the surface in
the 54-station network.
Nevermind that they concocted the hockeystick with it’s preposterous splice of surface temp data to the end of the redacted treecores.
If Foster sees print, or even if it doesn’t, it’s enough to see them indicted in a federal court.
I say bring it on.
The problem is not so much the odd splice; it is that the analysis filters out the long term trend, temperature rise, and then the conclusion states that there is no significant long term rise not explained by the SOI. Sorry, you filtered out the long turn trend; how can you make any claim about it?
Professor Bob Carter is an honourable man, much like Professor Richard Lindzen. Unemotive, unbiased and always with a sceptical, inquisitive mind. Just as a scientist should be! Everything in the environmental movement is an EMERGENCY; if all these do-gooders care so much for the planet, then why don’t they lead by example and forsake plane travel, their cars, go and live in the forests with the animals and generally just get lost and leave us normal people alone. Most ordinary people on a daily basis, don’t even give the slightest consideration to climate change or global warming; they have far more constructive things to get on with in the day – like taking the dog for a walk and watching TV. The problem in life with most things is the fact that people have too much time to think!
Leigh LOL, but remember if proven fraudulent all those paid to convince the uneducated (?) that carbon tax is the way to salvation, whose I dare
to ask, might be questioned or even asked to return the money to the taxpayers.
The carbon tax debacle, is serious, and remember
Gaunaut has stated that beef and sheep should be
removed, and we should eat kangaroo. Tony Windsor
is saying he is thinking in a 100 years time,
admitting he believes in AGW. Barnaby Joyce is thinking about standing against him next election.
And I reckon if Tony supports carbon tax he will get in.
Always judge people on the basis of what they do in reality and not by the words they profess to the masses. Words are cheap and ultimately mean nothing. If our political and scientific leaders care so much about their carbon footprint, all they have do is lead by example and give up all their wordly luxuries and come and live with us normal dudes in council huts.
Nothing can tell us the future, because the future holds an infinite number of possibilities – none of which can be determined by any method. It’s that simple in reality. One can sit back forever in a day passing guess after guess about what the future climate is going to be like. Who cares; it’s either going to be warmer or colder in any event!
That the stupidity of computer-models; they reside in the virtual world, not the real one.