Fraudulent Paleoclimate Analysis Nearly Inserted in EPA Global Warming Report

Scientific American ^ | June 24, 2003 | David Appell

[EdZ]

"The most significant criticism is that Soon and Baliunas do not present their data quantitatively--instead they merely categorize the work of others primarily into one of two sets: either supporting or not supporting their particular definitions of a Medieval Warming Period or Little Ice Age."

"if a proxy record indicated that a drier condition existed in one part of the world from 800 to 850, it would be counted as equal evidence for a Medieval Warming Period as a different proxy record that showed wetter conditions in another part of the world from 1250 to 1300. Regional conditions do not necessarily mirror the global average..."

"they looked for 50-year-long anomalies; the last century's warming, the IPCC concludes, occurred in two periods of about 30 years each (with cooling in between). The warmest period occurred in the late 20th century--too short to meet Soon and Baliunas's selected requirement."

"many paleoclimatologists subscribe to the conclusions of Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, Michael Mann of the University of Virginia and their colleagues, who began in 1998 to quantitatively splice together the proxy records. They have concluded that the global average temperature over the past 1,000 years has been relatively stable until the 20th century. "Nothing in the paper undermines in any way the conclusion of earlier studies that the average temperature of the late twentieth century in the Northern Hemisphere was anomalous against the background of the past millennium," wrote Mann and Princeton University's Michael Oppenheimer in a privately circulated statement."

[EdZ]

Here is another sad case of university professors abusing the their academic association to mislead the public. They have some very interesting criteria for determining the existence of the Medieval Warm period and "unusual 20th century warming." Their analysis was nearly included in the EPA's recent 30 year assessment of the environment.

A special scoop for FR members: They claimed that this work was funded by NASA and AFOSR, but when I contacted them they told me they had nothing to do with this report. Hence all of the reports (NY Times, SA, etc.) saying that they were partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute are wrong - they were entirely funded by the oil industry. The NY Times should do a better job of checking their sources.

[Free the USA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[centurion316]

I find it interesting that the scientific community readily attacks research when it is "funded by the petroleum industry" or other such politically undesirable element of society. I cannot recall any similar attack on research funded by the left-wing anti-capatilist envrionmental movement. Their findings seem to be warmly embraced.

Bad science is bad science no matter what the source of funding and unfortunately one encounters it far too often. I trust very little information on the subject of global warming. Too many political agendas bumping up against too many variables and fragmentary historical records.

[EdZ]

Does anyone have any replies to Scientific American's specific criticisms of the "oil industry" study? What about its methods?

Claiming that the other side is biased is no substitute for argument based on evidence. I think these claims of bias are overblown. Scientific work which is clearly flawed and dishonest rarely makes it into publication in peer reviewed journals.

If a scientist is thinking "one side of the argument is scientifically valid and the other side is wrong on an issue affecting the public's welfare," then yes, the scientist might want the public to be aware of the scientifically valid side. You can call this political, but the source of the concern is ultimately grounded in science.

For me, the first indication that the "oil industry" paper was not "mainstream" was that I could not find it in my library, but I had no problem finding the reports which Scientific American characterises as "mainstream."