The Hockey Stick Graph Reality

Dr. Mann's original Hockey-Stick Graph showing that global temperatures are rising way faster now than anytime in over a thousand years has been scientifically confirmed many, many times over by now by other teams of scientists all around the world, and it has been extended much farther back in time. It is now clear that late twentieth century warming is happening much faster than any previous warming over the entire Holocene period, or at least 11 thousand years.

Here's the science.

Paleoclimate: The End of the Holocene
Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf
RealClimate
16 September 2013
(excerpts)
Recently a group of researchers from Harvard and Oregon State University has published the first global temperature reconstruction for the last 11,000 years – that’s the whole Holocene (Marcott et al. 2013).

A while ago, I discussed here the new, comprehensive climate reconstruction from the PAGES 2k project for the past 2000 years. But what came before that? Does the long-term cooling trend that ruled most of the last two millennia reach even further back into the past?

Over the last decades, numerous researchers have painstakingly collected, analyzed, dated, and calibrated many data series that allow us to reconstruct climate before the age of direct measurements. Such data come e.g. from sediment drilling in the deep sea, from corals, ice cores and other sources. Shaun Marcott and colleagues for the first time assembled 73 such data sets from around the world into a global temperature reconstruction for the Holocene, published in Science. Or strictly speaking, many such reconstructions: they have tried about twenty different averaging methods and also carried out 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations with random errors added to the dating of the individual data series to demonstrate the robustness of their results.

To show the main result straight away, it looks like this:


Figure 1 Blue curve: Global temperature reconstruction from proxy data of Marcott et al, Science 2013. Shown here is the RegEM version – significant differences between the variants with different averaging methods arise only towards the end, where the number of proxy series decreases. This does not matter since the recent temperature evolution is well known from instrumental measurements, shown in red (global temperature from the instrumental HadCRU data). Graph: Klaus Bitterman.

The climate curve looks like a “hump”. At the beginning of the Holocene -- after the end of the last Ice Age -- global temperature increased, and subsequently it decreased again by 0.7 ° C over the past 5000 years. The well-known transition from the relatively warm Medieval into the “little ice age” turns out to be part of a much longer-term cooling, which ended abruptly with the rapid warming of the 20th Century. Within a hundred years, the cooling of the previous 5000 years was undone. (One result of this is, for example, that the famous iceman ‘Ötzi’, who disappeared under ice 5000 years ago, reappeared in 1991.)

Comparison with the PAGES 2k reconstruction

The data used by Marcott et al. are different from those of the PAGES 2k project (which used land data only) mainly in that they come to 80% from deep-sea sediments. Sediments reach further back in time (far further than just through the Holocene – but that’s another story). Unlike tree-ring data, which are mainly suitable for the last two thousand years and rarely reach further. However, the sediment data have poorer time resolution and do not extend right up to the present, because the surface of the sediment is disturbed when the sediment core is taken. The methods of temperature reconstruction are very different from those used with the land data. For example, in sediment data the concentration of oxygen isotopes or the ratio of magnesium to calcium in the calcite shells of microscopic plankton are used, both of which show a good correlation with the water temperature. Thus each sediment core can be individually calibrated to obtain a temperature time series for each location.

Overall, the new Marcott reconstruction is largely independent of, and nicely complementary to, the PAGES 2k reconstruction: ocean instead of land, completely different methodology. Therefore, a comparison between the two is interesting:

Figure 3 The last two thousand years from Figure 1, in comparison to the PAGES 2k reconstruction (green), which was recently described here in detail. Graph: Klaus Bitterman.

As we can see, both reconstruction methods give consistent results. That the evolution of the last one thousand years is virtually identical is, by the way, yet another confirmation of the “hockey stick” by Mann et al. 1999, which is practically identical as well (see graph in my PAGES article).

Conclusion

The curve (or better curves) of Marcott et al. will not be the last word on the global temperature history during the Holocene; like Mann et al. in 1998 it is the opening of the scientific discussion. There will certainly be alternative proposals, and here and there some corrections and improvements. However, I believe that (as was the case with Mann et al. for the last millennium) the basic shape will turn out to be robust: a relatively smooth curve with slow cooling trend lasting millennia from the Holocene optimum to the “little ice age”, mainly driven by the orbital cycles. At the end this cooling trend is abruptly reversed by the modern anthropogenic warming.

The following graph shows the Marcott reconstruction complemented by some context: the warming at the end of the last Ice Age (which 20,000 years ago reached its peak) and a medium projection for the expected warming in the 21st Century if humanity does not quickly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.


Figure 4 Global temperature variation since the last ice age 20,000 years ago, extended until 2100 for a medium emissions scenario with about 3 degrees of global warming. Graph: Jos Hagelaars.

Marcott et al. dryly state about this future prospect: "By 2100, global average temperatures will probably be 5 to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature mean."

In other words: We are catapulting ourselves way out of the Holocene.

Just looking at the known drivers (climate forcings) and the actual temperature history shows it directly, without need for a climate model: without the increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans, the slow cooling trend would have continued. Thus virtually the entire warming of the 20th Century is due to man. This May, for the first time in at least a million years, the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has exceeded the threshold of 400 ppm. If we do not stop this trend very soon, we will not recognize our Earth by the end of this century.

 

Stupid people have learned how to create charts and text and post their crap on internet forums like this. Don't fall for their trickery they'rereally incredibly stupid compared to the rest of us.

 

Someone needs to quit drinking the kool-aid.



Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred ...because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.
Eduardo Zorita, Senior Scientist at Germany's Institute for Coastal Research

Did Mann et al get it wrong? Yes, Mann et al got it wrong.
Simon Tett, Professor of Climate Science, University of Edinburgh

 

And there's that old denier cult insanity, right on cue.

The fallacious belief that the world's top scientists are all "stupid" but you are way smarter is a delusion induced by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect, named after David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University, occurs where people fail to adequately assess their level of competence — or specifically, their incompetence — at a task and thus consider themselves much more competent than everyone else. This lack of awareness is attributed to their lower level of competence robbing them of the ability to critically analyse their performance, leading to a significant overestimate of themselves.

In simple words it's "people who are too stupid to know how stupid they are".

 

Ohhh....if only you would.....

Mark Stein is a far rightwing denier cult liar and propaganda pusher with zero credibility. He is being sued by Dr. Mann for defamation.

More denier cult deceit and twisted quotes, out of context....

Mark Steyn’s Newest Attack On Michael Mann And The Hockey Stick
by Greg Laden
June 22, 2015


There is a new attack by an anti-science and anti-environment talking head on a well respected climate scientist and his work. Mark Steyn is self publishing a book of quotes by scientists that allegedly disparage Dr. Michael Mann and the “Hockey Stick.” If the three examples Steyn provides to advertise his book are representative, Steyn’s book is unlikely to impress. Like previous attempts to separate a key individual from the herd, Steyn’s latest money making scheme could make him a few bucks (his fans seem gullible) but in the end will destroy anything that happens to be left of his credibility and, possibly, his legal argument that he is not actively and maliciously attempting to defame an individual.

Here’s the story.

Conservative political commentator Mark Steyn has a new book coming out. I haven’t seen it yet, but looking at the publicity material provided by Steyn (the book is self published) it appears to be a collection of scientist’s comments disparaging the work of Michael Mann and criticizing the famous “Hockey Stick” research. This is a bit odd because Steyn is currently being sued by Mann for defamation, and this book looks like it could be more defamation. It would appear he has not consulted his lawyers!

The Hockey Stick is a concept, and a graphic, that arose as the result of a paper produced in 1999 by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes. The researchers constructed a proxy northern hemisphere temperature curve, from ice cores and tree rings, which showed temperature variability over the previous 1,000 years. This curve was matched with direct temperature measurements from the previous century, and ultimately played an important role in demonstrating the effects of human greenhouse gas pollution on the global surface heat balance. The graph showed the dramatic change in surface temperature after industrialization, indicates a steady increase in temperature, and showed how dramatic this change is in relation to previous time periods. This and other related research, by the same group and others, also showed that previous known historical climate swings such as the so-called “Medieval Warm Period” and “Little Ice Age” were minor compared to recent warming (and also relatively regional, not global).


An example of the Hockey Stick Graph.

As with all important scientific work, there was some controversy but the work was good and over subsequent years it was verified by other research. Indeed, during the several years that have passed since the publication of that study, the global surface temperature has continued to rise, as expected. A post at Climate Progress, written in 2013 by Stefan Rahmstorf, “Most Comprehensive Paleoclimate Reconstruction Confirms Hockey Stick,”, summarizes the confirmation of the “Hockey Stick” in a landmark study known as the PAGES 2K project. Of the confirmation of the Hockey Stick results by PAGES 2K, Rahmstorf writes (the graph he refers to is the one I placed above),

The first comparable hockey stick curve was published in 1998 and 1999 by Mann et al. – at that time based on data only from the northern hemisphere. …

For the scientific community, the confirmation of the old hockey stick is no surprise (except perhaps for the closeness of the match); many other climate reconstructions with a similar time evolution have already appeared since. Mann et al. at the time cautiously assumed a wide margin of uncertainty (light blue) because of their limited data base and a possible underestimation of the variance by their method; later reconstructions run largely within this margin. The work of Mann and colleagues has gained the highest recognition. For example, Bradley was honoured in 2007 with the Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union and Mann likewise in 2012, and both were (as well as Hughes) elected as fellows of the American Geophysical Union. Politically motivated attacks on their work were immense, however -- both Bradley and Mann have published books about that experience.

The books are here and here.

The PAGES 2K work was published in Nature Geoscience as “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia” authored by the “PAGES 2K Consortium,” a long list of authors ranging across the entire alphabet from A (Moinuddin Ahmed) to Z (Eduardo Zorita). In essence, these authors found that Michael Mann and his colleagues were right, and the Hockey Stick configuration of global temperature change is correct.

Now, back to Mark Steyn’s forthcoming work. The book is, ““A Disgrace To The Profession” The World’s Scientists, In Their Own Words, On Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick And Their Damage To Science: Volume I” Compiled and edited by Mark Steyn

Steyn provides three quotes that he implies are representative of the statements of “World’s Scientists” criticizing Mann and the Hockey Stick research. They are:

“Do I expect you to publicly denounce the hockey stick as obvious drivel? Well, yes.”
-Jonathan Jones, Professor of Atomic and Laser Physics, University of Oxford

“Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred …because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.”
-Eduardo Zorita, Senior Scientist at Germany’s Institute for Coastal Research

“Did Mann et al get it wrong? Yes, Mann et al got it wrong.”
-Simon Tett, Professor of Climate Science, University of Edinburgh

Now, if I was writing a book that mainly included quotes by experts on something, then picked out three quotes from the entire book to be representative, there are two things I would do. First, I would make sure the quotes were from credible experts. Second, I would make sure that the quotes are key indisputable examples of what those experts think. So, I asked myself, does it make sense that Jonathan Jones, Eduardo Zorita, and Simon Tett think Michael Mann got it all wrong, and the Hockey Stick concept is bunk?

I contacted all three of these individuals to see what they thought about this. Let’s start with Simon Tett. Frankly, I was very surprised to see his quote used by Steyn, because as far as I know, Dr. Tett is a mainstream climate scientist who has made important contributions to understanding variability in the climate record. Indeed, he has contributed to the the Hockey Stick reconstruction by advancing research on the role of aerosols. Tett and Michael Mann have published together on this issue. It made no sense that Tett would be bashing Mann and his work, because some of that is his own work. I wondered if the quote is taken out of context. Would Mark Steyn take a scholar’s quote out of context, totally changing the meaning, in order to associate that scholar with discredited ideas, or maybe turn one scholar against another?

Of course he would. That is his modus operendi. Maybe he likes getting sued?

Anyway, when I asked Simon Tett about this, he told me that he does not recall the quote, though perhaps it was from a private email (like this) and has all the context removed. Note that the quote is supposed to have come from 2001, so Tett assumes it would have been, had he actually said it, a criticism of the hockey stick paper. He told me, “I think my criticism was that it was likely missing some variances. My view then and still is that recent warming is very likely outside the range of natural variability.”

I have not seen Tett’s quote in its original exact context, but I think it is part of a larger bit of text that makes up part of the so-called Climategate 2.0 emails. If so, Tett said,

"I think there are issues in Mann et al’s approach −− recall the Esper et al paper which produced a reconstruction with lots more low frequency variability than others. From the comment on the paper by Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn (attached) you can see that Mann’s reconstruction had the least variability of any of the reconstructions. Did Mann et al get it wrong? Yes Mann et al got it wrong. How wrong is still under debate and the ECHO−G/HadCM3 results may be over-exaggerating the variance loss for some model-specific reasons."

This provides more context to Tett’s quote, indicating that this is an argument over variability in Mann et al’s reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the last thousand years. But there is even more to it than that. There was vigorous argument over which models should ultimately be used in the IPCC report that included the Hockey Stick, including one (or two) by Tett that show a similar pattern to Mann et al’s original findings. In asking around about what was happening in those days I learned a lot more than needed for this humble blog post. Suffice it to say, there was arguing about important details, but not about the basic reality of climate change and recent warming. All of the discussion had to do with how much variation there was in the older record, and most of that uncertainty has been addressed over the subsequent decade.

Tett’s contribution to climate science has been to address that variability. He has recently co-authored articles with Mike Mann that confirm the Hockey Stick pattern of temperature changes and seek to understand that pattern in terms of natural and human drives of climate. Clearly, he is one of the nearly 100% of scientists who view global warming as real and caused by human greenhouse gas pollution.

So. That’s settled. Steyn got it wrong.

Then I looked at Eduardo Zorita.

He is a paleoclimatologist, so he’s in the game and may have expertise that matters. He has contributed to one IPCC report. He is famous for having suggested that climate scientists adjust their findings under political pressure. From Wikipedia:

Zorita was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying that the “scientific debate [on climate change] has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas”, and that climate science students are “often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’.” Zorita continued, “some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties ….”

That was in 2009.

So, Zorita is a real climate scientist who has concerns about the way some of the research is conducted. That’s good. Scientists should always be concerned about how the research is conducted, and it is healthy to have such conversations. But is Zorita a Hockey Stick denier like Mark Steyn implies he is? No. I gave you a clue to this earlier in the post when I mentioned the PAGES 2K study. Did you notice that Zorita is an author of that major paper, known, among other things, for confirming the Hockey Stick?

Personally I can’t think of a worse choice to list as a person criticizing the hockey stick than an author of the largest effort by scientists that confirmed the hockey stick. Maybe Steyn didn’t know. Maybe he should know stuff before he writes a book about it.

Zorita did get back to me about Steyn’s use of his quote. He told me that the quote is essentially accurate, and that he has put it on his personal web page several years ago. He was concerned about the perception of objectivity in the IPCC process, so perhaps these researchers should not be part of the process given the controversy at the time caused by the famous Climategate hacked emails. However, he was careful to note that his statement was “not related to the quality of their scientific work. Actually, my statement was a suggestion to isolate the IPCC process from the credibility crisis linked to Climategate.” So this is about perception, not about the quality of the science or the validity of the Hockey Stick. He went on to say, “I feel that those political attacks, specially those against Michael Mann in the US, have no justification.”

Zorita told me that he felt the Hockey Stick was something of a public relations mistake. “The irony is that the hockey-stick is not a proof and not a disproof of anthropogenic climate change. As Stefan Rahmstorf correctly wrote, if the hockey-stick had not existed the case for AGW would not be stronger or weaker. But the hockey-stick had become its symbol and the subject of political manoeuvring.” Interesting idea. Zorita also indicated that he is in the camp of seeing much more variability in the older surface temperature record than the original Mann Et Al research indicated, adding “this has had no relevance for the the case of AGW.”

So, just as with the case of Tett, Zorita is a bad choice for Steyn to use in criticizing the scientists or the science, unless his book is going to support the current science of global warming, but with a detailed look at pre-industrial climate variation. I doubt that is the case.

Jonathan Jones, at Oxford, the third quoted scientist, is a physicist in an area of physics that has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. I think he is a tutor there, but I’m not sure. He published a few things many years ago then seems to have trailed off in academic activity, but nothing on climate science. Back in the day, he went after the “Hockey Stick” and actually did one of those “Freedom of Information” requests to obtain some data he thought was being kept from him, in order to strike a blow for freedom. (That data was already being shared among various collaborators, but apparently not among random people who demanded it … this is a huge data base and not something you pop in an email and send off to someone.) He got the data, but never did anything with it as far as I can tell. The rapidly growing consensus on human caused climate change did not fall to some insightful analysis by Jonathan Jones.

Jones responded to my question by simply sending the link to his original quote. The context turns out to be interesting. The original quote by Jones was a lengthy screed critical of the climate science and the scientists in which he explicitly implores Richard Betts to denounce the hockey stick. (Betts is a climate scientist at the UK’s Met Office, and a lead author for the IPCC 4th assessment report and other IPCC documents.) Jones indicates that the whole global warming thing is pathological science, will eventually go away, and he hopes he can soon get back to his own research in an utterly unrelated field. Which, I think, he may have done.

Maybe Jonathan Jones, as a non-climate scientist who is also a climate science denier, is an appropriate person to quote in Steyn’s book. One in three … not a very good result.

I’m thinking this is not going to be a very big book. Certainly not a very good one. Maybe Steyn is counting on a lot of pre-orders.

 

LOL, more word vomit. You don't even know what is in the book and that is one of the problems with the true believers, they never go outside of the alarmist propaganda. One thing is certain, they don't know much about science.

 

Perhaps big text guy could be moderated a little or is that too much to ask?

 

In other words, "please hide the evidence that exposes my denier cult delusions!"

- - - Updated - - -

Your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) anti-science propaganda got debunked. Tough! Too bad you are still in denial of reality.

 

I have to scroll so long sometimes I'm afraid I'll fall asleep. Why do you post such big text?

 

Even the words you use proves my point.

 

Mann dishonestly got it wrong.

 

Funny stuff. More hilarity from the dishonest and immoral hockey team.

 

Sorry, I'm afraid the posts are designed to convey accurate information about climate science and reality to people who are trying to honestly debate these topics.......they are not really designed for anyone with the attention span of a fruitfly and even less interest in science. Why are you posting here anyway?

 

Actually, in the real world, Dr. Mann honestly got it quite right.....as has been verified by many other scientists from many countries, using a wide variety of analysis techniques and data sources.....as partly outlined in the OP.

It is the fossil fuel industry propaganda pushers who have dishonestly attacked and smeared a great many competent honest scientists, and even tried to discredit science itself as a way of objectively analyzing and understanding the physical universe.....all to protect their trillion dollar profit stream and stock prices, based on the selling of the very stuff, carbon emitting fuels, that are majorly responsible for killing our planet at an accelerating rate. They have ginned up this crackpot, anti-science cult of AGW denial that you are such an ardent member of, just to serve as their "useful idiot" duped foot soldiers in their political and propaganda battles to deceive the public about the reality and extreme dangers of human caused global warming. In the fraudulent myths of your cult, Dr. Mann is crooked....because the science he reports threatens their efforts to deny reality and deceive the public for financial gain. In the real world, he is a top ranked scientist in his field, with many peer-reviewed publications, many awards, and the respect of his peers in the world scientific community. Only you denizens of denier cult BizarroWorld imagine otherwise.

 

And the alarmists complain of conspiracy theories ?? Funny stuff.

It's immoral to increase the price of energy for no good reason.

 

The extreme amount of text comes from hockey team members endorsing the hockey stick. No mention of the divergence problem ?? Why is that ??

 

Were I to have presented such a flawed graph in my Analytic Geometry or Calculus courses, the teacher would have failed me.

The correct use of graphs is to accurately map out the math.

To show time in a short line, then make temperature the enormous line shows intent to misrepresent.

You do not show a .2 degree C rise that way.

The accurate graph is almost a flat line since .2 degrees is so small. That is why the Mann graph is bunk.

 

Death Valley CA is an excellent barometer of global climate. Yet the highest recorded temperature was in 1913.

Explain that.

 

Such delusions are why you're a nobody anti-science denier cultist and Dr. Mann is a world renowned scientist at the top of his field, with many publications, many awards and the respect of his peers in the world science community.

 

I had a talk with Dr. Richard Lindzen who is so famous he was actually part of the IPCC and he debunked the alarmists. I trust him far more than I trust you. You accept flawed graphs. Lindzen is the author/co author of about 245 scientific papers on this very topic.

 

This is discussed in Australia, so fret not Americas, we are not alone calling on science to be honest.

[video=youtube;C35pasCr6KI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C35pasCr6KI[/video]

 

Some people will just never give up with this discredited BS. You almost have to question their sanity or at least grasp on reality.

 

It's the baffle them with bull (*)(*)(*)(*) approach

 

LOL, infamous is more like it. Mann is one of those politically active scientists with an outsized ego. The faux Nobel winner sues others that disagree with his 'science'. One would not need to go to court for a judge to decide if the science could stand on it's own. Judges are not scientists.

 

...infamous as a paid denier stooge for the fossil fuel industry that real scientists regard him as a quack.

Tens of thousands of scientists contributed to the IPCC reports. This does not make him in any way 'distinguished', or increase his non-existent credibility in science.

Nope! He just told you what you wanted to hear and that is the only reason you "trust" him and distrust the tens of thousands of other scientists studying the Earth's climate who almost unanimously have declared that human caused global warming is very real and poses enormous threats to our planet's biosphere and the well being and survival of the human race.

If you went to a doctor and he told you you have cancer and that the tumor is clearly visible on your x-rays, but you decided you didn't like that diagnosis, so you went to another doctor but he also told you you have cancer, so you go to more doctors but the first two hundred or so that you see all say the same thing, until finally you find one who says he doesn't think you have cancer, and if you do, he doesn't think it will be a problem for you.....so you believe him and reject the conclusions of all of the other doctors and do nothing to treat your cancer, and then you die from cancer....would you consider that sane and rational?

"Flawed" only in your denier cult mythology.....but in the real world, part of internationally recognized sound science.

I looked at a list of Lindzen's peer reviewed publications and there are only 9 of them. You have once again been sorely misinformed. Lindzen is a hack.

In the real world....

Richard Lindzen
RationalWiki
Richard Lindzen was an atmospheric physicist at MIT until May 2013;[1] as expected, he is now a "Distinguished Senior Fellow" at the Cato Institute.[2]

Lindzen has had a long career in climatology and worked on the IPCC report. However, he became infamously embarrassing for MIT over the last decade as a member of the Bjørn Lomborg "It's not that bad!" school of global warming. Though Lindzen fully accepts AGW, he claims that predictions made by other climatologists' models are "alarmist" and that temperatures will increase by less than one degree Celsius. He maintains this position[3] even though the one degree barrier has already been broken. Managing to incorrectly predict the past is, in a bizarre way, quite an impressive feat for any scientist.

Argument from authority, personified
Lindzen is probably the one most responsible for the denialist talking point about models not taking clouds into account. The Lindzen-Choi paper is the most often cited, but it's been trashed by other scientists for poor methodology and overstating its conclusions.[4][5] Naturally, Lindzen's skepticism has attracted funding from oil interests and he's worked on projects underwritten by Exxon and OPEC.[6] He is trotted out by deniers as "proof" that "real scientists disagree" about global warming and that there is no scientific consensus, even though he does accept the theory (just not most of the predictions made by the IPCC). His op-eds in popular media have increasingly fallen back on refuted denier talking points as well. This makes him a massive enabler.

He has also appeared at the Heartland Institute's conferences as the keynote speaker. This makes him a really massive enabler.[7]

Lindzen's talent seems to be making repeatedly failed predictions as well as failing to get much of his material published in peer-reviewed journals in his more "skeptical" days.

Some other stuff he's been wrong about:

• Claiming that the link between smoking and lung cancer is "weak."[8]
• Satellite measurements showing no warming.[9]
• Decrease in water vapor would allow carbon dioxide to escape from the atmosphere. (He has since accepted this as refuted and calls it an "old view.")[10]
• Solar and volcanic forcings were severely downplayed to fudge data.[11]
• Misrepresenting the link between warming and hurricanes.[12]

See also

• The Great Global Warming Swindle, in which he appears
• Judith Curry
• Wall Street Journal, for which he regularly writes

External links

• Lindzen's faculty page
• "Lindzen Illusions" #1-7, Skeptical Science
• Logical Science profile of Lindzen
• Lindzen vs. Bill Nye
• Real Climate: Climate Reporting in Physics World, Adventures on the East Side, Lindzen in Newsweek
• Climate Misinformer: Richard Lindzen This cites a list of cases where it is claimed Lindzen did bad science.

References

1. ↑ Faculty News: Dick Lindzen Retires, MIT
2. ↑ MIT Professor, Prominent Climate Scientist Richard Lindzen Joins Cato
3. ↑ Essay for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Global Warming Policy Foundation
4. ↑ Lindzen and Choi Unraveled, Real Climate
5. ↑ Climate Sensitivity, Skeptical Science
6. ↑ Lindzen fact sheet on ExxonSecrets
7. ↑ His Heartland Page
8. ↑ The Truth About Global Warming, Newsweek
9. ↑ Et tu, LT?, Real Climate
10. ↑ The Contrarian, Seed Magazine
11. ↑ Lindzen's HoL Testimony, Real Climate
12. ↑ Lindzen keeps it complicated, DeSmogBlog