Update on the Dr. Mann vs Mark Steyn lawfare case

It’s been dragging on for a while, with no resolution in sight.

A few people who do not usually follow this debate have recently become aware of it and have asked me what it is all about.  So, for them – and any others of you who are interested – here is a very brief recap of the story so far,

Here is the post that started it all:  Football and Hockey

Here is a humorous intro to Dr. Mann.
Here is what I wrote about it when it first started:  Is Dr. Michael Mann Canuckophobic?
Here is some historical & factual info from Steyn:  The Fraudulent Nobel Laureate
And here is some current commentary:  The Martyrdom of Mark Steyn
And Steyn, in his words:  The One Party State of Climatestan
Hope this helps!
After all, when the pro-government-policy side of a ‘debate’ is the only one permitted to be discussed, we know we have a problem.  And for all those claiming ‘scientific consensus’ – think Galileo…
And never forget that for Galileo’s voice to even be heard, Giordano Bruno had to first be immolated to pave the path!
Let’s hope that Mark Steyn will be remembered as the Galileo, and not the Giordano Bruno, of our generation.

A Climte Change Conference with an actual debate of the science

What a concept!

‘The Heartland Institute’s Seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-7) will take place in Chicago, Illinois from Monday, May 21 to Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at the Hilton Chicago Hotel, 720 South Michigan Avenue. The event will follow the NATO Summit taking place in Chicago on May 19–21.’

This is one Climate Conference which promises to actually address the science and not just the politically correct rhetoric.  It is also likely to address the issues arising from faulty or downright fraudulent science on the topic of Anthropogenic Climate Change:

‘On November 22, 2011, a second batch of emails among scientists working at the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit was released by an unknown whistle-blower. “Climategate II” revealed prominent scientists concealing data, discussing global warming as a political cause rather than a balanced scientific inquiry, and admitting to scientific uncertainties that they denied in their public statements. ‘

Did I mention that Vaclav Klaus, the Czech President, will deliver the first dinner speech, on Monday, May 21st?

Of course, not everyone is planning to be there.  Donna Laframboise of NoFrakkingConsensus, for one, has distanced herself from this event over concerns about Heartland’s ethics.

Why is CRU hiding its data?

Oh my….

The now infamous emails demonstrated that the CRU scientist said they’d rather destroy data than release it under Freedom of Information Act requests, so other scientists could check their work.

Some data was, indeed, ‘accidentally lost’.

Now, ALL their data and articles have been pulled off their site!

All the info on the Briffa tree ring reconstruction – all gone.

All the publications – all gone.

WHY?

What in the world is going on?

HT: NewsBusters, WattsUpWithThat

‘Medieval Warm Period’: why do warm-mongers ‘have to get rid of it’?

While reading through the ClimateGate documents, I noticed that the ‘scientists’ paid some serious attention to the ‘Medieval Warm Period’(MWP).

Specifically, it worried them – we’ve known that since 2006, when one of them openly stated “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”.

They did not like it.

They wanted to get rid of it.

And rid of it they got!

The second IPCC report (1995/6) showed that the Middle Ages were several degrees (about 3) warmer than the global temperatures are today.

The third IPCC report (2001) DID NOT!!!  It replaced the graph with the now infamously debunked ‘hockey stick graph’… and claimed the 1990’s were by far the warmest period ever.

WHY?

At first, I thought that the reason was the obvious thing:  if things were that warm during 800 – 1 000 years ago, then it would be hard to panic people into giving them tons of research money now.

Then, I thought back to Al Gore’s instructive little movie…  What was the most iconographic image in it?

Al Gore’s big shiny graph which showed how temperature and carbon dioxide are linked!  Here was the proof that more CO2 means higher temperatures!!!

And, our CO2 IS going up.  Measurably.

Except that the temperature goes up first, then, about 800 or so years later (this period varies by a few centuries either way, but, roughly, it has about an 800 year lag) the carbon dioxide goes up!

It is hard to see this lag on Mr. Gore’s graph, because the two curves are separated out.  But, if one superimposes them on the same time-line, it is clear to see that the temperature goes up first and the CO2 goes up (about 800 years or so) later…

Not only does the CO2 go up, the graph shows that it can spike up very quickly!  The pattern shows a slow decline, followed by a sharp, ‘sudden’ rise.

WHEN was that Medieal Warm Period?  The one during which the temperatures shot up?

800-1300 C.E.?

Hey, that is somewhere between 700 and 1 200 years ago.

How long is the lag again?

800 years, plus or minus a couple centuries either way…

Doesn’t that mean that – just about NOW – we should be expecting the CO2 levels to spike up?

Way up?

How come we never hear about that?

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine