webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Climate Research jrnl S & B

SEE S & B

see FORK 3 DUBYA ~ KYOTO

promoted 2nd not on quality but on importance to3rd fork B43 180

see von storch

SEE HOCKEY STICK MANN CLIMATEGATE

defreitas

oreskes:

In 2003, Soon and Baliunas published an article, partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute, in a small journal called Climate Research. Presenting a review of existing literature rather than new research, the two concluded “the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.” They had, in effect, challenged both Mann and the IPCC, and in so doing presented global warming skeptics with a cause to rally around. 

Another version of the paper was quickly published with three additional authors: David Legates of the University of Delaware, and longtime skeptics Craig and Sherwood Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in Tempe, Arizona. All have ExxonMobil connections: the Idsos received $40,000 from ExxonMobil for their center in the year the study was published, while Legates is an adjunct scholar at the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis (which got $205,000 between 2000 and 2003).

Calling the paper “a powerful new work of science” that would “shiver the timbers of the adrift Chicken Little crowd,” Senator Inhofe devoted half of a Senate hearing to it, bringing in both Soon and Legates to testify against Mann. The day before, Hans Von Storch, the editor-in-chief of Climate Research—where the Soon and Baliunas paper originally appeared—resigned to protest deficiencies in the review process that led to its publication; two editors soon joined him. Von Storch later told the Chronicle of Higher Education that climate science skeptics “had identified Climate Research as a journal where some editors were not as rigorous in the review process as is otherwise common.” Meanwhile, Mann and 12 other leading climate scientists wrote a blistering critique of Soon and Baliunas’ paper in the American Geophysical Union publication Eos, noting, among other flaws, that they’d used historic precipitation records to reconstruct past temperatures—an approach Mann told Congress was “fundamentally unsound.”

==

RS june 07

To direct the White House's spin on global warming, Connaughton appointed Philip Cooney as his top deputy. Cooney had the right

experience for the job: He worked as "climate team leader" for the

American Petroleum Institute. In 1998, the API took part in an

industry coalition that created the "Global Climate Science

Communications Action Plan." The plan, recently entered into evidence by the House Oversight Committee, 

maps out an elaborate disinformation campaign to prevent "precipitous action on climate

change." The strategy was to sow doubt about global warming,

disseminating industry-funded research to challenge "the science

underpinning the global climate change theory."

Now, with Cooney in the White House, the industry had its own anti-

climate man running the disinformation campaign.As the "action plan"

directed, Cooney set out to censor the EPA's science on global

warming and inject the industry's denialist positions into government

documents."They decided they didn't need to win the debate on

climate," says Piltz, the former official who exposed Cooney's

tactics. "They just had to leave an atmosphere of uncertainty about

it and dissipate the will for political action."

But for all his credentials as a master of spin, Cooney got off to a

rough start. In May 2002, the administration released its Climate

Action Report, a dispatch to the U.N. that documents progress on

climate-treaty obligations. The report was developed by the EPA, but

internal documents reveal thatCooney edited it to reflect positions

advocated by the API and Ford. On the opening page of the chapter on climate impacts,

Cooney inserted a litany of language in bold

intended to cast doubt on the science: "the weakest links in our

knowledge . . . a lack of understanding . . . uncertainties . . .

considerable uncertainty . . . perhaps even greater uncertainty . . .

regarded as tentative."

But the clumsy caveats weren't enough to obscure the report's real

science. With the help of an EPA source, The New York Times filtered

out Cooney's waffling and filed a front-page story that called the

report "a stark shift for the Bush administration. " The report, the

Times observed, detailed "far-reaching effects that global warming

will inflict" and "for the first time mostly blames human actions for

recent global warming."

Cooney was horrified: An obscure government report he had tried to

whitewash now threatened to undermine his former employers in the

energy industry. Panicked, he called on an old friend for help. Myron

Ebell had been a key member of the coalition that crafted the

disinformation "action plan." In fact, casting doubt on global

warming is Ebell's full-time job: He heads the climate-denial

campaign at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank that

was underwritten in part by ExxonMobil.

Ebell recalls that Cooney was frantic over the story in the

Times. "We tried to put some qualifiers on that chapter in the report," Cooney told him.

"We'd take the text from EPA, and then we'd

add a sentence like, 'We don't really know if this is really

happening.' So we tried to do it, but I can see now that we made a

total mess of it."

Ebell's advice to Cooney is contained in a e-mail dated June 3rd,

  1. "Thanks for asking for our help," he wrote. "I know you're in crisis mode. . . . I want to help you cool things down, but after

consulting with the team, I think that what we can do is limited until there is an official statement from the administration

repudiating the report."

That repudiation came the very next day. President Bush himself dismissed the report, saying it had been "put out by the

bureaucracy. " Forget the headlines, he said - there was no shift in the administration' s policy.

What happened next, according to internal e-mails obtained by Rolling Stone, reveals just how seriously the White House took its

intelligence fixing on global warming. Cooney was put in charge of damage control and was apparently instructed to craft a letter to the

Times denying that the president had changed course on climate

change.But this time, Cooney's editor was not just Connaughton, but

Bush's chief political adviser,Karl Rove. The collaboration with

Rove raises questions about Cooney's congressional testimony last

March, in which he insisted, under oath, that he had not discussed

with Rove his work at the CEQ.

The letter drafted by Cooney - and vetted by Rove - insists that the

Climate Action Report"reinforces" the "significant scientific uncertainties" emphasized in the president's climate policy. Edits to

the rough drafts of the letter were blacked out by White House

censors, but Rove's pithy endorsement of the final draft

survived. "Great," he wrote in praise of Cooney's spin. "Defends the

report rather than staying focused on the policy." In other words, Cooney had succeeded in emphasizing the report's overhyped

uncertainties, thus shifting attention away from the White House's do- nothing approach to global warming.

Page 6

At the same time, Cooney got a pat on the back from Bill O'Keefe, his

old boss at API. In a letter to Bush's chief of staff, O'Keefe - by

that point a registered lobbyist for ExxonMobil - urged the president

to tighten up the White House spin machine and make sure all

communications were "on the same page, with the same message."

O'Keefe also faxed a copy to Cooney with a handwritten note

reading, "P.S. You are doing a great job."

From then on, Cooney wielded a heavier pen when editing official

reports on global warming. Not content to obscure science with

uncertainty, he began to rewrite the science itself. Draft documents

made public by the House Oversight Committee reveal that Cooney now had veto power over federal scientists, including Richard Moss,

coordinator of the Climate Change Science Program Office, and even

James Mahoney, the assistant commerce secretary nominally in charge

of America's climate science.

In one document, Moss and Mahoney attempted to push back on several

of Cooney's more than 100 edits to an EPA document called "Our

Changing Planet" - each of which served to amplify uncertainty and

downplay the threat posed by global warming. Cooney repeatedly

overruled Moss and Mahoney with an aggressive "no" scrawled in the

margins. On another document Cooney marked up, he commanded

EPA officials that "these changes must be made." Beside one strike-

through marked with a star, Cooney wrote, "Red Flag: Do not cite

National Assessment" - dismissing the landmark report commissioned by Bush's father.

Although some of Cooney's edits were revealed in a New York Times

story in June 2005 that led to his departure, the full extent of his

interference has never been reported. His commissarial coup came in

April 2003, with his revisions to the EPA's Draft Report on the

Environment. He began by deleting the sentence "climate change has

global consequences for human health and the environment. "He then

deleted the top-line assessment by the National Research Council,

which establishes an unequivocal cause-and-effect link - "Greenhouse

gases are accumulating in the atmosphere as the result of human

activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean

temperatures to rise." In its place, Cooney wrote the following

mishmash of his own creation: "Some activities emit greenhouse gases

and other substances that directly or indirectly may affect the

balance of incoming and outgoing radiation, thereby potentially

affecting climate on regional and global scales."

The changes sparked a rebellion by the EPA's senior scientists. In an

internal memo uncovered by Congressional investigators, they wrote

that Cooney's edited text "no longer accurately represents scientific

consensus on climate change" and "may leave an impression that

cooling is as much an issue as warming." Whitman was also

furious. "The language that CEQ found acceptable was such pablum,"

she says now. "It was so much below the level of sophistication of

the report that I felt it would have denigrated it all." But her

solution to this problem was to simply delete the section on climate

change - handing Cooney a carte-blanche victory.

Whitman says she killed the section hoping that scientific documents

included with the report would speak for themselves.But the

capitulation helped drive her to the breaking point. Four days after

bowing to Cooney, she resigned as head of the EPA.

Internal documents uncovered by Rolling Stone reveal that Cooney did

far more than edit scientific reports to suit the administration' s

point of view. Just as neoconservative hawk Douglas Feith funneled

false intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs to the vice president,

Cooney steered industry-sponsored junk science on global warming to Cheney.

"What disturbed me most," Whitman says, "was the administration' s record of taking the most extreme of the science -

what I call the 'political science' - and giving it the same weight as the real science."

The most egregious example of cooked intelligence was a study

underwritten in part by the API, Cooney's former employer. The study,

which purported to show that the twentieth century was not unusually

warm, was authored by two astrophysicists, [gotta be Soon and Baliunas:

:{

}:

Baliunas has co-published numerous scientific papers with fellow climate change skeptic Willie Soon including a controversial paper in 2003 that suggested the climate hasn't changed in the last 2000 years. Several members of the Climate Research journal resigned in protest to the flawed peer-review process allowing Baliunas's paper to be published. desmog ] 

:{

}:

both of whom were on the payroll of the George C. Marshall Institute, a climate-denial group

funded by ExxonMobil and now headed by Bill O'Keefe, Cooney's former

boss. The paper's publication in a minor German journal in January

2003quickly created a scandal, with the editor in chief and three

other editors resigning in shame after acknowledging that the paper

was fundamentally flawed and should never have been published.

"It was sham science," says McCarthy, the Harvard scientist. "It's

almost laughable, except that this study was held up by the

administration as a definitive refutation of the temperature record."

But even as the paper was being discredited, it was causing great

excitement in the White House. When Kathie Olsen of the Office of

Science and Technology Policy forwarded the study to Cooney, he

responded with an enthusiastic, "Thanks, Kathie!" Six minutes later,

according to internal e-mails, the study was in the hands of Kevin

O'Donovan, who served as Cheney's point man on climate. The study

also grabbed President Bush's attention, as revealed in an e-mail

sent two days later to a high-ranking White House official: "Bob - if

you din't [sic] already have, this is the study the President was

talking about."

The study gave Cheney's office the quasi-plausible refutation of

climate science it was waiting for. According to a memo reviewed by

congressional investigators, but which the CEQ refused to make

public, Cooney was eager to promote the sham science.The study, he e-

mailed O'Donovan, "represents an opening to potentially reinvigorate

debate on the actual climate history of the past 1,000 years." The

paper, he added, "contradicts the dogmatic view held by many in the

climate science community that the past century was the warmest in

the past millennium. . . .We plan to begin to refer to this study in

administration communications on the science of global climate

change."

One e-mail exchange about the study underscores just how many

industry foxes were guarding the climate henhouse.

When Matthew Koch (a White House energy adviser who today lobbies for API) saw the

study, he wrote to Cooney (the former API lobbyist who is

now "corporate issues manager" for ExxonMobil) and CC'd O'Donovan

(who now works for Shell Oil).

"What??!!" Koch wrote in mock disbelief at the study's claim that the

planet isn't really heating up. "I want to grow oranges in the

Arctic!"

Such joking aside, the administration continues to hold up the

discredited study as a counterweight to the IPCC's scientific, peer-

reviewed findings on global warming. Testifying before the House

Oversight Committee in March, Connaughton lauded the study as a "new

and major piece of science." His only regret, he said, is that "I'm

not a scientist, so I can't find it conclusive."

Although Cooney resigned in 2005, the campaign of disinformation he

implemented had the desired effect. Two months after Cooney returned

to work for ExxonMobil, the Cheney energy plan was passed into law.

A massive giveaway for the fossil-fuel industry, the Energy Policy Act [2005]

authorized $6 billion in subsidies for oil and gas production and

another $9 billion for coal producers. Worst of all, thebill fast-

tracked the construction of coal-fired power plants that would hasten

global warming.

Nor did Cooney's return to the oil industry spell an end to the

administration' s meddling in climate science. Less than a month

later, before the G8 summit on climate change, the administration

killed the opening line of the eight-country report - "Our world is

warming" - and quashed a section that cited "increasingly compelling

evidence of climate change." Last month, in negotiations leading up

to the newest round of G8 talks, the administration blocked another

motion that "resolute action is urgently needed in order to reduce

global greenhouse gas emissions."

"It's the ideological bent of the current administration, " says

McCarthy. "They seem absolutely resistant to any call to action, no

matter what the science says."...

who are the 3%?

Among all articles included in our sample, 30 per cent were from journals that previously published abstracts that implicitly or explicitly rejected AGW.:{Footnote:(style="box-sizing:border-box;margin:-1px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;clip:rect(0px, 0px, 0px, 0px);height:1px;overflow:hidden;width:1px;position:absolute;white-space:nowrap"):}:^8 Of these articles, 69 per cent were published by contrarian experts. While evaluating these journals is beyond the scope of this article, Table 5 shows not only the number of articles published in these journals by contrarians (overall and by experts) in our sample, but also the range of journals that published these authors. [table 5]

Another 9 per cent of articles in our overall sample (of which experts authored 45 per cent) were from known “contrarian” journals (Benestad :{Reference Benestad:(style="box-sizing:border-box;margin:-1px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;clip:rect(0px, 0px, 0px, 0px);height:1px;overflow:hidden;width:1px;position:absolute;white-space:nowrap"):}:2013; Benestad et al. :{Reference Benestad:(style="box-sizing:border-box;margin:-1px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;clip:rect(0px, 0px, 0px, 0px);height:1px;overflow:hidden;width:1px;position:absolute;white-space:nowrap"):}:2016; Kinne :{Reference Kinne:(style="box-sizing:border-box;margin:-1px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;clip:rect(0px, 0px, 0px, 0px);height:1px;overflow:hidden;width:1px;position:absolute;white-space:nowrap"):}:2003; Wagner :{Reference Wagner:(style="box-sizing:border-box;margin:-1px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;clip:rect(0px, 0px, 0px, 0px);height:1px;overflow:hidden;width:1px;position:absolute;white-space:nowrap"):}:2011). Energy & Environment, for example, has long been known as a publication friendly to climate science contrarians. In fact, it provided 131 of the “more than 900+ papers that supported climate change scepticism,” including one (included in our dataset) by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas (Hope :{Reference Hope:(style="box-sizing:border-box;margin:-1px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;clip:rect(0px, 0px, 0px, 0px);height:1px;overflow:hidden;width:1px;position:absolute;white-space:nowrap"):}:2018, para. 3; see also Soon and Baliunas :{Reference Soon and Baliunas:(style="box-sizing:border-box;margin:-1px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;clip:rect(0px, 0px, 0px, 0px);height:1px;overflow:hidden;width:1px;position:absolute;white-space:nowrap"):}:2003). 

A shorter version of their paper, published in Climate Research just months prior, had already faced significant criticism—including from the journal's then-editor in chief, who ultimately resigned in protest over the controversy (Ward :{Reference Ward:(style="box-sizing:border-box;margin:-1px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;clip:rect(0px, 0px, 0px, 0px);height:1px;overflow:hidden;width:1px;position:absolute;white-space:nowrap"):}:2015, para. 6).:{Footnote:(style="box-sizing:border-box;margin:-1px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;clip:rect(0px, 0px, 0px, 0px);height:1px;overflow:hidden;width:1px;position:absolute;white-space:nowrap"):}:^9 Despite these criticisms, the authors expanded on the article and published it in Energy & Environment, spearheaded by then-Editor in Chief Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (yet another prominent contrarian in our sample). SAGE Publishing took over the journal in 2018 and has since “overhauled its peer review practices bringing it into line with SAGE standards” (Hope :{Reference Hope:(style="box-sizing:border-box;margin:-1px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;clip:rect(0px, 0px, 0px, 0px);height:1px;overflow:hidden;width:1px;position:absolute;white-space:nowrap"):}:2018, para. 2). Not surprisingly, however, all articles in our sample from Energy & Environment were published prior to the end of Boehmer-Christiansen's editorship....

==

2003 bogus paper, see Climate Research

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy

6 eds resigned, incl main

The Soon and Baliunas controversy involved the publication in 2003 of a review study written by aerospace engineer Willie Soon and astronomer Sallie Baliunas in the journal *Climate Research*,[1] which was quickly taken up by the G.W. Bush administration as a basis for amending the first Environmental Protection Agency Report on the Environment.

The paper was strongly criticized by numerous scientists for its methodology and for its misuse of data from previously published studies, prompting concerns about the peer review process of the paper. The controversy resulted in the resignation of half of the editors of the journal and in the admission by its publisher Otto Kinne that the paper should not have been published as it was.

Context: IPCC and the Kyoto protocol

Main article: hockey stick graph

By the late 1980s scientific findings indicated that greenhouse gases including CO:{ 2:(style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em"):}: emissions were leading to global warming. There was increasing public and political interest, and in 1987 the World Meteorological Organization pressed for an international scientific panel to assess the topic. The United States Reagan administration, worried about political influence of scientists, successfully lobbied for the 1988 formation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to provide reports subject to detailed approval by government delegates.[2] The IPCC First Assessment Report included a "schematic diagram" of global temperature variations over the last thousand years[3] which has been traced to a graph based loosely on Hubert Lamb's 1965 paper.[4] The IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR) of 1996 featured a graph of an early northern hemisphere reconstruction by Raymond S. Bradley [WEGNER] and Phil Jones,[4][5] and noted the 1994 reconstruction by Hughes and Henry F. Diaz questioning how widespread the Medieval Warm Period had been at any one time.[6] Efforts to reduce :{CO:{

2}:}: emissions were resisted by industrial interests, and political pressures increased as the international K**yoto Protocol** was opposed by lobbyists such as the American Petroleum Institutewho sought climatologists to dissent and undermine its scientific credibility.[7]

In 1998, Mann, Bradley and Hughes published a multiproxy study (MBH98) which used a new statistical approach to find patterns of climate change in both time and global distribution, over the past six centuries[8] In 1999 they extended their approach to 1,000 years in a study (MBH99) summarised in a graph which showed relatively little change until a sharp rise in the 20th century, earning it the nickname of the hockey stick graph. In 2001 the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) included a version of this graph which was frequently featured in literature publicising the findings of the IPCC report that the 1990s were likely to have been the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, of the past millennium in the Northern Hemisphere.[9]

Soon and Baliunas

After the publicity the MBH99 study had been given by the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), the "hockey stick controversy" developed in which the graph was targeted by those opposing ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming,[10] including Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas.[11] Both were astrophysicists at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: Soon had for a long time said that climate change was primarily due to solar variation, while Baliunas had previously been noted for disputing that man-made chemicals (halocarbon refrigerants such as CFCs) were causing ozone depletion.[12] They prepared a literature review which used data from previous papers to argue that theMedieval Warm Periodhad been warmer than the 20th century, and that recent warming was not unusual. They sent their paper to one of the editors of *Climate Research*, Chris de Freitas, an opponent of action to curb carbon dioxide emissions who has been characterized by Fred Pearce as a "climate contrarian".[13][14] Unusually for a peer reviewed journal, Climate Research at the time did not have one Editor in Chief that would distribute submitted papers amongst its editors, leaving its authors free to "shop around" for one that would be friendly to their views.

Publication

In the Spring of 2003, Soon and Baliunas, with three additional co-authors, published a longer version of the paper in Energy and Environment.[13][17] The three additional co-authors were Craig Idso, Sherwood Idso, and David Legates. A press release dated 31 March 2003 headed "20th Century Climate Not So Hot" announced the paper with a statement lacking the caveats of the original paper; "Soon and his colleagues concluded that the 20th century is neither the warmest century over the last 1000 years, nor is it the most extreme."[16][18]

Chris de Freitas, as an editor at Climate Research, accepted the paper written by Soon and Baliunas and it was published in the small refereed journal on 31 January 2003 under the title Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years.[13][15] The article reviewed 240 previously published papers and tried to find evidence for temperature anomalies in the last thousand years such as the Medieval warm period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA). 

The authors pointed out their disagreement with the Mann, Bradley and Hughes hockey stick studies;"Our results suggest a different interpretation of the multiproxy climates compared to recent conclusions of Mann et al. (1998, 1999, 2000)." Their abstract concluded that "Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest or a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium". The paper acknowledged funding support from the American Petroleum Institute,the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and NASA, while stating that the views were those of the authors and were independent of the sponsoring agencies.[16]

In the paper, Soon, Baliunas, and their co-authors investigated the correlation between solar variation and temperatures of the Earth's atmosphere. When there are more sunspots, the total solar output increases, and when there are fewer sunspots, it decreases. Soon and Baliunas attributed the Medieval warm period to such an increase in solar output, and believe that decreases in solar output led to the Little Ice Age, a period of cooling lasting until the mid-19th Century.[19] In a statement to The Chronicle of Higher Education, Soon said that, "When you compare the 20th century to the previous nine centuries, you do not see the change in the 20th century as anything unusual or unprecedented."[13]

Rather than showing quantitative data, they primarily categorized research by others into those supporting, and those not supporting, the MWP and the LIA as defined by themselves. Soon said "I was stating outright that I'm not able to give too many quantitative details, especially in terms of aggregating all the results". They used a very loose definition of climate anomaly, including any period of 50 years or more that was wet, dry, warm or cold. Though "mindful" that the MWP and LIA are both defined by temperature, "we emphasize that great bias would result if those thermal anomalies were to be dissociated" from climatic conditions such as wetness and dryness, but wetness and dryness were undefined and only "referred to the standard usage in English." Their selection of a 50-year plus period excluded recent warming, which had occurred in two periods of 30 years in the 20th century, with the greatest warming in the late 20th century.[20]

Responses from other scientists, political intervention

Initially, the scientists whose work was being disputed by Soon and Baliunas felt it was one of a series of sceptical papers that, in Mann's words, "couldn't get published in a reputable journal". In March he wrote to Phil Jones that "I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They've already achieved what they wanted, the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want is to bring attention to the paper." Jones replied "I think the sceptics will use this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years if it goes unchallenged. I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor", referring to de Freitas. 

At the time the second Soon et al. paper was publicised, Mann emailed Fred Pearce to say that it "was absurd, almost laughable (if it wasn't, as is transparently evident, being used as a policy–and politics–driven publicity stunt to support the dubious positions on climate change of some prominent American politicians)", and added that the paper made no attempt to find if the past warm temperatures it reported were contemporaneous or merely one-off scattered events.[21]

The Bush administration was involved in editing the first Environmental Protection Agency Report on the Environment prior to the draft being made public. The administration's Council on Environmental Quality chief of staff Philip Cooney deleted all references to surface temperature reconstructions showing world temperatures rising over the last 1,000 years, and on 21 April 2003 sent a memo to Kevin O’Donovan in the Office of the Vice President stating "The recent paper of Soon-Baliunas contradicts a dogmatic view held by many in the climate science community that the past century was the warmest in the past millennium and signals human induced “global warming.” ... We plan to begin to refer to this study in Administration communications on the science of global climate change; in fact, CEQ just inserted a reference to it in the final draft chapter on global climate change contained in EPA's first “State of the Environment” report. ...With both the National Academy and IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) holding that the 20th Century is the warmest of the past thousand years (see below), this recent study begins to provide a counterbalance on the point to those two authorities. It represents an opening to potentially invigorate debate on the actual climate history of the past 1000 years and whether that history reinforces or detracts from our level of confidence regarding the potential human influence on global climate change."[22][23]

By May the journal's editors Hans von Storch and Clare Goodess were receiving numerous complaints and critiques of the paper from other scientists, to such an extent that they raised the issues with de Freitas and the journal's publisher Otto Kinne. In reply, de Freitas said they were "a mix of a witch-hunt and the Spanish Inquisition".[24]

Other scientists also criticized the study's methods and argued that the authors had misrepresented or misinterpreted their data.[25] Some of those whose work was referenced by Soon and Baliunas were particularly critical. Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography commented that "the fact that [the paper] has received any attention at all is a result, again in my view, of its utility to those groups who want the global warming issue to just go away". Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona, whose work on dendrochronology was discussed in the paper, said the paper was "so fundamentally misconceived and contains so many egregious errors that it would take weeks to list and explain them all." Peter Stott, a climatologist at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, said "Their analysis doesn't consider whether the warm/cold periods occurred at the same time". The paper would count warm or wet conditions in one region from 800 to 850 and dry conditions in a separate region from 1200 to 1250 as both demonstrating the Medieval Warm period. He noted that regional periods of warmth or cooling do not always occur at the same time as the global average warms or cools.[20][26]

The media requested opinions from climate scientists and paleoclimatologists familiar with the issues underlying the Soon and Baliunas papers, and to help with information Mann and Michael Oppenheimerdrafted and circulated privately a memorandum providing detailed guidance on the topic. They stated "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". Colleagues receiving these requests from the media included Tom Wigley, Philip Jones and Raymond S. Bradley.[20][27]

The memorandum developed into a more general position paper jointly authored by 13 climate scientists, which was published on 8 July 2003 in the journal Eos as an article "On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late-20th Century Warmth".[27] Most of the paper's authors had been cited in the Soon and Baliunas 2003 paper (SB03).[28] The Eos paper made three key points: the SB03 and Soon et al. papers had misused precipitation and drought proxies without assessing their sensitivity to temperature, they had taken regional temperature changes as global changes without any attempt to show that they had occurred at the same time across the world, and they had taken as their base period for comparison mean temperatures over the whole of the 20th century, reconstructing past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends, thus failing to show whether or not late 20th century warming was anomalous. The IPCC TAR had concluded that late 20th century northern hemisphere warmth was likely to have exceeded warmth of any time in the past 1,000 years on the basis of studies that compared temperatures for recent decades with reconstructions of earlier periods while allowing for uncertainties in the reconstructions.[27] Soon, Baliunas and Legates published a response to this paper in the same journal.[29]

Response of journal editors

On 20 June 2003 the publisher of Climate Research, Otto Kinne, agreed to ask de Freitas for copies of the reviewer's evaluations: after studying the response, he advised the editors of his "Conclusions: 1) The reviewers consulted (4 for each ms) by the editor presented detailed, critical and helpful evaluations. 2) The editor properly analyzed the evaluations and requested appropriate revisions. 3) The authors revised their manuscripts accordingly. Summary: Chris de Freitas has done a good and correct job as editor."[30]

The journal had 10 editors, who at that time each independently received and accepted manuscripts from authors. One of the editors, Clare Goodess, recalled that many of them were "somewhat confused and still very concerned about what had happened". The paper "had apparently gone to four reviewers none of whom had recommended rejection", and "The review process had apparently been correct, but a fundamentally flawed paper had been published." She and fellow editor Hans von Storch knew of three earlier papers edited by de Freitas where concerns had been raised about the review process.[24]

To meet the concerns, Kinne proposed to adopt the more common system where instead of editors acting fully independently, an editor in chief would have overall responsibility, and that Hans von Storch would be upgraded from editor to editor in chief as of 1 August 2003.[24] At first von Storch thought the objections to the Soon and Balunas paper should be presented in a comment which they could consider for publication, but when he saw a preprint of the Eos rebuttal of the paper he decided that "We should say that we have a problem here, that the manuscript was flawed, that the manuscript should not have been published in this way. The problem is that the conclusions are not supported by the evidence presented in the paper."[13]

On 28 July von Storch drafted an editorial stating that "the review process of CR failed to confront the authors with necessary and legitimate methodological questions which should have been addressed in the finally printed paper", and proposing a new system in which all new papers were to be sent to the editor in chief rather than directly to individual editors as previously.[31] While Kinne agreed that the Soon and Baliunas paper should not have been published as it was, he did not accept von Storch's proposal and wanted prior agreement from all the other editors before von Storch's editorial was published. When von Storch found that some of the other editors thought the Soon and Baliunas paper was acceptable, he "concluded that we have different standards", and suspected that "some of the skeptics had identified Climate Research as a journal where some editors were not as rigorous in the review process as is otherwise common.".[13][15] He felt that "editors used different scales for judging the validity of an article.Some editors considered the problem of the Soon & Baliunas paper as merely a problem of 'opinion', while it was really a problem of severe methodological flaws. Thus, I decided that I had to disconnect from that journal, which I had served proudly for about 10 years."[32]

Hans von Storch resigned on the same day, 28 July,[31] and condemned the journal's review process in his resignation letter: "The review process had utterly failed; important questions have not been asked ... the methodological basis for such a conclusion (that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climate period of the last millennium) was simply not given."[33] Clare Goodess also resigned later that day.[24]

Senate hearing

When theMcCain-Lieberman billproposing restrictions on greenhouse gases was being debated in the Senate on 28 July 2003, Republican Oklahoma Senator James M. Inhofe made a two-hour speech in opposition. He cited a study by the Center for Energy and Economic Development and the Soon and Baliunas paper in supporting his conclusion: "With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it."[34][35]

Inhofe convened a hearing of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held on 29 July 2003, examining work by the small group of researchers saying there was no evidence of significant human-caused global warming. Three scientists were invited, Mann giving testimony supporting the consensus position, opposed by long term global warming deniers Willie Soon and David Legates.[34][36] The Soon and Baliunas paper was discussed. Senator Jim Jeffords read out an email dated 28 July. In it, von Storch announced his resignation, and stated "that the review of the Soon et al. paper failed to detect significant methodological flaws in the paper. The critique published in the Eos journal by Mann et al. is valid." In reply, Mann testified about the Soon et al. paper, "I believe it is the mainstream view of just about every scientist in my field that I have talked to that there is little that is valid in that paper. They got just about everything wrong."[13][36] He later recalled that he "left that meeting having demonstrated what the mainstream views on climate science are."[37]

Subsequent resignations

In a Climate Research editorial pre-published on 5 August 2003, its publisher Otto Kinne expressed regrets about the resignations of von Storch, Goodess, and a third editor, Mitsuru Ando. Kinne described the main conclusions of the Soon and Baliunas paper; that the late 20th century was probably not the warmest period nor uniquely extreme in the last 2,000 years, and most of the proxy records had warmer anomalies at earlier times. He wrote "While these statements may be true, the critics point out that they cannot be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in the paper. CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."[38] Kinne told the New York Times that "I have not stood behind the paper by Soon and Baliunas. Indeed: the reviewers failed to detect methodological flaws."[39]

On 19 August 2003, Tom Wigley wrote to a colleague that "I have had papers that I refereed (and soundly rejected), under De Freitas’s editorship, appear later in the journal -- without me seeing any response from the authors. As I have said before to others, his strategy is first to use mainly referees that are in the anti-greenhouse community, and second, if a paper is rejected, to ignore that review and seek another more ‘sympathic’ reviewer. In the second case he can then (with enough reviews) claim that the honest review was an outlier." Wigley supported the suggestion of an ethics committee, which he would be willing to serve on. Until then, he urged others to "dissociate themselves from Climate Research". The editors who had not resigned appeared to him to be mostly "a rogues’ gallery of skeptics", and he thought any reputable scientists still listed as editors should resign.[30]

By this time four editors had left the journal: von Storch, Clare Goodess, Mitsuru Ando and Shardul Argawala. In mid September Andrew Comrie also withdrew,[32] so five editors had resigned; half of the journal's editorial board. The five remaining editors included de Freitas.[24]

Later investigations

In September 2003 Soon told The Chronicle of Higher Education that the critics had mischaracterized the research in the paper. He said that he had used precipitation data because too many scientists had concentrated on temperature records which, in Soon's opinion, are not the only measures of climate. He added that "Some of the proxy information doesn't contain directly the temperature information, but it fits the general description of the medieval warm climatic anomaly. This is a first-order study to try to collect as much data as possible and try not to make the pretension that we know how to separate the information in the proxy."[13]

In 2006, Osborn and Briffa published a paper on "The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years", and concluded that "comparison with instrumental temperatures shows the spatial extent of recent warmth to be of greater significance than that during the medieval period."[40] They reexamined the questions raised in the Baliunas and Soon study, but used different statistical methodology, restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and considered the timing of temperature anomalies in different regions to examine whether they had happened at the same time, or were from different periods reflecting local rather than global changes. They found that by far the most widespread warming had occurred after the mid 20th century.[41]

Funding controversy

Questions have also been raised about funding for the paper. Soon and Baliunas "was in part underwritten by $53,000 from the American Petroleum Institute, the voice of the oil industry".[42]

Also, the additional sources of funding mentioned in the papers were apparently unrelated to the research presented in Soon and Baliunas 2003 and in Soon et al. 2003: both the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and NASA stated that they had provided funds for work on solar variability, not for work related to proxy climate records as discussed in the papers, while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said it had not provided funds for the research.[24] Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Grant AF49620-02-1-0194, deals with Theory and Observation of Stellar Magnetic Activity,[43] and NASA grant NAG5-7635 studies variability of stars.[44] 

When questioned during the 29 July 2003 Senate hearing, Soon said that the NOAA grant for Soon et al. was awarded to **David Legates**, and the papers, showing research into detailed patterns of local and regional climate variability, were directly relevant to his main goal of research on physical mechanisms of the sun-climate relationship. When asked if he had been "hired by or employed by or received grants from organizations that have taken advocacy positions with respect to the Kyoto Protocol, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, or legislation before the U.S. Congress that would affect greenhouse gas emissions", he responded "I have not knowingly been hired by, nor employed by, nor received grants from any such organizations described in this question."[36][45]

Connections between the paper's authors and oil industry groups have been well documented. Soon and Baliunas were at the time paid consultants of the George C. Marshall Institute.[46] Soon has also received multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010.[47] Other contributors to Soon's research career include the Charles G. Koch Foundation, which gave Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005/6 and again in 2010, and coal and oil industry sources such as Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute.[48][dead link] Soon has stated that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research."[45]

Soon's co-authors Craig D. Idso and Sherwood B. Idso have also received industry funding. They have been linked to Western coal interests, and the ExxonMobil Foundation provided a grant of $15,000 to their Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in 2000.[49]

Climatic Research Unit emails

See also: Climatic Research Unit email controversy and Climatic Research Unit documents

In November 2009, emails and documents which had been hacked from a server belonging to the University of East Anglia were distributed on the internet. Many of the emails included communication between climatologists in East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and other scientists, including Michael E. Mann. Several of the emails included conversations about Soon and Baliunas' paper as the controversy was ongoing in 2003 and 2004.[50] In an 18 December 2009 column in the Wall Street Journal, Pat Michaels alleged that pressure from Jones and Mann was responsible for the resignations at Climate Research.[51] On 22 December 2009 von Storch responded in the Wall Street Journal that his resignation as editor of Climate Research had nothing to do with any pressure from Jones, Mann, or anyone else, but instead he "left this post on my own, with no outside pressure, because of insufficient quality control on a bad paper—a skeptic's paper, at that."[52]

The Independent Climate Change Email Review, an independent review funded by the University of East Anglia and chaired by Sir Muir Russell, examined allegations that the emails showed attempts to undermine normal procedures of publication. Phil Jones gave evidence that he believed the paper showed self-evident errors and the reaction was both proper and proportionate:the review noted that the publisher Otto Kinne had admitted that the paper had problems, and considered that Jones could not reasonably be criticised for his reaction.A paper prepared for the review by Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, showed that strong responses were not uncommon in the peer review process. The review concluded that the strong reaction to the Soon and Baliunas paper "was understandable, and did not amount to undue pressure on Climate Research.[53]

In petitions to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, the Ohio Coal Association, Peabody Energy, the Southeastern Legal Foundation, and the State of Texas argued that emails from March and April 2003 showed scientists discussing a boycott of the journal Climate Research and trying to get de Freitas removed, leading to the resignations of editors. 

They quoted Phil Jones writing that "I will be e-mailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor", and Mann's email response that "I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal." **Tom Wigley**wrote that von Storch "is partly to blame -- he encourages the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’. 

One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work." The EPA noted that the publisher Kinne had later agreed that the peer review process was flawed, and editors had then resigned as they could not get him to agree corrective action. The emails expressed displeasure but did not show that any action was in fact taken, and it is "expected and appropriate that researchers choose in which journals to publish, as well as recommend to their peers journals in which to publish or not publish. In this case, the bottom line is that the underlying science at issue has been shown to be flawed. The scientists’ actions were focused on this lack of scientific merit and the process that lead to it, and not an attempt to distort the science or the scientific literature." The EPA considered that "If anything, their actions aimed to police the peer review process and rectify a problem that threatened its scientific integrity."[30]

See also

References

  1. ^ Soon, Willie; Sallie Baliunas (January 31, 2003). "Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years" (PDF). Climate Research. 23: 89–110. Bibcode:2003ClRes..23...89S. doi:10.3354/cr023089.
  2. ^ Pearce 2010, pp. 37–39

Spencer R. Weart (October 2009). "Global Warming as a Political Issue (1980s)". The Discovery of Global Warming. Retrieved 2011-03-06.

  1. ^ "Working Group 1: the Scientific Assessment" (PDF). IPCC First Assessment Report. 1990. pp. 199–202. Retrieved 2011-03-06.
  2. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_ref-Jones_09_4-1) Jones, P. D.; Briffa, K. R.; Osborn, T. J.; Lough, J. M.; Van Ommen, T. D.; Vinther, B. M.; Luterbacher, J.; Wahl, E. R.; Zwiers, F. W.; Mann, M. E.; Schmidt, G. A.; Ammann, C. M.; Buckley, B. M.; Cobb, K. M.; Esper, J.; Goosse, H.; Graham, N.; Jansen, E.; Kiefer, T.; Kull, C.; Kuttel, M.; Mosley-Thompson, E.; Overpeck, J. T.; Riedwyl, N.; Schulz, M.; Tudhope, A. W.; Villalba, R.; Wanner, H.; Wolff, E.; Xoplaki, E. (2009). "High-resolution palaeoclimatology of the last millennium: a review of current status and future prospects" (PDF). The Holocene. 19 (1): 3–49. Bibcode:2009Holoc..19....3J. doi:10.1177/0959683608098952. pp. 34, 36
  3. ^ Wahl, E. R.; Ammann, C. M. (2007). "Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence". Climatic Change. 85 (1–2): 33–69. Bibcode:2007ClCh...85...33W. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9105-7.
  4. ^ "Working Group 1: The Science of Climate Change" (PDF). IPCC Second Assessment Report. 1996. Retrieved 2011-03-06. pp. 173–176, fig 3.20

Hughes, M. K.; Diaz, H. F. (1994). "Was there a ?medieval warm period?, and if so, where and when?". Climatic Change. 26 (2–3): 109–142. Bibcode:1994ClCh...26..109H. doi:10.1007/BF01092410.

  1. ^ Pearce 2010, pp. 14, 79–85
  2. ^ Mann, M. E.; Bradley, R. S.; Hughes, M. K. (1998). "Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries". Nature. 392 (6678): 779–787. Bibcode:1998Natur.392..779M. doi:10.1038/33859.
  3. ^ Richard Monastersky (8 September 2006). "Climate Science on Trial - Research". The Chronicle of Higher Education. p. 10. Retrieved 2011-12-08.
  4. ^ Spencer R. Weart (February 2011). "Modern Temperature Trend; The Hockey Stick and Beyond". The Discovery of Global Warming. Retrieved 2011-12-08.
  5. ^ Spencer R. Weart (February 2011). "Modern Temperature Trend; footnote 48". The Discovery of Global Warming. Retrieved 2012-08-01.
  6. ^ Pearce 2010, pp. 130–131
  7. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_ref-mona2003_13-1) c(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_ref-mona2003_13-2) d(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_ref-mona2003_13-3) e(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_ref-mona2003_13-4) f(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_ref-mona2003_13-5) g(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_ref-mona2003_13-6) h(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_ref-mona2003_13-7) Monastersky, Richard (September 2003). "Storm Brews Over Global Warming". The Chronicle of Higher Education. 50 (2): A16.
  8. ^ Pearce 2010, pp. 133, 136–137 describes de Freitas as "a man with known sceptical views" and a "climate contrarian" who "was a driving force behind the creation of an early sceptic organisation in Canada, Friends of Science",

Also, see Chris Mooney (September 13, 2004). "CSI | Déjà vu All Over Again". Skeptical Inquirer. Retrieved 2011-12-04. Soon and Baliunas had specifically sent their paper to one Chris de Freitas at Climate Research, an editor known for opposing curbs on carbon dioxide emissions.

  1. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_ref-Mooney_15-1) Mooney, Chris (2004-09-13). "Déjà vu All Over Again". Skeptical Inquirer.
  2. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_ref-Pearce_131_16-1) Pearce 2010, p. 131
  3. ^ Legates, D. R.; Idso, S.; Idso, C.; Baliunas, S.; Soon, W. (2003). "Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years: A Reappraisal". Energy & Environment. 14 (2): 233. Bibcode:2003En&En..14..233S. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.124.3216. doi:10.1260/095830503765184619.
  4. ^ Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, "20th Century Climate Not So Hot," (Press release), March 31, 2003, retrieved on 24 August 2010. Harvard press release documented in secondary source: Pearce, Fred, "Emails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientists to 'censor' their critics", The Guardian, 9 February 2010, retrieved on 24 August 2010.
  5. ^ Powell, Alvin (April 24, 2003). "Sun's warming is global: CfA lecture links solar activity and climate change". Harvard University Gazette. Archived from the original on October 14, 2006. Retrieved 2007-04-17.
  6. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_ref-SA_03-06-24_20-1) c(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_ref-SA_03-06-24_20-2) Appell, David (June 24, 2003). "Hot Words". Scientific American. Retrieved 19 December 2011.
  7. ^ Pearce 2010, pp. 130, 132–133
  8. ^ Waxman, Henry (December 12, 2007), "Committee Report: White House Engaged in Systematic Effort to Manipulate Climate Change Science", Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, United States House of Representatives, retrieved 2011-12-09 Report pp. 21–25 Archived 2013-02-25 at the Wayback Machine
  9. ^ Andrew C. Revkin (June 8, 2005). "Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming". The New York Times. Retrieved 2011-12-19.
  10. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_ref-Goodess_Nov03_24-1) c(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_ref-Goodess_Nov03_24-2) d(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_ref-Goodess_Nov03_24-3) e(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_ref-Goodess_Nov03_24-4) f(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_ref-Goodess_Nov03_24-5) Goodess, Clare (November 2003). "Stormy Times for Climate Research : Promoting ethical science, design and technology". SGR Newsletter no. 28. Archived from the original on 25 May 2011. Retrieved 9 December 2011.
  11. ^ Hoggan, James; Littlemore, Richard (2009). *Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming*. Greystone Books. pp. 104–5. ISBN 978-1-55365-485-8.
  12. ^ Appell, David (2006). Human, Katy (ed.). *Critical Perspectives on World Climate*. The Rosen Publishing Group. p. 171. ISBN 978-1-4042-0688-5.
  13. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_ref-url7_July_2003_27-1) c(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_ref-url7_July_2003_27-2) Peter Weiss (7 July 2003). "AGU News: Leading Climate Scientists Reaffirm View that Late 20th Century Warming Was Unusual and Resulted From Human Activity". AGU Release No. 03-19. American Geophysical Union. Archived from the original on 2010-01-17.
  14. ^ "On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late-20th Century Warmth", Eos, Volume 84, No. 27, 8 July 2003, page 256.
  15. ^ Soon, Willie; et al. (2003). "Comment on "On past temperatures and anomalous late-20th century warmth:{":(style="padding-right:0.2em"):}:". Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union. 84(44): 473–476. Bibcode:2003EOSTr..84..473S. doi:10.1029/2003EO440007.
  16. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_ref-EPA_vol3_30-1) c(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_ref-EPA_vol3_30-2) "EPA's Response to the Petitions to Reconsider the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Volume 3: Process Issues Raised by Petitioners" (PDF). United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 14 April 2011. Retrieved 2012-01-10. pp. 48–51, 64–65, 73–76
  17. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_ref-HvS_editorial_31-1) von Storch, Hans (4 August 2003). "Editorial Climate Research 28.7.2003 (unpublished)" (PDF). Climate Research. Archived from the original on July 3, 2007. Retrieved 2012-01-19. I prepared this editorial for Climate Research on 28. July 2003. It was not accepted by the publisher, and therefore I stepped down as Editor-n-Chief on the same day.
  18. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_ref-HvS_CR_Problem_32-1) von Storch, Hans (2009-11-23). "The CR Problem". Archived from the original on 2011-07-19. Retrieved 2012-01-22. This web-page was written in 2003, and has not been changed since then
  19. ^ Cauchi, Stephen (2004-01-17). "Global warming: a load of hot air?". The Age.
  20. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_ref-revkin_August_5,_2003_34-1) Revkin, Andrew C. (August 5, 2003). "Politics Reasserts Itself in the Debate Over Climate Change and Its Hazards". New York Times. Retrieved 2011-03-06.
  21. ^ >"Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 113 (Monday, July 28, 2003)". U.S. Government Publishing Office Home Page. 28 July 2003. Retrieved 13 January2015.
  22. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_ref-senate_july03_36-1) c(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_ref-senate_july03_36-2) "Committee on Environment and Public Works". U.S. Government Printing Office. July 29, 2003. Retrieved 2011-12-08.
  23. ^ David Appell (February 21, 2005). "Behind the Hockey Stick". Scientific American. Retrieved 2011-03-07.
  24. ^ Kinne, Otto (5 August 2003). "Climate Research: an article unleashed worldwide storms" (PDF). Climate Research. 24: 197–198. Bibcode:2003ClRes..24..197K. doi:10.3354/cr024197.
  25. ^ Revkin, Andrew (2003-08-05). "Politics Reasserts Itself in the Debate Over Climate Change and Its Hazards". The New York Times.
  26. ^ Osborn T.J., Briffa K.R. (2006). "The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years". Science. 311 (5762): 841–844. Bibcode:2006Sci...311..841O. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.590.2928. doi:10.1126/science.1120514. PMID 16469924.
  27. ^ Mann, Michael E. (February 9, 2006). "A New Take on an Old Millennium". RealClimate. Retrieved 2007-04-17.
  28. ^ Revkin, Andrew (2003-08-05). "Politics Reasserts Itself in the Debate Over Climate Change and Its Hazards". New York Times. Retrieved 2011-12-16.
  29. ^ Baliunas, S; et al. (2005-04-29). "Anharmonic and Standing Dynamo Waves: Theory and Observation of Stellar Magnetic Activity". US Air Force. Retrieved 2011-12-16.
  30. ^ Baliunas, Sallie (2005-04-29). "Constraints on Variability of Brightness and Surface Magnetism on Time Scales of Decades to Centuries in the Sun and Sun-like Stars" (PDF). NASA. Retrieved 2011-12-16.
  31. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#cite_ref-Graun_110627_45-1) Vidal, John (2011-06-27). "Climate sceptic Willie Soon received $1m from oil companies, papers show". The Guardian.
  32. ^ Sanchez, Irene (2005-11-13). "Warming study draws fire". The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved 2009-05-30.
  33. ^ Gardner, Timothy (2011-06-28). "US climate skeptic Soon funded by oil, coal firms". Reuters.
  34. ^ Gardner, Timothy (2011-06-28). "American climate skeptic Soon funded by oil, coal firms". Chicago Tribune.
  35. ^ Nesmith, Jeff (June 1, 2003). "Foes of global warming theory have energy ties". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved 2012-11-19.
  36. ^ Pearce, Fred, "Emails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientists to 'censor' their critics", The Guardian, 9 February 2010.
  37. ^ Michaels, Pat, "How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus", Wall Street Journal, 18 December 2009; Michaels statement characterized as "allegations" in: Pearce, Fred, "Emails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientists to 'censor' their critics", The Guardian, 9 February 2010.
  38. ^ Von Storch, Hans, "Good Science, Bad Politics", Wall Street Journal, 22 December 2009.
  39. ^ The Independent Climate Change Email Review, an independent review funded by the UEA, chaired by Sir Muir Russell

External links

Categories: 

==

==