THE prestigious journal Nature published an article last Friday explaining that the Antarctic has been generally warming and at about the same rate as the rest of the planet. [1] Within the scientific community it had been generally been accepted that as a continent, Antarctica, has been getting colder contrary to most of the rest of the planet. Publication of the article generated much comment and some disbelief.
At the official US government’s senate minority web site, Marc Morano published a “comprehensive data round up” of responses to the article mostly seeking to debunk the claim that Antarctica is warming . [2]
First author, Eric Steig, has objected to the article by Mr Morano and requested a formal written apology. Mr Morano has refused. Following is the email exchange:
—– Original Message —–
From: Eric Steig
To: Morano, Marc (EPW)
Cc: [various journalists, names and addresses withheld]
Sent: Wed Jan 28 23:52:12 2009
Subject: accusation of fraud
Dear Mr. Morano,
On the official US senate minority web site you cite a blog that accuses me of
scientific fraud. (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=fc7db6ad-802a-23ad-43d1-2651eb2297d6)
You write:
“A critical analysis of the paper from December 21, 2008, accused the authors of the Antarctic study of making questionable data adjustments.
(See: Scientist adjusts data — presto, Antarctic cooling disappears – December
21, 2008) The analysis concluded; Looks like [study author] Steig ‘got
rid of’ Antarctic cooling the same way [Michael] Mann got rid of medieval
warming. Why not just look at the station data instead of ‘adjusting’ it (graph
above)? It shows a 50-year cooling trend; the analysis concluded.
You do not comment on this, but simply cite it. However, you are clearly
implying that you agree with it because you do not comment. Are you prepared
to either remove this from the web site immediately, or to provide evidence that I have committed fraud? This is a very extreme accusation. Indeed, it seems rather like libel to me. I would like to request a formal apology from you, in writing.
I am cc:ing several journalists on this, so hopefully inaction of your part will be noticed.
In any case, the ‘analysis’ you cite is wrong. If you look at Figure 3.7 from the IPCC report
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-3-7.jpg
you will see that the average temperature trend for Antarctica was positive (warming) not negative (cooling). This figure shows the average of the Antarctic station data. This demonstrates that the statement that “the station data shows a 50-year cooling trend” is plainly wrong. In the interest of being honest with the American public, don’t you think you should correct this?
Eric Steig
Professor, Department of Earth and Space Sciences
University of Washington
—–Original Message—–
From: Morano, Marc (EPW)
Sent: Thursday, 29 January 2009 3:22 PM
To: Eric Steig
Cc: Jennifer Marohasy [and various journalists copied into original email by Professor Steig, names withheld]
Subject: Re: accusation of fraud
Professor Steig,
Thanks for writing.
The Senate EPW report in question simply reported on many reactions to your new Antarctic study.
The one you are objecting to was just one of several that I excerpted.
The quoted citation will not be removed from our site. But to be completely fair and accurate, I would be glad to publish your reaction to the blog excerpt and allow you to state your case and rebut it.
As you have read, our EPW report links to all sources referenced and allows the public a full counter balance to what much of the media reports on climate change issues.
I would suggest that you should be thanking EPW for providing such a needed public service, instead of displaying such hostility.
Please send me a brief statement I will happily post it right after the blog in question.
Or, if you choose, I can use key portions of the email you have already sent me.
Thank you,
Marc Morano
********************************
Notes and Links
1. Steig, E., D. Schneider, S. Rutherford, M. Mann, J.C. Comiso and D.T. Shindell. 2009. Warming of the Antarctic Ice-Sheet Surface Since The 1957 International Geophysical Year. Nature. Vol 457, January 22, 2009.
2. Scientists, Data Challenge New Antarctic ‘Warming’ Study. ‘It is hard to make data where none exist’. Comprehensive Data Round Up Debunks New Antarctic ‘Estimate of Temperature Trends’ http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=fc7db6ad-802a-23ad-43d1-2651eb2297d6
3. My initial response to the Steig et al article can be found as a blog post here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/01/modellers-remove-evidence-of-cooling-and-editor-removes-comment-by-climate-sceptic/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The Senate EPW report in question simply reported on many reactions to your new Antarctic study.
…
As you have read, our EPW report links to all sources referenced and allows the public a full counter balance to what much of the media reports on climate change issues.
I would suggest that you should be thanking EPW for providing such a needed public service, instead of displaying such hostility.
in short: i post a lot of crap, that i don t take responsibility for!
anyone still surprised, why denialists can t publish any peer reviewed papers?
Trouble for Marc is that having a ‘balance’ in arguments in science is completely irrelevant.
And how weak is he? Can’t even say he what he believes. What a chicken.
Apologies anyone? Those bloody crickets are noisy hey what.
Wait, maybe it’s more Socratic irony?
I want to hear from Dr David Schneider who in May last year co-authored a paper indicating the Antarctic was cooling.
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2008/antarctica.jsp
Yet here he is 8 months later saying the opposite.
David, this is the best bit
“At the official US government’s senate minority web site, Marc Morano published a “comprehensive data round up” of responses to the article mostly seeking to debunk the claim that Antarctica is warming . [2]”
Note that it was a comprehsensive data round up… HA HA HAAAAAAAA.
So comprehensive that the ‘fraud’ claim came from someone’s blog – such a valuable source of information are blogs.
I also like the claim that ts was ‘mostly’ to debunk the claim… rather than finding any objection to the claim.
———————
Comment from: NT January 29th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Trouble for Marc is that having a ‘balance’ in arguments in science is completely irrelevant.
And how weak is he? Can’t even say he what he believes. What a chicken.
———————-
NT, Monaro is basically a reporter (for Inhofe) why would he state what he believes?
Although I’m quite new to the AGW debate, i have been following a few online blogs both “proponents” and “skeptics”. There seems to be a pattern in the responses from the AGW’ers which is attack the author at all cost and never mind about the substance, and just add a couple of links to ‘Real Climate’.
So my conclusion is that the ‘Skeptics’ are kicking the asses of the AGW’ers in this debate. There is going to be some red faces when the MSM catch on, most of all ‘Penny Wrong’ as she will be remembered.
Janama,
If you actually read the Steig paper (and I have given you the link twice), you will see that they adress that exact paper (look for it in the reference list). They comment on various failings in it. That may explain why he’s changed his mind…
Jennifer
Are we going to see any correction? Jon Jenkins wasn’t dismissed
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/assertions_that_dr_jenkins_has.php#more
I doubt it… I think you’ll just leave it because it’s a Machiavellian game you play…
Chuck
“So my conclusion is that the ‘Skeptics’ are kicking the asses of the AGW’ers in this debate. There is going to be some red faces when the MSM catch on, most of all ‘Penny Wrong’ as she will be remembered.”
That’s always been the best way to conduct ‘research’. Yes… It’s about reading motives into what people write…
Perhaps you could try actually reading the paper in question?
I’m sorry NT – the following paper
Title: “Twentieth century Antarctic air temperature and snowfall simulations by IPCC climate models”
Authors: Andrew Monaghan, David Bromwich, and David Schneider
is NOT listed in the references so I didn’t read any reference to it in the article I have on my puter and I’m amazed that you did.
NT,
I read the paper and commented on another thread why I thought it was a poor piece of work. Nobody replied to point out why I was wrong.
“A poor piece of work”
that doesn’t sound like the work of a star student of Dr Steig.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/~dschneid/web1.jpg
EDUCATION
University of Washington, Seattle, WA
• Ph.D., Earth and Space Sciences/Geology, August 2005
• Dissertation title: Antarctic climate of the past 200 years from an integration of instrumental, satellite, and ice core proxy data
• Committee: Eric Steig (chair), John M. Wallace, Stephen Warren, Dale Winebrenner
Schneider, D. P., Steig, E. J. & Comiso, J. Recent climate variability in Antarctica
from satellite-derived temperature data. J. Clim. 17, 1569–1583 (2004).
Schneider, D. P. & Steig, E. J. Ice cores record significant 1940s Antarctic warmth
related to tropical climate variability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 12154–12158
(2008).
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/~dschneid/Schneiderwebcv.pdf
Janama,
sorry you are correct.
they do however comment on a different paper:
7. Monaghan, A. J., Bromwich, D. H., Chapman, W. & Comiso, J. C. Recent variability
and trends of Antarctic near-surface temperature. J. Geophys. Res. 113, doi:1029/
2007JD009094 (2008)
Which I had mistakenly assumed was the Monaghan one you had linked to.
Still it isn’t so significant that one author of your first paper, David Schneider, has now authored a second paper that modifies the earlier result. This is how science works… This is why it isn’t a religion…
DavidC, perhaps because no one cares what you think? I don;t know… Maybe your analysis was so bad no thought it necessary.
Nt – I accept you made a mistake, no problem mate, what I am concerned about is that in May 2008 David Schneider, an associate, if you may, of Dr Steig would write a paper criticising computer modelling of Antarctica and that Antarctica was cooling in contradiction to the projections of the models without Dr Steig’s knowledge and possibly approval.
Yet now we find the computer modellers, Mann et al, associated with the fine Antarctic boffins all saying the opposite to what the Antarctic boffins said 8 months ago.
Janama,
If you think it’s a conspiracy. So be it.
I have not suggested it’s a conspiracy.
I’m still wondering, why I should read the paper when I have the MSM reporting it’s content, without complaint or correction from the rather sensitive Herr Steig?
Surely if his methods or conclusions were grossly mischaracterized, in the NYTimes or Australian, Steig would have raised a stink.
There’s a silver lining in the rather whiney complaint of Herr Steig.
Let me flesh it out. Steig says “Looks like [study author] Steig ‘got
rid of’ Antarctic cooling the same way [Michael] Mann got rid of medieval
warming. … … This is a very extreme accusation. Indeed, it seems rather like libel to me.”
It appears that Steig is answering in the affirmative that Mann’s hockeystick is a fraud, and that having his analysis compared to it is a libel.
That would be a milestone for a hockeyteam member, as far as I am aware.
There’s no chance that Morano has defamed Steig, and if Steig thinks that failing to comment on something indicates you agree with it he has some real problems dealing with logic. Shakespeare might think that “silence betokens consent” but no logician or lawyer does.
The Steig paper is interesting, and no more than that. It doesn’t prove anything and he’s probably feeling a little guilty that it got the attention that it did. It’s a little like those Alternate or Counterfactual histories that ask “what if” questions about history, but ultimately it’s just a parlour game. Splicing two instrumental records together and then effectively backcasting using one instrumental record to cover an area that it didn’t cover at the time has no validity outside of speculation. Nice to be able to get research funds for your parlour games.
I don’t think he’s suggesting that Mann committed fraud, just that accusing him (Steig) of fraud is a libel. He’s probably urging Mann to send a letter as well.
It’s an over-reaction on his part, and does suggest that he has a weak case because there is no legal cause of action. And it is typical of many of the AGW establishment to threaten legal action against their opponents. James Hansen would have us all locked-up.
To prove libel, will they have to actually release the data and methods used to extract the cooling trend? Will it then be subject to examination by a statistical expert in court?
I hope you see my point.
Graham,
You wrote:
“The Steig paper is interesting, and no more than that. It doesn’t prove anything and he’s probably feeling a little guilty that it got the attention that it did.”
Could you take take us through, in detail, your technical analysis of Steig’s paper that led you to the above conclusion.
As well, what do you think was the intent in Marc Morano’s piece given Inhofe’s form in taking a McCarthy style cudgel to Michael Mann.
Perhaps Marc Morano is angling to become an adjunct professor at Bond University.
BTW Jennifer….. shouldn’t, “the official US government’s senate minority web site” be more correctly written as, the official website of the Republican minority group of the US Government Senate? The way you have written it presents it as though it is the official view of the US government.
In Australia “substantial truth” is a defence to defamation; a more technical defence is the “Lange Privilege” which is grounded in the constitutional provisions protecting free speech; this defence arises on the basis of the comment being in the public interest, the publisher not being motivated by malice and having belief in the veracity of the comment; other salient factors are efforts to substantiate the comment and allowing for a response; if the US has equivalent provisions then Steig has not got a case; but I wish he would sue; it’s been a long between drinks since Gore had his day in court.
Graham,
You see, “Splicing two instrumental records together and then effectively backcasting using one instrumental record to cover an area that it didn’t cover at the time has no validity outside of speculation.”, isn’t really a good analysis I’m afraid…..
To prove libel, will they have to actually release the data and methods used to extract the cooling trend? Will it then be subject to examination by a statistical expert in court?
no. actually the person accusing someone of fraud, is supposed to provide evidence.
the attacks of the denialists are going too far at the moment. the continous claim of fraud, based on ZERO evidence is filtering from comments into blogposts and the media.
i think it wont stop, until someone gets his hand burned by law.
If you put out crap, people are going to call it crap. For too long the alarmists have had it all their way, calling people who refused to see the lies their way, every dirty name in the book. Those times have past.
I suggest the alarmist show us proof instead of baloney. Isn’t science about truth?
Pay more in taxes to the government, so government scientists can fake the data and pretend to control the climate. The perfect scam. So tell me, how does magic tax beans control the climate?
Quoting from Steig’s email.
“In any case, the ‘analysis’ you cite is wrong. If you look at Figure 3.7 from the IPCC report
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-3-7.jpg
you will see that the average temperature trend for Antarctica was positive (warming) not negative (cooling). This figure shows the average of the Antarctic station data.” snip…
How does a graphic of land temperature north of 65N demonstrate a warming Antarctica? Are there some tea leaves buried in it that teleconnect with Antarctica that I can’t see?
Mea culpa.
Ignore my above post. The vertical part of the top graphic fit so well on my screen I didn’t realize there were more graphics below.
Marc Morano. Is his salary paid for by the US taxpayer or by the Republican National Committee?
The graph Steig cites conveniently begins with the coldest period but also shows virtually zero trend for the period beginning around 1970.
And what’s with the error bars?
Steig isn’t “claiming libel” – he’s stated that the comments are libelous and asked for a retraction.
Fraud is quite serious in that the implication is that results have deliberately and intentionally been “manipulated” for personal gain.
The accusation of fraud goes why beyond a difference of scientific opinion or an error.
# intentional deception resulting in injury to another person
# imposter: a person who makes deceitful pretenses
# something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
# In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud
# An act of deception carried out for the purpose of unfair, undeserved, and/or unlawful gain, esp. financial gain; Such an act injurious to another …
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fraud
Steve McIntyre, so beloved by sceptics, says that he doesn’t want to see liberal use of the fraud scattered around comments as rhetoric or invective.
A claim of fraud implies that Steig et al knowingly and purposefully rigged the results?
McIntyre doesn’t claim fraud, he just uses snide insinuations that imply fraud.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4877
Jeremy,
You take Graham to task – “You see, “Splicing two instrumental records together and then effectively backcasting using one instrumental record to cover an area that it didn’t cover at the time has no validity outside of speculation.”, isn’t really a good analysis I’m afraid…..”
For purposes of this blog it’ll do me just fine!
SJT,
“McIntyre doesn’t claim fraud, he just uses snide insinuations that imply fraud.”
It is my impression that Mr McIntyre says exactly what he means and means what he says. And what he says is backed by evidence, open for all to evaluate.
No insinuations there!
As to the fraud alluded to – well I suppose that if the cap fits, wear it. But then don’t be disappointed if others don’t like the hat.
Luke, it is Steig who introduces the idea of fraud, obviously in an attempt to escalate a claim of incompetence to something more serious. Thanks for pointing out the difference between fraud and incompetence.
JeremyC, interested in your explanation of what Steig et al did, seeing you don’t like mine.
He’s probably urging Mann to send a letter as well.
Virtual letters expressing virtual outrage over virtual warming.
March is the official end of International Polar Year (IPY), a two-year global program to track the effects of global warming on the Arctic and Antarctic. Steig was one of more than 50,000 scientists worldwide working on 228 projects in what was the first comprehensive survey of the two polar regions in 50 years.
http://www.ipy.gov/ (notice the brand spanking new virtual heat map of Antarctica on their home page 😉
It’s being compared to Michael Mann that has Steig in a twist.
Dude should mea culpa and dump the whole thing on Mann.
Admit there was no hint of Antarctic warming.
Admit his guesstimate invention of Antarctic warming is the product of arm twisting, that he was the doggie the powers that be threw their lasso at, cutting him out of the herd of scientists from the great polar year to justify that incredible waste of money, time, and energy.
Graham,
“JeremyC, interested in your explanation of what Steig et al did, seeing you don’t like mine.”
I’ll just be happy to see a good technical explanation of what you meant in your post given you have a greater understanding of the use of instrumental data and then how it can be combined to produce counterfactual histories (did you mean Harry Turtledove’s novels?) of Antarctic climate.
Wouldn’t it be funny to have WWIII AGW versus deniers/skeptics. Hopefully well all be plowing through snow LOL (actually no warm is much better)
OK both warminst and deniers can come to an agreement suitable to both sides. There is no significant warming or cooling over the past 100 years.. its a flat line..
So Jeremy C your answer is that you don’t think I know what I’m talking about but you haven’t got a clue what they did yourself? If you can’t tell me what it is you don’t understand about my explanation how am I supposed to answer.
Anyway, here we go again. They took two sets of data. One of which covered the time period, but not most of the area – that was from weather stations. The other of which covered the area, but only about half of the time period – that was from the satellites. They then calibrated the two against each other for the overlapping time period and then used that relationship as a way of extrapolating from the geographically incomplete data set (the thermometers) temperatures for the whole of the continent.
There’s really no validity in that approach.
And I didn’t say it was the same as a counterfactual history, but that it was similar.
The AGW promotion industry had best get used to the idea that people are seeing through their fraud more and more.
Fabricating a study by playing with numbers until they support a rewrite of facts, and then calling it science does not make this pos study less of a pos.
Graham
A reader over at Andrew Bolt said it this way, “0.1 deg per decade (Antarctic warming) with an error of plus or minus 3 deg”.
That’s the sort of research Shaviv calls elephant fitting. It features plenty of wiggle so that the author can claim it shows any number of conclusions while avoiding the irksome fraud label.
Another thing that is interesting about the Steig complaint, he apparently has his own stable of reporters on his rolodex.
It’s almost too bad that Moreno responded. I would be interested to see which reporters are in Steig’s pocket.
Boring…
just people slanging off at each other!
Where is the science that says GHGs don’t trap heat?
Where is the evidence that there is no increase in GHGs?
(and there isn’t any) so… Where is the evidence that the increase in GHGs is from other than Human sources?
Comment from: Ricki January 30th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
“Where is the science that says GHGs don’t trap heat?
Where is the evidence that there is no increase in GHGs?
(and there isn’t any) so… Where is the evidence that the increase in GHGs is from other than Human sources?”
LOL, where is the evidence that supports AGW?
since you seem to agree with AGW shouldn’t you be the one giving the evidence?
and please real evidence, not just a computer model
Just denying it will not make it go away.
High school physics can be used to establish that CO2 traps heat (as a start).
Measurements such as Mauna Loa data (at the very least) establish that GHGs are rapidly increasing — atmospheric concentration of CO2 to 385 ppmv (up almost 40%).
The worlds countries own audited returns to UNFCCC amounted to 18,000,000 tonnes of CO2e in 2006 (Annex I countries only, not including China, etc).
Go read the IPCC 2007 report.
Ricki et al –
While I realize explaining anything to those unwilling to listen is a wasted effort, the argument you use is so without merit that I cannot help myself. You might as well have said: Methane traps heat (better than CO2). Methane levels have increased. Methane is the cause of global warming. Or better yet for these types of arguments: Sugar causes obesity. There has been an increase in the number of Blue M&Ms (sugar). Blue M&Ms are the cause of increased obesity.
Taking as a fact that the IPCC figure of 0.6C increase over the last 100 years is correct (ignoring the fact that over the last 100 years the error in the figures is greater than the total increase so the temperatures could have increased by a far greater amount or not at all), there has been no indication that the rate of increase in this massive 0.6C was any greater during our heavy CO2 production than it was before 1940 (take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.svg between 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 2000). Assuming that all the temperature increase was due to CO2 and that CO2 would continue to drive temperature increases, we would still only have a moderate increase in temperature after another 100 years (unless of course you believe in the magical positive feedback forces that will kick in at some point and drive us to extinction).
The question I have is this: How many years of cooling will be required before we can admit that disaster from CO2 isn’t around the corner? 5 years? 10 years? More? Certainly the last 8 years is not enough when we still have reports that 2008 was one of the 10 warmest years in modern history! I would think being lower than the past 8 years would be enough to be reported as being cooler than the previous year (or at least not increasing). The next 3 years will certainly be colder globally. Even the alarmists that produce their end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it predictions will agree to that (as they warn you not to get complacent as our road to doom will continue as soon as the sun gets out of its minimum and on its way up the next cycle). Temperatures should start increasing by 2012 according to many. How many more years of cooling is required? Is it good enough that the temperatures don’t increase or must it be a decrease that will convince you? If we can’t have that, can we at least have a minimum level the temperature must increase by the year 2015? We are far below the track for predicted temperature increase due to CO2. Without throwing a bunch of aerosols in the atmosphere like we appear to do every time the temp doesn’t match the prediction, when can we say the predictions are wrong and move on with cleaning up real pollutants?
Patrick J. Michaels has added his 2c worth.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/01/30/antarctica-again/
Jennifer, have you seen this??
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5054
“Are you prepared to either remove this from the web site immediately, or to provide evidence that I have committed fraud? This is a very extreme accusation. Indeed, it seems rather like libel to me. I would like to request a formal apology from you, in writing.”
Evidence of fraud provided by Climate Audit, via John Pittman. Eric Steig should have been more careful about what he asked for…
In America, truth is always an iron clad defence in libel cases (I don’t know other countries laws so much).
Why would anyone collaborate with Michael Mann if he didn’t expect to be considered a fraud? Michael Mann is famous for science fraud. Nothing is more clear than that. So its simply good time management to assume that Eric Steig is also a science fraud until proven innocent. Did Eric just show up from out of town on the back of a turnip truck? Can he not get people who ARE NOT science frauds to work with? Anyone who supports the hockey stick is engaging in science fraud and there are very many people who do this. Very many in this country and overseas. I go to their websites and I check them out. And showing support for the hockey stick is a confession of science fraud or gross incompetence.
I’m willing to be convinced otherwise. If you feel maligned by my comments you are invited to my blog to justify the hockey stick.
Keep working ,great job!