Two New Papers Question Results Used to Challenge Influential Climate Study
By ANTONIO REGALADO
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
October 26, 2005; Page B3
Two global-warming skeptics who questioned an
influential climate study and prompted a congressional inquiry are now
facing critics of their own, as a pair of new research papers take
issue with their results.
The new findings are the latest round in a politically
charged dispute over the "hockey stick," a widely publicized graphic
showing that temperatures during the late 20th century were likely
higher than at any time in the past 1,000 years.
The hockey stick, so-called because global
temperatures show a sharp blade-like rise in recent decades, was
prominently featured in a 2001 United Nations report that said the
burning of fossil fuels is the cause of global warming.
A dispute erupted earlier this year when oil and
minerals consultant Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick, both
Canadians, published a scientific study detailing possible mathematical
errors in the hockey-stick result.
Michael Mann, the Pennsylvania State University
climatologist who was the author of the hockey-stick findings, claimed
the charges were part of a campaign to cast doubt on global warming.
The clash broadened in June, when Rep. Joe Barton (R.,
Texas), head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, ordered an
inquiry into the work of Dr. Mann and two co-authors and requested
extensive details of their methods and data.
Critics accused Rep. Barton of seeking to bully
scientists and chill global-warming research. Until Dr. Mann turned his
mathematical procedures over to the committee in July, he had declined
to provide his scientific critics with a complete description of them.
In a written statement, Larry Neal, a spokesman for
the committee, said the inquiry is justified because "combating global
climate change is a trillion-dollar prospect" that would be funded by
taxpayers. Mr. Neal said the committee staff hasn't yet begun a
detailed analysis of the information it collected from scientists.
Now, two independent research reports say the
Canadians' critique may have limited significance. The studies,
appearing this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, find
that while there is a statistical snafu in the hockey-stick math, it
may not strongly affect the graph's accuracy.
One study, from researchers at the GKSS Research
Center in Geesthacht, Germany, confirmed "a glitch" in Dr. Mann's work
but "found this glitch to be of very minor significance" when applied
to some computer-generated models of climate history, according to a
statement released by lead author Hans von Storch.
The other study, by Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution fellow Peter Huybers, argued the Canadians had overstated
the effect of the problem. "The truth is somewhere in between, but
closer to Dr. Mann," Dr. Huybers said. Both Dr. Huybers and Eduardo
Zorita, a collaborator of Dr. von Storch, agreed they had yet to
address all of the Canadians' criticisms.
The complex debate, which turns on statistical
technicalities, isn't likely to end soon. In replies published in the
same issue of the journal, Mr. McIntyre and Mr. McKitrick defended
their conclusions. "We are not withdrawing an inch," Mr. McIntyre said
in an interview.
The dispute was the subject of a page-one story in this newspaper in February.
Some scientists believe the dispute has more political
weight than scientific significance. That's because, they say, other
studies of past temperatures also indicate they are higher now, on
average, than at any time in past 1,000 years, and perhaps far longer.
"A number of studies all come to the same conclusion," Dr. Mann said.
Source: Global Warming