André Berger <???@astr.ucl.ac.be>, Mike MacCracken <???@comcast.net>, Martin Hoffert <???@nyu.edu>, Karl Taylor <???@llnl.gov>, Ken Caldiera <???@llnl.gov>, Curt Covey <???@llnl.gov>, Raymond Bradley <???@geo.umass.edu>, Malcolm Hughes <???@ltrr.arizona.edu>, Phil Jones <???@uea.ac.uk>, Kevin Trenberth <???@ucar.edu>, Tom Crowley <???@duke.edu>, Tom Wigley <???@ucar.edu>, Scott Rutherford <???@gso.uri.edu>, Caspar Ammann <???@ucar.edu>, Keith Briffa <???@uea.ac.uk>, Tim Osborn <???@uea.ac.uk>, Michael Oppenheimer <???@princeton.edu>, Steve Schneider <???@stanford.edu>, Gabi Hegerl <???@duke.edu>, Ellen Mosley-Thompson <???@osu.edu>, Eric Steig <???@ess.washington.edu>, ???@ucar.edu, ???@atmos.uiuc.edu, ???@u.arizona.edu, ???@climate.unibe.ch, Jürg Beer <???@hermes.emp-eaw.ch>, Ben Santer <???@llnl.gov>, robert Berner <???@yale.edu>, ???@virginia.edu
Fri, 22 Aug 2003 12:13:22 -0400
"Michael E. Mann" <???@virginia.edu>
Re: Shaviv & Veizer in GSA Today
???@sanw.unibe.ch, Stefan Rahmstorf <???@pik-potsdam.de>
This is biased coverage provided by the "World Business Council", attempting to provide a
platform for the two contrarians here (Zachichi and Shaviv).
Ben Santer, David Parker, and I have also given presentations and press briefings here, and
the Italy media has been pretty good so far about presenting our side (i.e., the consensus
view) on climate change. Look out for better coverage.
Re, the Shaviv and Veizer paper--after seeing Shaviv present this, I'm now more convinced
than ever that there is not one single scientifically defensible element at all to what he
has done-the statistics, supposed climate reconstruction, and supposed "Cosmic Ray Flux"
estimates are all almost certainly w/out any legitimate underpinning. Those w/ the
appropriate expertise on the specifics really need to get a response out ASAP. My
understanding is that something is indeed already in the works from Stefan et al...
At 05:48 PM 8/22/2003 +020 ???, Urs Neu wrote:
Dear Stefan, dear colleagues
The following link shows, that the Shaviv and Veizer paper is widely
"used" and gets more and more impact (or does more and more harm). So it
seems to be important to get a comment as quickly as possible.
Stefan Rahmstorf wrote:
> Dear André ,
> thanks for the encouragement. I was aware of the fake PNAS paper sham,
> but did not know that Soon and Baliunas were involved in that one - so
> that is useful information.
> The Shaviv & Veizer paper had its appearance recently on a prime
> political discussion programme ("Presseclub") on the first German TV
> channel. One journalist on the programme mentioned the senate hearing
> surrounding the Soon&Baliunas paper as an example of dubious lobbyist
> activities in the US. Another journalist responded by saying that not
> only lobbyists but also serious scientists were questioning global
> warming, and talked about Shaviv and Veizer as example.
> Cheers, Stefan
> Stefan Rahmstorf
> Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
> For contact details, reprints, movies & general infos see:
ProClim- Forum for Climate and Global Change
Swiss Academy of Sciences
CH-3011 Bern, Switzerland
office: (+41 ???) ??? Fax: (+41 ???) ???
e-mail: ???@sanw.unibe.ch www: http://www.proclim.unibe.ch
ProClim- is a long term project of the Swiss Academy of Sciences
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
e-mail: ???@virginia.edu Phone: (434)??? FAX: (434)???
If you found this helpful please Like it, Share it or +1 it (or do all three!). BTW: Easily follow numerous AGW blogs on our Blogs Page
List of files