Scientist’s rebuttal of Michael Mann’s “denier”and other unsavory labels in his book

By Craig Loehle, Ph.D.

Since I am mentioned in Mann’s book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines and not kindly, it seems necessary to set the record straight. I do not take credit for any angry posts that follow.

Mann begins discussion of my work on page 187 (see bottom of this post) with the title “The Hockey Fight Continues” where my work is categorized as another assault from the denialosphere, with me being part of the “Hydra” that is hatefully out to get Mann. Simply because I published a paper that does a reconstruction and expressed a view that tree rings might have issues (which the Climategate emails show was a hidden view of many in the field) I was engaging in a “fight” against Mann? Really? I think it is because they didn’t like my results, which is rather post-modernist, no? So, I am lumped in with politically motivated and evil “deniers” and “denialists”. I find these terms and the entire context for discussing my work offensive. I am not a “denialist” and my recent paper (Loehle, C. and N. Scafetta. 2011. Climate Change Attribution Using Empirical Decomposition of Historical Time Series. Open Atmospheric Science Journal 5:74-86) attributes about 40% of recent warming to human activity – estimating that this equates to a no-feedback atmosphere.

What I would deny is that tree rings are good thermometers, but this is a scientific view based on my knowledge of trees, not a political view.

I point this out in the paper Mann criticizes and also in (Loehle, C. 2009. A Mathematical Analysis of the Divergence Problem in Dendroclimatology. Climatic Change 94:233-245), which interestingly was published while Steve Schneider was ed in chief. As a final note on my work on this problem, I showed in (Loehle, C. 2005. Estimating Climatic Timeseries from Multi-Site Data Afflicted with Dating Error. Mathematical Geology 37:127-140) that combining time series with measurement error or especially dating error will flatten out peaks like the MWP and troughs like the LIA. This means that comparing the MWP peak temperature, which is likely smeared (damped) to recent annual temperatures will show recent temps warmer simply due to data resolution (the warmest years are not averaged out in the recent data). It is an apples and oranges comparison.

I am not part of a conspiracy and am not directed by anyone. I have never received money from fossil fuel interests, as Mann states is true of all sceptics. On the contrary, I work for the US wood products industry (which has no official position on climate change and does not tell me what to say or think). This industry is the largest single renewable fuels user because it uses wood waste to generate steam and power at paper mills. It is also the largest recycler (of paper), plants millions of trees every year, and manages millions of acres of forest land to ensure protection of wildlife. Only a fraction of my work concerns climate change.

My disagreements with the use of tree rings (by anyone, not just Mann) have nothing to do with a conspiracy, are not organized or directed by anyone, and are not personal. I just think tree rings (especially strip bark) are not valid more than about 100 years back in time no matter how fancy the statistics used.

In general also I would like to defend the implicit charge that I am unqualified to enter the arena with Mann and dispute him. I studied forestry and ecological modeling, so I know a few things about trees and models. More than many of the dendro people. I have published 138 peer-review papers in ecology, forestry, statistics, control theory, topology, landscape ecology, evolutionary theory, animal behavior, hydrology, and psychology. I have a bunch of papers where I model forest growth and other dynamic biological systems. 28 of my papers are on climate or ecosystem responses to climate change. I have studied and modeled photosynthesis and tree growth processes.

Mann notes that I got the dates wrong on a few series in my original paper (Loehle, C. 2007. A 2000 Year Global Temperature Reconstruction based on Non-Treering Proxy Data. Energy & Environment 18:1049-1058). Some of the first papers I found use the year 2000AD as 0, and count BP back from there. Others used calendar dates. Most used 1950 as 0 year but did not necessarily say so in the archives, they just start with 0 in the data file with no explanation. Mann’s assertion that everyone dates from 1950 as year 0 for BP is simply not true. So during the period when I gradually pulled the data together, I got some of this mixed up. Unfortunate. Wish I had Steve McIntyre’s memory. On the other hand, I got the corrected version in print in record time (thanks to E&E being very understanding). This benefitted from Hu’s input (Loehle, C. and Hu McCulloch. 2008. Correction to: A 2000 Year Global Temperature Reconstruction based on Non-Treering Proxy Data. Energy & Environment 19:93-100). Mann mentions the correction but does not discuss it. This is what he should have discussed since it is in the record. I would point out that Mann has never publicly admitted or corrected any mistake. As an ironic aside, it was Gavin who found my dating errors and notified me and was helpful in resolving them. I thanked Gavin for his help in print.

Mann complains that I could not make a comparison of recent with the MWP with “such a paucity of records” in footnote 44—referring to recent decades particularly. When I was pulling data together for my paper, many authors did not respond to requests for their data, and one refused. Many interesting papers had not archived their data. So I was able to find 18 data sets that seemed least problematic. This is more than the 11 low frequency series in Moberg et al. 2005 in Nature, which IPCC uses and the Team were coauthors on (9 of which I used). The oxygen isotope record that Mann objects to was used in Moberg. But Mann exaggerates how much data he himself uses. When you look at the weighting of series by Mann’s methods, the effective number of series in early centuries is often only a few or even 1. It doesn’t matter how much data is in the hopper if a couple of series have all the weight. SM has documented this exhaustively at CA. Furthermore, the point of the paper was not a claim that I had correctly reconstructed climate history, but rather that non-tree ring data does not agree with tree ring data. I think the paper showed this but Mann completely missed this point.

Mann focuses on the MWP vs recent temperature differential in my paper and says the important part is the post-1950 (post mid-century) trend. But he could only get his strong recent warming uptick in his papers by reflecting and smoothing past the end of the data. This has been parsed extensively at CA and I explicitly avoided smoothing past the end of the data for obvious reasons.

Mann repeats that his work is valid because it has been “independently replicated”. A cluster of papers with overlapping authors and heavily overlapping data is not any sort of independent test. Furthermore, it is widely known that Mann’s results depend strongly on a few key proxies like stripbark pines,which are damaged trees and should not be used. When a few proxies are heavily weighted, it does not matter much what the other data are.

So much material! Mann also says

By contrast with the hockey stick studies-and every other peer reviewed scientific article on the subject-Loehle claimed that medieval warm period temperatures were warmer than “20th century values.”

Now this is a curious comment because Mann seems unaware of a very large literature. Just counting published studies that enable quantitative estimates to be made, Craig Idso at http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/quantitative.php published the following summary of about 100 studies:

clip_image001

So here we have a statement by Mann that NO literature exists suggesting a warmer MWP when in fact there are scores of them. I think Mann only views Team publications as being valid, but we are not required to share his view. So his claim that “every other…article” refutes my work is simply false. Whether you like how Idso did his analysis or not, there IS literature out there on this question. The famous Soon and Baliunas paper was also about this very question, and Mann surely remembers them? Oh, yes, and we remember the reaction to S&B.

Mann states that E&E is not peer reviewed. This is untrue and the editor of E&E has publicly refuted this charge repeatedly. My paper was peer reviewed in the same manner as every other journal I ever submitted to, except that the reviewers were able to keep their political biases under control.

Mann says I should have done “statistical validation emphasized in all serious paleoclimate reconstruction studies”. In the studies he mentions, an elaborate calibration is used that leads to a need for “validation” but I was using simple averaging of studies which independently estimated a temperature model for each data set. There was nothing to “validate” but Mann may not understand that point.

Mann objects to some records not being sufficiently time-resolved and that I “improperly” filled in, but Moberg did the identical infilling that I did (linear interpolation) for the same reasons, as have others, including Mann himself. I explicitly stated in my paper that the time resolution limitations meant that decadal details could not be resolved wth my results. There is no sense in which this is “invalid” it just means that fine temporal scales will be screened out. Some of the data used in any case represent a time window rather than a particular year. If the goal is to use non-tree ring proxies, there are none that are annual, so Mann’s requirement can’t be met.

Mann ends by praising me for a more rigorous approach than many contrarians, but this is an insulting comparison because he is essentially saying that for a shill I did a better than usual job. Furthermore, I don’t accept that my work “didn’t stand up to the scrutiny” because it was never, to my knowledge, addressed in subsequent literature. Of 32 citations in Scholar Google, 5 are in other languages and only one, that of Swanson, attempts to criticize my paper (a criticism to which I replied adequately, I believe) Just because the “Team” didn’t like it in private does not mean it did not stand up to scrutiny (remembering the Team admonition that only published peer-reviewed work counts). I repeat that I do not believe that my reconstruction is “right”, only that it shows that non-tree ring records give a different result than tree ring records. There are many problems with the various proxies, including dating error, calibration issues, data continuity, data time resolution, measurement error, local geology changes over time, etc, but the problems are in many cases more subject to resolution than for tree rings which face, I believe, insurmountable problems (e.g., see the new paper Brienen, RJW, E Gloor, & PA Zuidema. 2012. Detecting evidence for CO2 fertilization from tree ring studies: The potential for sampling biases. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 26 GB1025).

The last sentence is a dig at those who criticize from blogs and don’t make their own reconstructions (guess who he means!). While I am sure SM can defend himself, I would note that someone who points out that a perpetual motion machine is impossible is not obliged to build one, nor is any critic obliged to engage in an activity that they view as ill-conceived or incorrect. Mann exhibits a misunderstanding of the nature of science. If something is wrong it is wrong.

In summary, Mann’s setup for discussing my work is borderline libel, as it implies many things about me that are false and detrimental to my reputation. It is unacceptable to portray those who disagree with you scientifically as evil and politically motivated. Science is full to the brim with disagreements about everything, from which treatment is best for coronary blockage to whether frequentist or Bayesian methods are best. By Mann’s logic, we should all be using slanderous language to refer to anyone who disagrees with us. I don’t think so. There are also multiple objectively false statements in the section discussing my work.

Mann’s section on Loehle starting page 187:

The Hockey Fight Continues

 

The gaze of the Hydra remained largely focused, however, on the denialists’ bete noir, the hockey stick. Despite the fact that the NAS, the IPCC, and more than a dozen independent peer reviewed scientific studies had now not only reaffirmed the key conclusions of our work, but in fact extended them further back in time, the denialosphere was still fond of claiming that the hockey stick had been “totally discredited” or “broken.” Most of the attacks represented some version of the myth that the hockey stick was a statistical artifact, combined with a studied neglect of the numerous confirmatory independent studies. Some of the attacks were new, however.

In late 2007, the home journal of climate change denial, Energy and Environment, published a paper by Craig Loehle that purported to present a new two-thousand-year reconstruction of global temperature.39 By contrast with the hockey stick studies-and every other peer reviewed scientific article on the subject-Loehle claimed that medieval warm period temperatures were warmer than “20th century values.” Had the paper somehow identified key new sources of information or a more appropriate methodology to overrule the findings of all other recent studies?

The paper, in fact, suffered from serious problems that would presumably have been identified had it been submitted to a peer reviewed scientific journal and reviewed by individuals with the relevant paleoclimatological expertise.4o Loehle was evidently unaware of the dating convention in paleoclimatology that in “BP” (nominally, “before present”), “present” actually refers to the standard reference year ofA.D. 1950. By assuming that “BP” instead meant “relative to A.D. 2000,” Loehle erroneously shifted many of his records forward by fifty years, in essence portraying the warmth of the records in the mid-twentieth century as if it pertained to the end of the twentieth century. This error thus had the effect of erasing all of late-twentieth-century warming. Most paleoclimate reconstructions, including the original hockey stick, show peak peak medieval warmth to be comparable to that of the early and mid-twentieth century. It is only the late twentieth century that stands out as anomalous.

Among other problems, many of the sediment records Loehle used in his analysis had chronologies that were determined by just a few radiocarbon dates distributed over the past two thousand years. The dating in these records is consequently uncertain by as much as four hundred years or so, precluding their use in reconstructing centennial

timescale temperature variations.41 There were several records that Loehle wrongly assumed to reflect temperature but instead reflected some other quantity,42 and he inappropriately averaged records that had different temporal resolutions. Loehle did issue a correction that appears to have dealt with some of the most glaring problems, but the fundamental problem remained that his estimates were insufficient to allow for a meaningful comparison of past and present global temperatures.44 Yet even so, had he performed the critical step of statistical validation emphasized in all serious paleoclimate reconstruction studies, and had he published the work in an actual scientific peer reviewed journal, the paleoclimate community might not have so readily dismissed it.

Loehle’s approach was laudable by comparison with that of many of the contrarians. He did attempt to make a positive contribution, putting his own reconstruction out there to be scrutinized and criticized. While the reconstruction didn’t stand up to the scrutiny (and the venue for its publication was dubious), he made an attempt to contribute to the scientific discourse in a meaningful and constructive manner. This can be contrasted with many others who are more than happy to take potshots at peer reviewed studies from their blogs but are unwilling to produce a reconstruction themselves, or even to provide evidence that genuinely contradicts the current scientific consensus that recent warmth is anomalous.

About these ads

218 thoughts on “Scientist’s rebuttal of Michael Mann’s “denier”and other unsavory labels in his book

  1. This has always been Mann’s glaring weakness: the inability to distinguish between scientific debate and ideological war. The reason for that is simple: he’s more an ideological warrior than a genuine scientist. And always has been.

  2. Dr. Loehle,
    Did Mann send you a copy of his book or at least the chapter where he refers to you for comment prior to publishing?

    The ridiculous attack on your work is unwarranted.

  3. Did Mann make any comments to the papers in question during or after the review and publication process?

  4. That is the crux of the whole matter – It is not a scientific debate at all, just people lining up on one side or another of the political fence. I have no idea if “Global warming” is man-made or natural. I doubt anyone else does, and i doubt anyone ever will. Not because it is difficult science (it is) but because it is and forever will be science that is buried in an avalanche of horse pucky.

  5. The fact that you “deny” Mann is the most perfect scientist to walk the earth and worship his every pronouncement is your only problem, Dr. Loehle. So I wouldn’t worry about it too much–Mann goes after everybody that disagrees with him even in the slightest, and that’s beginning to be just about everybody.

    But I enjoyed your expose` of Mann’s nastiness–the more he’s outted, the less influence he has.

  6. Debating a scientific opinion is good science. I am continually amazed at how the “warmist” side equates that to a personal attack, but they always personally attack the author of the oposing view without debating the science. And they feel that’s ok. If they can’t defend their view with some facts; then they have [obviously] lost the debate before it even started. And then they wonder why people like me are now part of the growing numbers of “sceptics”. A little intelligence can go a long way.

    Sorry Dr. Mann, but your unprofessional attitude towards debate tells me you know you can’t win, so you just avoid it just like all the rest of your companions. You’re a sad soul…

  7. A “climate science” rebuttal requires lots on name calling and finger pointing. Reason and logic have little place in the new scientific method which aims purely at the mainstream media.
    “Mann exhibits a misunderstanding of the nature of science”, is simply not enough.

  8. What a tremendous response to Mann’s “critique”. Well done Craig, and I can imagine just how angry you must be to be talked down to by an obviously and opinionated, and often ignorant, person whose claim to fame rests on the most dubious of paper that I have seen.

    I hope that he will get the message and learn a lesson that should remove a source of mis-information and bias that has bedevilled climate science for over ten years.

    Well written again!

    Robin

  9. My compliments Craig for thorough work well done.
    It is refreshing to hear from a true scientist who upholds the scientific method rather than those using illogical rhetorical accusations and who undermine the foundations of science.

  10. Thanks Craig (and Anthony). We must wonder how many others with thinner skins have been put off criticising Mann and the Hockey Stick because of his litigious, bullying and intemperate nature and the power that he and his colleagues seem to wield in climate science.

    It is baffling – or instructive – that not one person in the CAGW camp (as opposed to lukewarmers) have come out and publically slammed Mann and his work. There were doubts expressed by many in the Climategate mails, but no-one has said “really shoddy piece of work – we should forget it and move on”.

    Until that happens Mann will remain the #1 recruiting sargeant for the sceptics, who are bound to wonder whether the Team are hiding much more than ‘the decline’, and trying to divert attention from it by accusing everyone with the slightest doubts of being a corporate stooge.

    People should always remember – alarmists get dollars; sceptics only get quatloos.

  11. Mann lives in a very simple world; you either agree with him or are against him, and it makes no difference if it’s over a scientific point. If, in his opinion, you’re against him, it follows therefore that you’re a denialist in the employment of Big Oil.

    Pointman

  12. I await ( real / serious / intelligent ) questions for Dr. Loehle from monty, r.gates, mattb, j brookes, and host of others…

    And I retire in 13 years. Which will happen first?

  13. All this talk about temperatures gives me a headache. Can somebody please ask these blokes what allowance they make for SURFACE TENSION when they are calculating where heat goes and what it does. As far as I can make out, heating water from above is not as straight forward as we might think. So the simple question is “do you allow for surface tension when making climate calculations”.

  14. theduke

    Mann found that it was much more profitable both monetarily and ego wise to be an ideological warrior than a mediocre scientist.

  15. I think you are being too kind by far theduke.

    I believe Mann to be a bear of relatively little brain but a very large ego.

    In fact i would suggest his true scientific ability is in direct but inverse proportion to the size of his ego given the whining and whinging and personal attacks we see from him whenever his work comes under the usual scientific scrutiny.

  16. “When I was pulling data together for my paper, many authors did not respond to requests for their data, and one refused. Many interesting papers had not archived their data.”

    Perhaps there should be a convention on this, something like a paragraph late in the paper to the effect that (say): “The authors of the following papers (list) were contacted with a view to assessing the data used in these papers, which seem relevant to our enquiry. Unfortunately, no data were available, an absence which in our view casts some doubt on the claims of those papers.”

    Name and shame. If Dr. X can’t (or won’t) show us the observations which (he says) back up his claims, what reason have we, or anyone, to believe a word he says?

    As for the Mann, contumely is the word you want. There’s a lot of it about, sadly.

  17. Michael Mann: “How much lying/libel/deceit will Telegraph allow before “Patron Saint of Charlatans” Chris Booker canned?”

    Pot, meet kettle.

  18. Since you quoted “Mann’s section on Loehle ” verbatim, I am wondering whether you will now be accused (by the usual suspects) of plagiarism.

    (rhetorical question only)

  19. Mann does seem to have difficulty in deciding whether he, himself, is a scientist or a propogandist.
    But as I’ve noticed in academia, power and knowledge tend to become confused. With those in positions of power and influence somehow being seen as more intelligent than those without, when very often the opposite is true. Really intelligent academics search for knowledge and understanding, whereas their academically average managers tend to chase power and position. Eventually, this problem in academia will need to be addressed as too many cliques of these power mad but only average academics are skewing the direction of research and funding. Something, in my view, which is not to the benefit of the rest of society.
    An example of this is the millions wasted on AGW climate change research which would have been better spent on environmental research such as sustainable agriculture in Africa.

  20. The Team has no effective answer to your points, except in their own minds.

    Craig, as an aside, since you are in the forestry business, do you know that the Harney County Hospital in Burns, Oregon is heated by burning wood pellets? That would be a useful disposition of Mann’s tree rings. :)

  21. Mann is like all those dazzled by the limelight, in that he wishes to remain so. His ego was pumped to the max by being the darling of the IPCC, and I’m not so sure he understood what all the fuss was about. He found himself being fawned over, and began simply to believe his own hype. When the focus began to drift away from him, he grabbed for more. With everyone fawning over him, he lost sight of the mission: science. Now threatened by criticism, he does what any politician will do, scathe and smear. But his method is out of synch with reality, and it shows. He cannot distinguish between friend and foe. And he comes across as a spoiled adolescent whose toys and candy have been confiscated and replaced with the admonition to take responsibility for his weaknesses. His refusal to do so and the public display of sneering, smug indignation are nothing short of astounding. He has derailed, and while still enjoying some support from gleicking factions around town, he must know that the jig is up, and so damn the torpedoes. The calm, deliberate scientist which may have once resided in his psychology, is no longer with us.

  22. If Mann were really confident that his views are correct and backed by “good” science then he wouldn’t find it necessary to spend so much time defending them. “Methinks he doth protest too much!”

  23. Hi Craig
    Just for the record, in my understanding BP is always used to refer to ‘before 1950′ as it refers to radiocarbon dates. I would take issue with the Soon and Baliunas paper. As you are aware, they used any climatic departure (changes in temperature, precipitation) over 50 years within a very broad time period, and if they found it at a site (which they invariably did), they would then view this as a signal for the LIA or the MWP (MCE). This seems to me to be a very poor methodology which would normally invalidate this study. Also we shouldn’t really talk about the LIA at all since, globally, periods of LIAs (plural) have occurred hundreds of years apart almost in the same region. The idea of a globally coherent LIA and MCE is not really credible…..which is why the Mann hockey shaft is flattish.

    Of course, if the MCE or LIA WERE global then this would imply higher (rather than lower) sensitivity which wouldn’t help the skeptic cause at all!

  24. “. . .combining time series with measurement error or especially dating error will flatten out peaks like the MWP and troughs like the LIA. This means that comparing the MWP peak temperature, which is likely smeared (damped) to recent annual temperatures will show recent temps warmer simply due to data resolution (the warmest years are not averaged out in the recent data). It is an apples and oranges comparison. ”

    Yes, exactly!

  25. It is unacceptable to portray those who disagree with you scientifically as evil and politically motivated. Science is full to the brim with disagreements about everything, from which treatment is best for coronary blockage to whether frequentist or Bayesian methods are best. By Mann’s logic, we should all be using slanderous language to refer to anyone who disagrees with us. I don’t think so.

    About time a published scientist pointed this out, loud and clear. Disagreements can be passionate and heated but Mann’s form of slander intends to bury science itself.

  26. If Mann was really confident that his views were correct he wouldn’t spend most of his time designating those who disagree with him. “Methinks he doth protest too much!”

  27. Whats the old quote “I determine who is a denier” Mann

    Tough luck Craig Loehle but don’t worry I’m sure your banishment and cell will be as equal as every others deniers…

  28. I’m not sure why Mann thinks and acts the way he does, but it is clear that he believes he has won some great battle.

    Its all rather sad, isn’t it?

  29. I think that the graph of temperature differences between the present and MWP prepared by Idso is likely to be misleading. Mann’s and Loehle’s papers were estimates of global or northern hemispherical average temperatures. Idso’s graph takes studies that are at different specific locations and does a scatter plot of results, with no attempt to do a valid Northern Hemisphere or global average. Only one of the studies looked at a Northern Hemisphere average temperature, a paper by Moberg. There were about 36 studies which looked at Europe which was the most heavily represented region, but is much smaller than North America or Asia.

    I don’t think this is a valid comparison to the papers that estimated Northern Hemisphere or global temperatures in a systematic fashion, probably using many of the same individual proxies that were plotted on Idso’s chart.

  30. Ah, the outrage, what fun.

    > http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/quantitative.php

    I looked at the figure, but it doesn’t provide sources that I can see. On the face of it, it looks implausible: are there really 5 sources claiming the MWP was ?globally? > 3 oC warmer than “peak Current Warm Period temperatures”? Although as far as I can see they don’t define “peak Current Warm Period temperatures” either. Perhaps you can enlighten us?

  31. Mann’s behavior strongly reminds me of some of the behaviors typically exhibited by people with Borderline and Narcissistic personality disorders:

    1) He exaggerates his accomplishments
    2) He is convinced that people who disagree with him are out to get him
    3) He is convinced that people who aren’t 100% in agreement with him are enemies.
    4) He bullies people who look like they are going to act in ways that challenges his world view.

  32. “In late 2007, the home journal of climate change denial, Energy and Environment, published a paper by Craig Loehle…”

    I love the irony in Mann’s words. Mann’s reconstruction basically denied climate change until the 20th century. Loehle’s paper revealed much more climate change over the last 1,000 years than Mann’s, yet Mann accuses Energy and Environment, and Loehle of being the climate change deniers.

    In psychological terms, this is called transference; when one transfers there own issues to others to confuse the issue and draw attention away from their pathology. It is a hallmark of many personality disorders.

  33. “A nasty piece of work,” as they used to say.

    Someone should include a link to this thread in their reviews of, and/or comments on, Mann’s book on Amazon.

  34. Dr. Loehle:
    Excellent rebuttal! Civil discourse, good english and excellent understandable sentences. Point by point destruction of some zealots fanatic tell fables book. Excellent references and thoughtful analysis of previous work. As all good scientific work, your intellectual science thought is built upon previous science and knowledge; correcting or expanding where you have insights.

    A rather stark comparison to some of the ill bred trolls in other threads recently.

    Thank you!

  35. “Borderline libel.”

    I wish you’d sue the man. There’s no better way to get the truth out.

  36. One wonders, given the numerous first person refutations of Dr. Mann’s account whether it gives him a moment of pause to consider his own perceptions.

    Ocham’s Razor question for Dr. Mann. What’s more likely, that a certain person, regarded as thin skinned by his *friends* has taken umbrage at those who disagree with him and allowed his emotion to color his perception, *or* that every single person who disagrees with him is either lying in some coordinated way, or share collectively the same delusion? (sadly, I’m afraid their are some that would give the paranoid’s answer to that question)

    For the rest of us — “falsus in uno, falsus in ominbus” criteria has clearly been met to simply disregard Dr. Mann en toto, and deeply question the judgement (or honestly) of anyone who agrees with or defends him.

  37. Dear Dr. Craig,

    Please excuse my schadenfreude. I am an evil post-modernist denialist from the denialosphere. I fail to see ANY global warming over the last 15 years, and therefore laugh at your “40% of recent warming due to human activity.” Forty precent of zero is zero. Your attribution is spurious. Your science sucks.

    But what really amuses me is how offended you are by Mann’s characterization of you, a person of stature in the alarmosphere, with someone like me, one of the baser Hydra heads. Oh to be painted with that brush! How indelicate!

    Your frat bonged you. Your pals heaved you into the gutter with the likes of me. The shame of it! Not to mention the threat of funding troubles! Who wants to pay the big bucks for your studies now?

    I hear you. You are not one of Hydra heads. Hello Al Gore, please don’t kick Dr. Craig off the gravy train.

    Humph. Get a life, dude.

    PS to Don B — There’s a difference between tree ring research and the forestry business. Don’t confuse dilettante dalliers with the folks who make the economy work.

  38. Craig, there’s a good review by someone called shortbloke538 on Amazon. You get plenty of airtime in the more recent review comments. shortbloke538 seems to understand what you were trying to do. Go to http://www.amazon.com/The-Hockey-Stick-Climate-Wars/dp/023115254X and click on “See all 136xx customer reviews. You’ll find shortbloke538’s review there (called “I didn’t throw it out of the window …. but it came close”). I particularly like this line in response to a Mann supporter: “If you can dismantle Loehle’s paper, then it should be trivial for you to do the same to Mann’s Hockey Stick due to its significantly greater number of fatal problems.” Not that your paper had any fatal problems, of course :-)

  39. Craig,

    If you ever get back to the PNW, I’d like to invite you out to see students doing science in the forest. I’ve worked with 3rd and 4th grade students who are better at science than Dr Mann.

    Anthony,

    How would I get my contact information or that of the educational non-profit I work with to Dr Loehle?

  40. The Publisher had best start pulling the book off the shelves or they get caught up in an legals.

    I hope a copy of this officially sent to them – I am sure they know about from Mikey!

  41. When I was a kid I was taught a simple lesson when someone bullies you stand up to them as most bullies are cowards. Mann is an intellectual bully and intellectual coward.

    I think Sir you have just stood up to an intellectual bully?

  42. ” I am continually amazed at how the “warmist” side equates that to a personal attack, but they always personally attack the author of the oposing view without debating the science”

    From another thread on this site

    “Please, Mr. Mann provide us with some more laughter, it seems all you are good for. Your skill in science is non-existent.

    What a pathetic, narcissistic little man”

    “Aaargghh!! What happened to his head!!”

    “Bless its pointy little head.”

    “Mann’s pointy head fits the dunce cap well…”

    Hmmm, yes it’s really amazing how only the warmist side resorts to personal attack.

  43. Fascinating, but not unexpected, that Mann cites not a single, specific, verifiable case in his serial allegations of Loehle’s scientific “misdeeds”. Gee, you’d think if Craig’s data and methods were so obviously flawed, Mann could at least point to one particular item (beyond the zero-date convention thingy). Every allegation made without specifics is just another “unfalsifiable hypothesis”, which is the hallmark of Mann

    Regarding temperatures in the MWP, apparently Mann never read Hubert Lamb or any glaciological/geological literature

    Sad, pathetic, despicable

  44. CG 2, not to be forgotten:
    #1593 is a gem. In it Mike and Keith express several concerns. And Mike tells us who the consensus is:
    “My guess is that anything that the 4 of us [Mike, Keith, Tim and Phil] all can find consensus on, is probably a good reflection of what the consensus is within the leaders in this field, …”

  45. Dr. Mann has every right and reason to write what he has, i.e. say what he said. We have every right not to bother reading it and certinately not buying it. We have another right one I suspect is even more effective, that is labeing it as trash and saying no more about it. The less publicity he is give the more effective ignoring him will be.

  46. “Climate wars”? “Dispatches from the front line”?

    Dearie me, what sort of make-believe world does this Mann inhabit?

    I too remember being a soldier, and battling dangerous foes. But I grew out of those games when I was 10.

    And we are meant to take the words of this make-believe soldier as the voice or reason? Apparantly so. God help us!

  47. Apparently, the Mann emails will show his reprehensible and unscientific behavior. He has decided he has to get back to UVA, so that the university and he are one. The university then takes to defending one of its own, and will never release the emails.

  48. Why is anyone surprised about the lack of civility in science? In the astronomy world, there was Wilhem Luyten who’s obit (http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=wluyten.html) points out

    “Luyten had a talent for alliterative broadsides in his publications. Some of his feistiest papers bore such titles and references to colleagues as “The Messiahs of the Missing Mass,” “More Bedtime Stories from Lick,” and “The Weistrop Watergate.” They made for very amusing reading, but they were too disrespectful and too full of negative allusions to his colleagues and their work to be at all times in the best interest of science”

    or how about Newton and Leibniz?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%E2%80%93Newton_calculus_controversy

  49. “Does the UVA really want to hire someone, in a chaired professorship no less, who frequently resorts to “borderline libel” and arguably crosses the line repeatedly?”
    yes. the universities are where they breed and thrive. did you think they were spontaneously generated ex vacuo?

  50. wmconnolley says:
    April 17, 2012 at 9:33 am
    Ah, the outrage, what fun.

    Yo, stunt, errr, stoat: how many articles in wiki about the MWP and / or the LIA, did you fraudulently alter to push the unproven ‘theory’ of AGW?

    Be honest, now.

    IF you can.

  51. wmconnolley says:
    April 17, 2012 at 9:33 am
    Ah, the outrage, what fun.

    Yo, stunt, errr, stoat! Please tell us how many wiki articles you fraudulently altered, on the MWP and LIA?

    Be honest now.
    IF you can.

    (2nd attempt, if the mods find two of these, please delete one!)
    (not that I expect stunt to answer truthfully anyway….)

  52. Science would never advance if skeptics were muzzled. That in effect is what the Team and Mann are attempting to do.

  53. To answer a few questions, Mann did not send his book or these pages to me to review.
    Dubrasich: I’m not on the gravy train–otherwise not clear on your points.
    Monty: BP indeed by convention means before 1950 but as I mentioned was not the only convention I encountered, and it was not necessarily specified in archive files. For data going past 1950 you end up with negative dates for recent years. Also, your assumption that cold LIA and warm MWP mean higher sensitivity are not necessarily so–it could mean solar activity was more variable than we thought.
    Re: Idso’s work: if most sites show a MWP warmer than 20th century, it stands to reason that a reconstruction would also IF there were enough time data to do one–but most of Idso’s refs had only a few dates, not continuous data.

  54. wmconnolley says:
    April 17, 2012 at 9:33 am
    Ah, the outrage, what fun.

    > http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/quantitative.php

    I looked at the figure, but it doesn’t provide sources that I can see. On the face of it, it looks implausible: are there really 5 sources claiming the MWP was ?globally? > 3 oC warmer than “peak Current Warm Period temperatures”? Although as far as I can see they don’t define “peak Current Warm Period temperatures” either. Perhaps you can enlighten us?

    Well Bill, it seems fairly obvious that your skills at navigating websites are somewhat deficient, so I’ll help you out. This page is accessible with a couple clicks from that graph you’re having trouble understanding

    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

  55. Was Mann’s book peer-reviewed, or will Mann ignore Mann’s book because it was not peer-reviewed?

  56. Craig wrote: “your assumption that cold LIA and warm MWP mean higher sensitivity are not necessarily so–it could mean solar activity was more variable than we thought”. Yes, that’s true (indeed it could be true of any underestimated forcings), but taken with geological estimates of sensitivity (eg Lunt and others). estimates from the LGM and models, Occam’s Razor would suggest that a variable paleorecord implies higher sensitivities rather than lower.

  57. @tarran says: April 17, 2012 at 9:34 am

    Spot on. My personal tanglings with such would have me add another condition associated with this behaviour.

    5. When challenge, they go bonkers.

  58. Very well done and well presented, Craig. My congratulations on not falling it the trap I am partial to, of letting my passions and my tremendous sense of outrage sway my writing.

    Your writing is clean, clear, and professional … or in other words, as un-Mannian as possible. An excellent job.

    w.

  59. S Basinger says:
    You should sue him.

    Indeed, I would very much like to see Mann be sued en masse by all the people he rails against. Make him have to defend his remarks. Yes, I know damages are required – so find some. Even $1 in damages is sufficient to bring suit.

    Otherwise, this is all just a bunch of talk – yet again.

  60. Monty: more importantly, if it was warm at the MWP and even warmer 6000 yrs ago, we are not near any sort of castrophe.

  61. Monty says:
    April 17, 2012 at 11:53 am

    I’m leaning towards believing you’re a bit of a dunce.

    Monty says:
    April 17, 2012 at 9:06 am

    Of course, if the MCE or LIA WERE global then this would imply higher (rather than lower) sensitivity which wouldn’t help the skeptic cause at all!

    There is no ‘skeptic cause’. Projection?

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

    You imply that CO2 is the sole cause of temperature change on earth.

    You appear to lack imagination.

  62. Hi Craig
    Two things: as I have indicated, there is precious little evidence that the “MWP” was global, and how confident are you that GLOBAL temperatures 6000 years ago were higher than now (given that you don’t even accept MBH’s much more recent paleorecord)?

    Second, the point now is that the forcings will continue to rise inexorably (unless the sun dims spectacularly or something)…is this analagous to the “MWP”? No.

    Agfoserj: I know that people use the LIA all over the place to describe late Holocene glacier maxima….but it doesn’t mean that these maxima were chronologically coincident!

  63. Monty: This isn’t the place to figure out climate sensitivity or the whole science of the MWP–do you approve of Mann’s logic and approach in his dealings with me?

  64. It is just possible Mann’s mother still thinks he is a decent honest guy.

    Anyone else?

    There are obviously a few Mann fans writing here today, so perhaps you could put your hands up to be counted as true disciples of bad manipulated science.

  65. Hi Craig. Actually, no I don’t agree with his approach.

    But I do feel that many of the ‘skeptic’ community are not interested in science at all and are motivated more by ideology and politics (I don’t include you in this). Earlier, in another thread I had someone say that they didn’t believe C02 was a GHG and there was no attempt by Anthony Watts or any of the other posters to criticize this (he was supported in fact). This doesn’t seem to be sensible skepticism to me.

    I guess that Mike Mann is feeling pretty defensive….this is not to necessarily defend all is actions or emails, by the way!

  66. The most reliable sources I have seen, such as government publications of the 1970s-early-1990s prior to the most politicized era of climate science (and indirectly some after it), suggest the Medieval Warm Period was global to roughly around at least as much as the current Modern Warm Period is global.

    Current “global warming” is actually rather little outside of the upper northern hemisphere and Arctic. For instance, the following satellite graph shows the tropics only had on the order of 0.1 degrees Celsius (or less) total meaningful average temperature rise over the past 33 years (1979-2012):

    Both now and then have had the greatest temperature rise in the upper Northern Hemisphere. There are even studies showing past periods like the Holocene Climate Optimum had greater biomass of vegetation there (warmer) than is the case now.

  67. Craig Loehle, I noticed now your recent comment about this not being the best place to get into a discussion of climate sensitivity. And indeed that is true.

    Unfortunately I had just already finished writing the following, all ready to post, so, if you will excuse me, I will post it anyway, although of course you are not obligated to reply. I just thought the link might be of interest.

    Craig Loethle wrote:
    Also, your assumption that cold LIA and warm MWP mean higher sensitivity are not necessarily so–it could mean solar activity was more variable than we thought.

    It could also fit with the cosmic ray theory with all solar-related effects combined amounting to multiple times the direct effect of slight irradiance changes alone. The following argues for increased consistency in climate sensitivity estimates for different time periods then:

    http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity

    You’re probably already familiar with how CAGW-convenient revisionism can occur, given the contrast between your temperature reconstruction for the MWP and that of the (inaccurate) hockey stick. You may have also possibly seen discussion like:

    One may note even solar reconstructions appear to have undergone revisionism. Those done before global warming politics intensified (before Mann in the late 1990s demonstrated how lavishly CAGW-supporting inaccuracy can be rewarded) better matched the history of the LIA and MWP. If one excuses a couple of typos (Beer et al. 1994 meant, not 1997) and a fast overlay of graphs without better scaling or position matching, I did a real quick illustration in a discussion with someone else, using your temperature reconstruction data compared to an old Be-10 cosmic ray flux reconstruction of the past 6 centuries:

    Sources are given in my comment near the end of the comment section for this article:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

    As illustrated, there is good agreement with the old Be-10 reconstruction while there is not with a recent politicized-era sunspot number reconstruction, although Be-10 as a cosmogenic isotope is more directly, exactly relevant than even sunspot numbers under the cosmic ray theory.

  68. The last sentence in my comment above should have ended rather as:

    “although Be-10 as a cosmogenic isotope is more directly, exactly relevant than even sunspot numbers under the cosmic ray theory anyway.”

    I’m particularly noticing that in recent years, where cosmic ray trends diverge from sunspot number trends if one looks closely. They are related but far from truly identical.

  69. Craig, there are certain individuals here just, to divert the discussion of your reasoned statement with reference to Mann’s remarks about you. I suggest you’ve given them enough of your time.

    With regard to Mann, he should have the common decency to reply to the points raised in your article or failing that, issue a retraction of his original remarks. I can confidently predict he’ll do neither, in any substantial sense.

    Pointman

  70. Monty, maybe the problem is you guys (including Mann) are trying too hard. Again, the latest Gallup poll has Global Warming dead last among things Americans worry about. You’re slacking.

    Could it be you scientists aren’t talking shorthand?

    Could it be you scientists are too busy dodging FOIA requests to do the science right?

    Could it be you scientists are so busy writing each other emails that you can’t site temperature gauges properly?

    Could it be you’ve hired too many lawyers to protect yourselves from snoopy investigators and attorney generals?

    Could it be you harp on “skeptics” that don’t believe CO2 is a GHG when those few are the true anomalous opinions?

    It could be. It ALL could be.

    So step up your game; spine up; clean house; the Earth’s future is in your hands.

  71. > Dave Wendt says: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

    Doesn’t answer the questions, perhaps you could do so directly?

    (1) what is the defintion of the “peak Current Warm Period temperatures”?
    (2) are there really 5 sources claiming the MWP was ?globally? > 3 oC warmer than “peak Current Warm Period temperatures”, and if so what exactly are these sources?

    > Craig Loehle says: Re: Idso’s work: if most sites show a MWP warmer than 20th century, it stands to reason that a reconstruction would also

    Was that supposed to be an answer to my question? It isn’t, obviously.

    > Craig Loehle says: if it was warm at the MWP and even warmer 6000 yrs ago, we are not near any sort of castrophe [sic].

    A big “if”. You need evidence, if you’re going to rely on either.

  72. Monty: Some skeptics, like me, don’t believe in imminent doom and are suspicious that ‘climate change’ is simply a vehicle to chase grant money (and perhaps to pursue other goals). If climate science were to dissociate itself from politics and advocacy a lot of skeptics would perhaps concentrate more on the science.

  73. Monty says:
    April 17, 2012 at 1:51 pm

    “in another thread I had someone say that they didn’t believe C02 was a GHG and there was no attempt by Anthony Watts or any of the other posters to criticize this”

    there are some “Skydragon” (i.e. “CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas”) folks here, but apparently you’ve failed to note the several guest posts here (from Roy Spencer among others) that have thrashed that nonsense over time. (and yes there usually erupts a post war).

    No one can criticize every thing…. http://xkcd.com/386/ “Someone on the internet… is wrong!”

  74. It is an irony that within ‘the Team’ despite there massive dependance on ‘magic ‘ trees ,none of them as expertise and good qualifications in the area of plant Biology which would seem to be quite ‘useful’

    Monty there is considerable more wide spread evidenced of MWP than there is of the rubbish ‘the Team’ claims some of which is based on ONE TREE , oddly that is of no concern to those that support ‘the cause ‘ How damned perfect and absolute data to prove MWP, but will accept any old rubbish to disprove it .
    And the funny part is , that the existence of a MWP was the scientific consensus before Mann and the IPCC’s need to get rid of it. And ‘consensus’ is a concept which are supposed too blindly and wholeheartedly support and never challenge, but only it would seem when its done in the name of ‘the cause’

  75. @Monte,

    Earlier, in another thread I had someone say that they didn’t believe C02 was a GHG and there was no attempt by Anthony Watts or any of the other posters to criticize this (he was supported in fact).

    The only thing you have accomplished is to permanently tarnish your own credibility.

  76. Monty says:
    April 17, 2012 at 1:18 pm
    …Agfoserj: I know that people use the LIA all over the place to describe late Holocene glacier maxima….but it doesn’t mean that these maxima were chronologically coincident!
    =========================================================================
    But the rough outlines of the LIA are sufficiently congruent the world over that scientists don’t bother with regional or hemispherical definitions: it was a global phenomenon, vaguely defined. And the MWP will probably prove to be the same–it just reveals itself by different aspects in different places, sort of like “climate change.” –AGF

  77. Monty,

    I for one will admit that politics is a key factor in my interest in the climate debate. The reason being that most of what I have issue with has to do with political & economic policy decisions that are supposedly based on well proven scientific positions.

    From what I can determine, the well proven aspects pretty much can be summarized as follows:

    Is CO2 a GHG – yes

    Is CO2 concentration increasing – yes

    Is the increase primarily due to human activities – yes

    Is the climate warming – yes

    Beyond that there is a whole lot more we don’t know than what we do. And with such a large amount of uncertainty, I am extremely leary of proposed actions which are likely to result in limits to growth, increased cost and greater intrusion into people’s lives by government, while offering little in terms of improving the problem.

    Should the US and Western Europe eliminate all fossil fuel related CO2 emissions tomorrow, nothing would change with regard to the climate. So yeah, it is definitely political for me when I insist on seeing proof that a changing climate, whether human induced or natural, is something that needs to be a primary concern of my government and society.

  78. Craig,

    I found your response to Mann’s treatment of you in his book to be well mannered and even tempered. Your straight forward approach opened the possibility of decent dialog with large segments of readers on open science blogs like WUWT. Thanks for your post.

    You said,

    ” [ . . . ] While I am sure SM can defend himself [from Mann], I would note that someone who points out that a perpetual motion machine is impossible is not obliged to build one, nor is any critic obliged to engage in an activity that they view as ill-conceived or incorrect. Mann exhibits a misunderstanding of the nature of science. If something is wrong it is wrong.”

    Craig, keep up your consistently calm and reasonable approach. I am sure it infuriates the activist cum nihilist that apparently Mann is.

    John

  79. Reading Mann’s comments on Loehle’s paper . confirms a belief I have had for a long time . That when he falls we will be surprised to see ‘who’ lines up to kick him on the way down , although probable not surprised to see how many do. Given Mann’s combative approach too all , even those on the ‘Team’ , coupled with ego so big you could fit a small universe in it and still need to travel at the speed of light for many years to reach its edge.
    And remain convinced that like Hensen , he is actual a asset to AGW skeptics as long has he stays in the public eye .

  80. Millions of words! The bottom line is that a good scientist always, but always, is keen to reveal / publish the details and logic of their work so that it can be criticised. That’s Science 101 which Mann clearly failed. There can only be one reason for not doing so and for the university to defend such secrecy is mind-numbing. Pull their funding till they pass the exam.

  81. Monty:

    I would welcome an explanation of a comment you made at April 17, 2012 at 1:19 pm in response to the post of ‘Billy Liar’ at April 17, 2012 at 1:07 pm.

    Billy Liar said in total;
    “Monty says:
    April 17, 2012 at 11:53 am
    I’m leaning towards believing you’re a bit of a dunce.

    Monty says:
    April 17, 2012 at 9:06 am
    “Of course, if the MCE or LIA WERE global then this would imply higher (rather than lower) sensitivity which wouldn’t help the skeptic cause at all!”

    There is no ‘skeptic cause’. Projection?

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

    You imply that CO2 is the sole cause of temperature change on earth.
    You appear to lack imagination.”

    Your response, in total, says;

    “Billy Liar: you’re out of your depth.”

    OK, I think all reasonable people would agree that his response to your comment at April 17, 2012 at 11:53 am is a personal denigration of you that – in the absence of explanation – is merely an ad hominem which should be decried.

    However, your response to his two valid points concerning your post at April 17, 2012 at 9:06 am would seem to demonstrate that he is right to be “leaning towards believing you’re a bit of a dunce”. This is because only those who have no answer to points reply with an ad hominem such as “you’re out of your depth.”

    Perhaps you would care to answer his two valid points because your failure to do that implies that you are (n.b. not he is) “out of your depth”.

    Richard

  82. Dear Craig,

    I don’t know how I could be more clear, but let me try. You are a lukewarmer. You are a modeler. Your model attributes >40% of 20th Century global warming to human causes. Your model predicts more warming from human causes in the 21st Century.

    How is that different from Michael Mann’s POV, other than quibbling over model details (proxies) and the magnitude of the alleged human effect?

    You are quick to assert (1st paragraph) that you are not to be “lumped in with politically motivated and evil “deniers” and “denialists”. I find these terms and the entire context for discussing my work offensive. I am not a “denialist”… “

    I agree. You are not a “denialist”, you do not deny AGW, in fact your model affirms human-caused global warming.

    But not so much as Mann et al.

    My point, in case it escaped you, is that there has been no global warming for more than a decade. In fact the globe has cooled since 1998 according to the best satellite monitoring. No warming. Ergo, no human-caused warming, not 40%, not 5%, none. The globe is not warming. I deny global warming. You do not. Our twain does not meet.

    Your model is a fine model, it just does not comport with reality.

    I interpret your righteous indignation as personal offense at Michael Mann, who threw you under his bus. It doesn’t strike me as indignation at the crapastic AGW models, which have failed, and of which you constructed and published just such a failed model, and now you feel slighted by the other failed modelers.

    I refrained from detailing the manifest failures of NCASI in all their fields of study, because those are largely off-topic, but I am well aware of them, their deviation from good science and good forestry, and their worthlessness in addressing the important forest issues we face today.

    Hence my lack of sympathy. You seem to getting quite a bit of sympathy from others, however, so I suspect you don’t need mine.

    Mike

  83. Craig, we all know that Mann is a buffoon. Well done on keeping to the facts. If you decide to sue him, I would certainly toss some money in the kitty.

  84. Mike D: if you read my paper in Open Atmos Sci J. you would see that I attribute the lack of warming the past decade to natural cycles (as well as much of the warming from 1980 to 2000). If you want to say no warming since 1998 means no human effect fine, but I don’t think my views in any way put me in Mann’s camp (nor does he seem to think so). I flatly deny that even the median IPCC projection of 2 or so degrees by 2100 would be a disaster, based on my knowledge of ecosystems and forest growth responses.

  85. RE
    Monty says:
    @ April 17, 2012 at 1:19 pm
    Billy Liar: you’re out of your depth.

    RE
    Billy Liar says:
    @ April 17, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    There is no ‘skeptic cause’. Projection?

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

    You imply that CO2 is the sole cause of temperature change on earth.
    You appear to lack imagination.

    &
    Monty says:
    @ April 17, 2012 at 1:51 pm

    *But I do feel that many of the ‘skeptic’ community are not interested in science at all and are motivated more by ideology and politics (I don’t include you in this). Earlier, in another thread I had someone say that they didn’t believe C02 was a GHG and there was no attempt by Anthony Watts or any of the other posters to criticize this (he was supported in fact). This doesn’t seem to be sensible skepticism to me.
    ———–

    1. *Pot, meet kettle.

    2. Seems you have largely proved Billy Liar’s point: you use a comment (allegedly) made by one person to imply that this is also the position of many skeptics. ‘Projection’ was the correct term, after all. I doubt if Anthony considers it his role to be scientific watch dog and editor on WUWT…?

    I would hope that grown-up people can take responsibility for what they say and how they say it. Seems it is only in the Orwellian reality of the CAGW cult that individuals implicitly agree to transfer ownership of their opinions and thoughts to “the cause”. You’re preaching to the wrong audience matey.

    3. Your fatuous points regarding the historical existence of the MWP and LIA and the implication of their existence for global temperature “sensitivity” is indeed predicated on the increasingly discredited notion that CO2 is the main driver of temperature change on Earth. Once again Billy Liar is correct.

    4. Perhaps it is you who is out of his/her depth. I understand from previous comment that you are associated with Oxford University. I once had a strong connection to that institution. Would you say that you represent an intellectual ‘yard stick’ of Oxf univ in 2012?

  86. Not being a lawyer, except in a barrack room sense, is this not a case of slander or defamation? It seems to me that you should seek legal counsel and slap an injunction on him to stop him selling his book.

  87. Louise says:
    April 17, 2012 at 10:40 am

    ” I am continually amazed at how the “warmist” side equates that to a personal attack, but they always personally attack the author of the op[p]osing view without debating the science”

    From another thread on this site

    “Please, Mr. Mann provide us with some more laughter, it seems all you are good for. Your skill in science is non-existent.

    What a pathetic, narcissistic little man”

    “Aaargghh!! What happened to his head!!”

    “Bless its pointy little head.”

    “Mann’s pointy head fits the dunce cap well…”

    Hmmm, yes it’s really amazing how only the warmist side resorts to personal attack.

    I don’t approve of ad hominem but I think on Manns case we can make an exception.

    I’ve seen two interviews of this whinging, whining, wheedling, petulant little Mann child.

    In both cases he had no scientific case to bring, just indignance that someone had questioned his “science”! Isn’t that what he was supposed to have done before he submitted it and isn’t it also what is supposed to happen during and post peer review?

    Not in the Manns Worldview! He is invincible and correct because he he is a scientist and not onlt above reproach but above questioning!

    I think this is clear also in the UVa FOIA but that’s not really for me in EastPondia to comment on.

    DaveE.

  88. Reading Dr Loehle’s article I kept thinking about Mary McCarthy’s criticism of Lillian Hellman:

    “Every word she writes is a lie, including the ands, and the thes.”

    That would seem to apply to the mendacious Michael Mann. As I’ve often commented, if it were not for psychological projection, climate alarmists like Mann wouldn’t have much to say. In addition to Big Oil money, Mann has never satisfactorily explained why he was handed a grant payola of $1.8 million to study mosquito vectors. Wouldn’t someone who really wanted an answer have given the grant to a biologist, or an epidemiologist? Seems to me it was plainly morale-boosting loot following on the heels of Climategate #1. And where is that ‘study’, anyway? I can’t find it. I would sure like to see what $1.8 million buys [I suspect it buys a few cheap, overworked and underpaid postdoc slaves, who simply collate some studies from the internet, with a big profit margin, and put MM on it as lead author].

    [I will happily retract the above, if/when Mann fully discloses his data, methods, code, metadata and methodologies from MBH98/99 and Mann08 [Mann’s infamous Tiljander upside-down proxy debacle]. Mann falsely claims he has disclosed everything, but since Steve McIntyre disagrees, and since Mann is such a fibber, I’ll base any retraction on McIntyre’s opinion of Mann’s transparency, or lack thereof.]

    • Craig Loehle
      Goldie: suing is not worth the trouble, but thanks for the encouragement.

      So we keep hearing, and thus Mann & co. keep spewing their crap in the MSM, undeterred. Seems like NOBODY is willing to take a stand, even on principle.

      “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

  89. RE
    David A. Evans says:
    @ April 17, 2012 at 5:31 pm
    ——————–
    …and besides, many of those comments are based on observation: According to the photograph previously displayed, Mann demonstrably does have a pointy head. Bless it.

    In fact, it might be of value from a scientific perspective, to welcome the opinion of an appropriately qualified pyschiatrist… since, by any measure, it does appear to be exceedingly “pointy”.

    Might this help explain something of his personality traits?
    Could it possibly be a shared trait with other CAGW cultists? (being careful to avoid gratuitous projectionism, obviously).

    It does raise many questions… and to quote a favourite comedy line, “people want to know…”

  90. One thing I seem to remember from earlier readings from Steve McIntyres analysis of this mickie mann joker’s studies that didn’t seem to get the attention I would think it deserved. That is mann used a selection criteria for all his included series where that criteria was that the series show an increase at the most modern times included in the series (or apparently in some cases a decrease so that the proxy series could be inverted) and this is what lead to the shape of a hockey stick. If this is a correct description, then the hockey stick blade was merely the result of the selection criteria and the use of a randomized assortment without a systematic error or a real temperature signal in the earlier data and that left one with an average of random data – which results in a 0 or near 0 value average.
    Again, if this is the correct understanding of what was going on, mann’s efforts must have succeeded in removing what actual temperature signal that might have been present in the data to begin with.
    My condolences to Craig for being subjected to the likes of mann and his fellow travelers.

  91. Dear Craig,

    I have read your paper. I also read the entire discussion of it at WUWT.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-calculate-0-66%C2%B0ccentury-for-agw/

    I don’t retract my assessment. Your model is based on limited factors, questionable data, with unspecified uncertainty, and purports to “decompose” and quantify (to a nut) the anthropogenic forcing contribution (40% as you state in your post above).

    I’m sorry, but I don’t put any credence in such models. Maybe it’s a better predictor than Mann’s Hockey Stock model — time will tell. But it’s more of the same IMHO. I don’t rely on climate models, even if the model is “moderate” in it’s prediction. The problems with models are problems with all of them.

    You say, “I flatly deny that even the median IPCC projection of 2 or so degrees by 2100 would be a disaster, based on my knowledge of ecosystems and forest growth responses.”.

    Welcome to the denialosphere. But some us go a little further than that, and contend that global warming of 2°C by 2100 would be a boon to forests. A Good Thing. Warmer Is Better.

    I am a practicing professional forester, a private consultant as well as a forestland owner, with 38 years in the field. I think managing forests for carbon is a terrible idea, but I guess it pays the rent at NCASI.

    http://www.ncasi.org/programs/areas/forestry/sfew/climate_change.aspx

    How do we flush that garbage out the profession?

    Mike

  92. It is baffling – or instructive – that not one person in the CAGW camp (as opposed to lukewarmers) have come out and publically slammed Mann and his work. There were doubts expressed by many in the Climategate mails, but no-one has said “really shoddy piece of work – we should forget it and move on”.

    They can’t move on. They’ve hitched their wagons to the hockey stick concept, that todays temperatures are unprecedented in every way imaginable. If you throw out all invalid iterations of the HS, then you have nothing. NOTHING.

  93. Mann’s logic is simple. If you come up with anything that does not support him, you are after him. Paranoia reigns. Even the real world, reflected by real world data is out to get him—it’s a blatant attack by Mother Nature.

    “The results are in Dr. Mann: You ARE paranoid and they ARE out to get you.”—just as we should be after anybody who produces such erroneous material on which public policy is to be decided. Actually, we have a duty to do so.

  94. Mike Dubrasich says:
    April 17, 2012 at 7:21 pm

    […]
    Welcome to the denialosphere. But some us go a little further than that, and contend that global warming of 2°C by 2100 would be a boon to forests. A Good Thing. Warmer Is Better.

    And you can add additional atmospheric CO2 to those warmer temperatures, too, Mike. The whole biosphere welcomes higher CO2 levels–it’s like a breath of fresh air to the plant kingdom.

    Viva la CO2!

  95. wmconnolley says:
    April 17, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    > Craig Loehle says: if it was warm at the MWP and even warmer 6000 yrs ago, we are not near any sort of castrophe [sic].

    A big “if”. You need evidence, if you’re going to rely on either.

    Do you have any substantive evidence that neither are the case?

  96. Rocky Road,

    Willie Connolley is winging it, as usual. R.B. Alley is an expert on the Holocene. Willy can argue with him:

  97. Monty says:
    April 17, 2012 at 1:51 pm
    But I do feel that many of the ‘skeptic’ community are not interested in science at all and are motivated more by ideology and politics…

    And I feel that most of the “warmist” community are not interested in science at all and are motivated more by ideology and politics — and with more justification.

  98. Gee Craig, Mann would think that you are one of those nasty hunter scientists who is hiding in a tree taking long range sniper shots on the poor Mann Zebra’s on the Serengeti plain.

    Keep up with the shooting Craig. Nice shot that last one!

  99. > R.B. Alley is an expert on the Holocene… argue with him: http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png

    I have no arguments with Alley. But that isn’t his graph, just his data. He hasn’t claimed what Loehle has claimed, and that graph doesn’t support what L is claiming (even stretching it, it doesn’t show a MWP > 3 oC warmer than present). And the meaningless green line isn’t Alley’s, either.

    No-one has answered the question I asked before. Could it be that you don’t know? Could it be that everyone else here is happy for Loehle to put up pictures that no-one can interpret, but no-one cares, because they appear to support their prejudices?

    Come on, how about starting with the easy one:

    (1) what is the defintion of the “peak Current Warm Period temperatures”?

  100. I would like to read Mann’s book, but I can’t stand the thought of giving him a penny, or even incrementally increasing his book sales. Just like Hansen and Monbiot’s books.

    I enjoy a good laugh.

  101. What a great scientist Dr. Mann has turned out to be.

    He is probably the single person most villified by idiots in the world. And yet his book speaks to the science.

    A true hero of the climate wars.

  102. An interesting paper on the examination of fossil plant stomata to reconstruct past CO2 levels:

    “New studies of plant stomata add important information about natural CO2 variations in Earth’s atmosphere. Such studies show that natural variations in CO2 are more dramatic than we have been led to believe, and that CO2 levels which regularly rise past 300 ppm may be the norm– not the exception– during the last 11,000 years. Natural CO2 levels up to 340 ppm are suggested during this time, challenging claims that 300 ppm represents a CO2 threshold which is both “unprecedented” and un-natural in our recent climate history.
    In reality, the actual amount of human additions to CO2 over the past 250 years is more of an academic issue than a practical one, as the theory that human additions to atmospheric CO2 are the principle driver of Earth’s temperature changes, has not been proven.”

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html

  103. Bill Tuttle,

    Good find, thanks.

    . . .

    kiwirob says:

    Mann “…is probably the single person most villified by idiots in the world.” You seem to be an expert on idiots, so you know that idiots are sometimes right.

    Mann is also vilified by average folks, and by his scientific peers as well. And for good reason: now that Steven Schneider is gone, Mann is probably the single most dishonest scientist in the entire climate alarmist industry. And that is saying a lot.

  104. RE
    Bill Tuttle says:
    @ April 18, 2012 at 1:37 am
    ———

    Thanks Bill. A very informative and clear piece.

    I wasn’t aware of any of the following concerning Calendars cherry-picking habits but not the least surprised. Climate science does appear to be more a case of history repeating rather than rhyming…

    “In the 1800’s direct air CO2 measurements were performed by various researchers. Interestingly, the CO2 levels reported by them were mostly in excess of 300 ppm. For reasons that are unclear, only a few of these tests were considered valid by G.S. Calendar (1898-1964)– the grandfather of the theory of man-made global warming. Today, the remaining data are largely ignored, although a few commentators like E. Beck and Z. Jaworoski suggest the data–some compiled by Nobel Prize laureates– are generally valid and were inappropriately dismissed (4, 21) .”

    “Callendar claimed humans had increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, and had thereby changed the atmosphere from 274 ppmv to 325 ppmv by 1935– resulting in a 18.3 percent increase which had caused the global surface temperature to rise 0.33 deg. C (5). However, CO2 data available at the time showed concentrations ranged between 250 ppm and 550 ppm (Figure 4). Callendar has been accused of cherry-picking data from a sampling of 19th century averages, using 26 that supported his ideas, but rejecting 16 that were higher than his assumed low global average, and 2 that were lower (6).”

  105. wmconnolley:

    Your post at April 18, 2012 at 12:34 am says in full;

    “> R.B. Alley is an expert on the Holocene… argue with him: http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png

    “I have no arguments with Alley. But that isn’t his graph, just his data. and that graph doesn’t support what L is claiming (even stretching it, it doesn’t show a MWP > 3 oC warmer than present). And the meaningless green line isn’t Alley’s, either.”

    No-one has answered the question I asked before. Could it be that you don’t know? Could it be that everyone else here is happy for Loehle to put up pictures that no-one can interpret, but no-one cares, because they appear to support their prejudices?

    Come on, how about starting with the easy one:

    (1) what is the defintion of the “peak Current Warm Period temperatures”?”

    TAKING YOUR POINTS IN TURN

    Firstly, you say you “have no arguments with Alley. But that isn’t his graph, just his data.”

    The graph is – as you admit – a presentation of Alley’s data. Is there any flaw in that presentation and – if so – why don’t you state it?
    This seems to be the sort of ridiculous distinction which you use to justify the parts of your notorious censorship of Wicki for which you claim an excuse.

    Secondly, you say Alley “that graph doesn’t support what L is claiming (even stretching it, it doesn’t show a MWP > 3 oC warmer than present).

    OK. So, Alley and Loehle obtain different values for peak temperature in the MWP (they analyse samples from different places). But they do agree there was a peak temperature in the MWP and, therefore, you are plain wrong when you assert “that graph doesn’t support what L is claiming”.

    Thirdly, and importantly, you say, “And the meaningless green line isn’t Alley’s, either.” If it is “meaningless” then why mention it? One could guess that you think it is misleading, but – if so – why do you not say in what way you think it misleads? Personally, I think you don’t like the ‘green line’ because it is beyond your ability to understand.

    Fourthly, you ask;
    “No-one has answered the question I asked before. Could it be that you don’t know? Could it be that everyone else here is happy for Loehle to put up pictures that no-one can interpret, but no-one cares, because they appear to support their prejudices?”

    I certainly “don’t” care what “question” you “asked before”, but I can “interpret” the “pictures” (n.b. there was only one) which Loehle provides in the above article. I suggest that your inability to understand a histogram only demonstrates your ignorance and says nothing about the “cares” and “prejudices” which you suppose others possess.

    Then you conclude by asking;
    “Come on, how about starting with the easy one:
    (1) what is the defintion of the “peak Current Warm Period temperatures”?”

    I answer:
    You have provided a difficult – and not an “easy” – puzzle: you are asking what you think is a “defintion” (sic) of something which has several different meanings (i.e. GISS, HadCRUTn, RSS, UAH, etc.). However, they all agree it happened in 1998.

    Simply, your entire post is meaningless nonsense. Please return when you have something to say.

    Richard

  106. > Richard S Courtney

    Thanks for stepping up to the plate, but you’ve failed. I asked for a definition of ““peak Current Warm Period temperatures”. Without that definition (with which the picture was constructed) it is impossible to interpret the picture. You seem to think it means recent-maximum-temps. Firstly, you’re wrong to assert this was 1998. More importantly, I very much doubt this is what the pic is built on – I suspect it means 20th-C-average. But it might not – we really don’t know. Loehe is happy to use the pic, so I assume he know what it means, in which case it wuold be nice if he could answer the question.

    Other stuff:

    > Is there any flaw in that presentation and – if so – why don’t you state it?

    Yes, the meaningless green line intending to imply declining temps. Thats why I said the green line was meaningless.

    > If it is “meaningless” then why mention it?

    A better question is “since its meaningless, why is it on the graph”?

    > that graph doesn’t support what L is claiming

    Loehe is claiming quite a few things. One that I pointed out was a claim that proxies showed MWP temps more than 3 oC warmer than now. That graph doesn’t support that claim. The graph is Greenland temps; as we know polar changes are generally larger than mid-latitude or tropical, so using that, directly, to infer likely MWP temps elsewhere is wrong.

    > Simply, your entire post is meaningless nonsense

    This isn’t a very polite place, but you could try to rise above it. You’re fully aware that my post isn’t nonsense, since it provided you with at least 4 things that you felt the need to answer.

    >> http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html
    Andrew says> Thanks Bill. A very informative and clear piece.

    No, its nonsense (well, the stomatal measurements aren’t, but what they imply about past CO2 is). Don’t disappear down the I-don’t-believe-the-CO2-record rabbit hole.

  107. Willy Con says:

    “…the meaningless green line intending to imply declining temps. Thats why I said the green line was meaningless.”

    Argue with Wood For Trees. His graph plotted the green trend line from empirical data. Your entire post is meaningless nonsense.

  108. Andrew says:
    April 18, 2012 at 3:01 am
    RE
    Bill Tuttle says:
    @ April 18, 2012 at 1:37 am
    Thanks Bill. A very informative and clear piece.
    I wasn’t aware of any of the following concerning Calendars cherry-picking habits but not the least surprised. Climate science does appear to be more a case of history repeating rather than rhyming…“In the 1800′s direct air CO2 measurements were performed by various researchers. Interestingly, the CO2 levels reported by them were mostly in excess of 300 ppm.”

    I wasn’t aware that there was so much atmospheric analysis going on in the late-18th and early-19th Centuries — Lavoisier got all the attention in the texts I read in the back-when.

  109. wmconnolley says:
    April 18, 2012 at 3:26 am
    (in re: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html) Andrew says> Thanks Bill. A very informative and clear piece.
    No, its nonsense (well, the stomatal measurements aren’t, but what they imply about past CO2 is). Don’t disappear down the I-don’t-believe-the-CO2-record rabbit hole.

    Your implication being that fossil plants somehow reacted to the presence of increased CO2 *differently* from present plants?

  110. wmconnolley:

    Thankyou for your prompt reply at April 18, 2012 at 3:26 am to my post at April 18, 2012 at 3:01 am.

    I remind that my post concluded by saying;
    “Simply, your entire post is meaningless nonsense. Please return when you have something to say.”

    Sadly, you seem to have ignored that and I am tempted to give you the same response as Smokey at April 18, 2012 at 3:37 am. Howerver, onlookers may not recognise what you have done so I will bother to say something as my own response.

    Your reply says;
    “I asked for a definition of ““peak Current Warm Period temperatures”. Without that definition (with which the picture was constructed) it is impossible to interpret the picture. You seem to think it means recent-maximum-temps. Firstly, you’re wrong to assert this was 1998. More importantly, I very much doubt this is what the pic is built on – I suspect it means 20th-C-average. But it might not – we really don’t know. Loehe is happy to use the pic, so I assume he know what it means, in which case it wuold be nice if he could answer the question.”

    Firstly, what makes you think “peak Current Warm Period temperatures” does not mean recent-maximum-temps?

    Secondly, you have completely ignored (attempted to divert attention from?) my substantive point which was that the various compilations of recent global temperatures (i.e. HadCRUTn, GISS, UAH, RSS, etc.) each uses a unique definition of the parameter.

    Thirdly, with the exception of GISS the various compilations agree that the peak in global “Current Warm Period temperatures” was in 1998.

    Fourthly, I am not interested in what you “suspect”. Your serial suspicions have induced the nefarious censorship of Wicki. for which you are infamous.

    Fifthly, you suggest that “peak Current Warm Period temperatures” may mean “20th-C-average”.
    Say what!?
    Only in the mind of an idiot does “peak” mean “average” so you are claiming that either you or Loehle is an idiot. But Loehle is not an idiot, so I am not surprised he ignores your “question”: your “question” is a thinly-veiled insult that deserves no consideration. However, it tells much about you.

    My above replies in this post demonstrate that your substantive point (which I have quoted in this post from your reply to me) is a mixture of nonsense and stupidity. The remainder of your reply to me is a similar mixture of nonsense and stupidity (as everybody can see for themselves).

    Having demonstrated the nature of your reply for others to assess, I see no reason to bother with the rest of your reply to me because I have demonstrated that I had sufficiently strong stomach to read it. And I have much better things to do than to demolish irrelevance and illogicality from you when the faults in your points are so blatant that anybody can see them.

    Richard

  111. > Firstly, what makes you think “peak Current Warm Period temperatures” does not mean recent-maximum-temps?

    It could be (but it isn’t likely, because that isn’t available from, e.g., the Greenland ice cores, so none of them could be used in the pic). Or it might be something else. What makes you think it doesn’t mean “average over the 20th century”? But it matters which. If we don’t know which the pic has been constructed with, the pic doesn’t mean anything.

    > Secondly, you have completely ignored (attempted to divert attention from?) my substantive point which was that the various compilations of recent global temperatures (i.e. HadCRUTn, GISS, UAH, RSS, etc.) each uses a unique definition of the parameter.

    Since we don’t know what the defn is, I don’t see how you can assert that. If you mean, those different time series come out with a slightly different peak warming during their records then you are (vacuously) correct.

    > Thirdly, with the exception of GISS the various compilations agree that the peak in global “Current Warm Period temperatures” was in 1998.

    Wrong.

    > Wicki [sic]. for which you are infamous.

    Well, there are a lot of lies thrown around, certainly. Try reading http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/a_childs_garden_of_wikipedia_p.php instead.

    > Fifthly, you suggest that “peak Current Warm Period temperatures” may mean “20th-C-average”. Say what!? Only in the mind of an idiot does “peak” mean “average” so you are claiming that either you or Loehle is an idiot.

    I think you’re going to regret that :-). It will be fun waiting for Loehe to actually define his terms.

    > I have much better things to do than to demolish irrelevance and illogicality

    Then I suggest you do those things.

  112. WMC: “I have no arguments with Alley.”

    Nor me: “So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible. And, using GISP2 data within the larger picture of climate science demonstrates that our scientific understanding is good, supports our expectation of global warming, but raises the small-chance-of-big-problem issue that in turn influences the discussion of optimal human response.” – Richard Alley.

    source:- http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/richard-alley-on-old-ice-climate-and-co2/

    The graph is based on data curated by alley however it is balony for many reasons, not least because GISP2 ends in around 1855 so is impossible to use for modern comparisons.

    Another Fail.

  113. Mike Dubrasich: carbon sequestration does not pay the bills at NCASI. We are member supported by dues. Our research on carbon sequestration is due to public pressure to sequester carbon and EPA trends toward forcing carbon accounting for our industry. Most timber companies are not engaged in sequestration projects, but if they do it is not under my control.
    Connolley: don’t know where you got 3 deg C warmer at the MWP–Idso’s graph shows individual site values not global values. I had said IF the MWP was warmer to indicate why it is important to know (and also why Mann wanted to “get rid” of it). I think the Holocene warm peak 8000 to 6000 yrs ago is pretty well established. It shows in all the ice cores.

  114. OK I have waited over an hour and my post has not appeared but another (much later one) has. I am now re-posting. [Reply: It’s early here, Richard (6:42 am; GMT –8). I always approve your comments. Please, have patience. Maybe your earlier post was in the spam folder for some reason. Fixed now. ~dbs, mod.]

    wmconnolley:

    Please keep digging. You are doing more to expose the nature of CAGW-alarmists than I could ever attempt. For example, you provide a perfect example of misrepresentation by quoting out of context.

    Your post at April 18, 2012 at 5:04 am at quotes me as saying;
    “I have much better things to do than to demolish irrelevance and illogicality”.
    And you then say;
    “Then I suggest you do those things.”

    But I actually said;
    “Having demonstrated the nature of your reply for others to assess, I see no reason to bother with the rest of your reply to me because I have demonstrated that I had sufficiently strong stomach to read it. And I have much better things to do than to demolish irrelevance and illogicality from you when the faults in your points are so blatant that anybody can see them.”

    I could not have hoped for so clear an example of your behaviour as that. And I shall use it as an example in future.

    Misrepresentations, illogicality and impugning others as having your own faults are not unique to you: they are the ‘stock in trade’ of AGW-alarmists.

    I repeat, please keep digging.

    Richard

  115. dbsmod:

    Thankyou. And please do not “always” approve my comments if you observe I have ‘overstepped the mark': another WUWT moderator has done that and I thank him for it.

    Richard

  116. dbms mod:

    By “has done that ” I meant “has snipped me”. (Clearly, I am not at my best today).

    Richard

  117. Richard S Courtney says:April 18, 2012 at 6:41 am
    WRT: W.C., thank you, sir, could not be better conveyed.

  118. Connolly, I doubt that you appreciate the irony having all of your posts appear here after your continuous censorship of Wiki articles that cast doubt or contested CAGW orthodoxy, during your tenure there.

  119. Chuck L says:> I doubt that you appreciate the irony having all of your posts appear here

    They don’t. Some are censored.

    > after your continuous censorship of Wiki articles

    Already done that. You’re wrong; people have been lying to you. Try http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/a_childs_garden_of_wikipedia_p.php instead.

    [Reply: WUWT does not censor different points of view. If a post of yours was ever snipped it was because it violated site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]

  120. Steve Keohane:

    Thankyou.

    AGW-alarmists rely on the logical fallacy of ‘Appeal to Authority’. This is why Mann et al. defame Loehle and any others who expose them and/or the quality of their work. AGW-alarmists only allow credibility to ‘Authorities’ whom they like such as Mann et al..

    But in science the accuracy, precision and reliability of information is assessed on its merits. The providers of information and places they provide it have no relevance to such assessment. Simply, ‘all animals are equal’ and their outputs need to be evaluated on the basis of the worth of each output: n.b. not on the basis of which ‘animals’ provided it.

    Therefore, it is important to expose the realities of the Authorities cited by AGW-alarmists. Only then can all information be assessed on its merits independently of any ‘trust’ – or otherwise – in its providers.

    Perhaps you have noticed that ‘Monty’ has run away. He came here spouting such nonsense that Anthony required an explanation of Monty’s anonymity before allowing Monty to continue posting. Several of us begged that Monty be allowed to post so we could expose his nonsense as the falsehoods which they are. And he was allowed to post.

    In this thread Monty made an assertion about the indication of climate sensitivity on the basis of the magnitude of the MWP. ‘Billy Liar’ pointed out that the assertion is daft (it is an example of the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ similar to “the milk has turned sour so there must be a lot of witches near the cows”).

    Monty responded to Billy Liar with a fob-off, so several of us asked Monty to explain
    (a) how Monty can support his assertion
    and
    (b) why he made it.
    Nothing has been heard from Monty since.

    But Connolley ‘took up the baton’. This is a pity. Connolley’s infamy as the blighter of Wicki. already exists. Mann has a record which makes him and his ‘work’ subject of scorn. Perlwitz was exposed as a pseudoscientist on another thread. But Monty had the sense to run away.

    We need more opportunities to demonstrate that ‘all animals are equal’ and pigs are not more equal than other animals.

    Richard

  121. Richard S Courtney says:
    April 18, 2012 at 9:58 am
    We need more opportunities to demonstrate that ‘all animals are equal’ and pigs are not more equal than other animals.

    Rob Dekker’s giving it the ol’ college try in the Waleed Abdalati thread. So far, he’s being pretty gentlemanly about it.

  122. [snip – Clarke- this is an old argument, waaay off topic, and one of your many angry personal axes to grind, take it elsewhere and please, be as upset as you wish. Be sure to drop the hate bombs about “WUWT censorship” on other blogs (your MO) which is in reality just application of the WUWT policy because you can’t seem to adhere to it. Take a 48 hour timeout from here – Anthony]

  123. Bill Tuttle:

    At April 18, 2012 at 10:23 am you say to me:
    “Rob Dekker’s giving it the ol’ college try in the Waleed Abdalati thread. So far, he’s being pretty gentlemanly about it.”

    Yes, I noticed that, but several people – notably you – are taking him to the cleaners there, so I see no need for me to join in.

    However, I point you to Dekker’s comment at April 14, 2012 at 11:38 pm in the Waleed Abdatai thread that asserts to you;
    “ These “models” are the laws of physics, Bill.”

    And I think you need to remind him of my post of today that is addressed to him on the thread at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-schmidt-of-nasa-giss-under-fire-engineers-scientists-astronauts-ask-nasa-administration-to-look-at-emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/

    My post of today in that link
    (a) is addressed to him
    (b) directly addresses his assertion and
    (c) demolishes it.

    The laws of physics do not include ‘fiddle factors’ but each model uses a unique value of “aerosol cooling” as a ‘fiddle factor’ which is different for each model (values and reference are provided in my post).

    Richard

  124. Richard S Courtney says:
    April 18, 2012 at 11:22 am
    However, I point you to Dekker’s comment at April 14, 2012 at 11:38 pm in the Waleed Abdatai thread that asserts to you;
    “ These “models” are the laws of physics, Bill.”

    I called him on that a couple of times — http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/12/nasa-chief-scientist-waleed-abdalati-is-clueless-about-what-james-hansen-is-doing-with-his-position-at-giss/#comment-956726 — if he shows up again, I’ll advise him (politely) to view your post before continuing the trip to the clean–ummmmm — discussion.

  125. > In this thread Monty made an assertion about the indication of climate sensitivity on the basis of the magnitude of the MWP. ‘Billy Liar’ pointed out that the assertion is daft

    No. Monty’s assertion is quite correct: that all else being equal, a warmer MWP implies a higher climate sensitivity. However, evidence for a warm MWP is quite lacking, if the total failure to provide any sourcing for the figure in this post is anything to go by.

  126. @wmconnolley says April 18, 2012 at 9:55 am

    Sorry Bill – we saw the truth. We lived it. The time for revision is when all the eye witnesses are dead. Your pathetic attempts at redemption are doing you no good. You are still being held up as the poster boy for what is wrong with both AGW and Wikipedia.

  127. Dr Loehle: This is an excellent forum for you to get your rebuttal out. I suggest that you can present to a different audience if you summarize this article into a few paragraphs, and use that summary in some online book reviews (such as at Amazon.com). “I have been personally and unfairly maligned by this author in this book” carries a lot of weight compared to outsiders.

  128. connolley says:

    “…a warmer MWP implies a higher climate sensitivity. However, evidence for a warm MWP is quite lacking…”

    Both statements are factually wrong. No surprise there.

    By most accounts CO2 was fairly steady during the MWP, so the rise in temperature was not the result of GHG warming. And there is very extensive evidence confirming the existence of the MWP; both empirical and historical. Connolley can simply use the WUWT search function, and input “MWP”. He will have quite a few hours of reading, and he might even get educated.

  129. > By most accounts CO2 was fairly steady during the MWP, so the rise in temperature was not the result of GHG warming.

    You’re confused. “Climate sensitivity” is the, err, sensitivity of the climate to an imposed radiative perturbation. For example, from CO2 or from solar. AFAIK no-one is proposing the MWP, such as it was, was caused by CO2 which was, indeed, flat then. But for a given solar perturbation, say, a higher temperature response implies a higher sensitivity. Then, and now.

    > we saw the truth. We lived it

    What are you talking about? Wiki? You don’t have a clue; you have no idea what happened. Prove me wrong’ provide some diffs.

  130. Billy says:

    “You’re confused.”

    Not really. It has been the custom on WUWT to refer to climate sensitivity in the context of 2xCO2. You could look it up.

  131. wmconnelley:

    At April 18, 2012 at 6:41 am I repeatedly asked you to “Please keep digging” because “You are doing more to expose the nature of CAGW-alarmists than I could ever attempt.”

    I write to thank you for acceding to my request because I had not anticipated that you would.
    Thankyou.

    And please continue.

    Richard

  132. > Reply: WUWT does not censor different points of view. If a post of yours was ever snipped it was because it violated site Policy.

    Ha ha. How Orwellian. You don’t do censorship – oh no, of course not. Certain posts may not appear – but when you do that, its not censorship, its just preventing words appearing which you don’t like, which is entirely different. Its only censorship when *other* websites do it.

    [Reply: Correct. We do not censor different points of view here provided they abide by site Policy. You must be thinking of RealClimate or similar blogs. ~dbs, mod.]

  133. Smokey:

    Of course your comment to Connolley at April 18, 2012 at 2:08 pm is correct. However, you seem to have been diverted to discuss the agenda introduced by Connolley which ignores the significant explanation I provided.

    At April 18, 2012 at 1:22 pm Connolley claimed I had said;
    “In this thread Monty made an assertion about the indication of climate sensitivity on the basis of the magnitude of the MWP. ‘Billy Liar’ pointed out that the assertion is daft”

    And he responded to that saying;
    “Monty’s assertion is quite correct: that all else being equal, a warmer MWP implies a higher climate sensitivity”.

    But at April 18, 2012 at 9:58 am I wrote;
    “In this thread Monty made an assertion about the indication of climate sensitivity on the basis of the magnitude of the MWP. ‘Billy Liar’ pointed out that the assertion is daft (it is an example of the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ similar to “the milk has turned sour so there must be a lot of witches near the cows”).”

    Of course, the significant points are
    (a) it cannot be known if “all other things are equal”
    and
    (b) it cannot be known what is not known.

    So, his selective quotation of me enabled his completely false answer, and that false answer was denied by what he had deleted from what I said.

    I have thanked him for this further demonstration of his behaviour and I have asked him to keep doing it. Hence, more examples may occur.

    Richard

  134. Here’s a comparison I’ve shown before of the relative amount of agreement of different series against what I think is probably the best effort, that of Ljungqvist’s.

    This comparison looks at Pearson’s correlation coefficient between series using a 500-yr sliding window. (I can get into technical details why this is a reasonable thing to do, at least for people who are themselves reasonable.)

    The conclusions you can draw from this is that certainly Loehle is not an outlier. You can also conclude that Mann CIS absolutely stinks and that the original MBH reconstruction was absolute rubbish, both of which are things many of us have been saying for years.

  135. wmconnolley says:
    April 18, 2012 at 1:22 pm
    However, evidence for a warm MWP is quite lacking, if the total failure to provide any sourcing for the figure in this post is anything to go by.

    The evidence for a warm MWP exists independently of the sourcing for a single figure in a single post — and in “massive quantities”…

  136. %$#@! twitchy “post” thumb.
    “…if the total failure to provide any sourcing for the figure in this post is anything to go by.”

    Having an English comprehension problem today, eh? The text above the figure clearly states “…Craig Idso at http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/quantitative.php published the following summary of about 100 [Level 1] studies…” My emphasis.

  137. Bill Tuttle:

    At April 19, 2012 at 12:06 am you reply to Connolley having written;
    “…if the total failure to provide any sourcing for the figure in this post is anything to go by.”
    By saying;
    “Having an English comprehension problem today, eh? The text above the figure clearly states “…Craig Idso at http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/quantitative.php published the following summary of about 100 [Level 1] studies…” My emphasis.”

    Sorry, but “English comprehension” is not the problem.

    The problem is that Connolley often selectively quotes by deleting significant information then comments on what remains. He has repeatedly demonstrated this behaviour in this thread.

    Indeed, this behaviour was the justification he used for his nefarious and notorious selective censorship of Wickipedia.

    Richard

  138. Bill Tuttle> Having an English comprehension problem today, eh? The text above the figure clearly states “…Craig Idso at http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/quantitative.php

    Hi, thats great, thanks, I’m glad you’re so much better at reading than me. If so, could you just answer the simple questions I posed, then? I’ve seen lots of people telling me that my questions are really simple, and (like you) saying go read X, or Y. But what I haven’t seen is anyone *actually answer the questions*. Just to remind you, those were:

    (1) What exactly is the definition of “Current Warm Period”
    (2) That figure shows about 5 studies with a MWP > 3 oC warmer than now. What are those studies?

    To make it a bit harder, there is also

    (1a) is the same reference level used for “Current Warm Period” in all of the studies, or does each one use a different level? If they are all different, then obviously the figure makes no sense. If they are all the same, the authors of the figure will have gone through some rebasing procedure – what is it?

    > The evidence for a warm MWP exists independently of the sourcing for a single figure in a single post — and in “massive quantities”…

    No, it doesn’t. What you’ll find is large number of proxies, many of which have warm periods in the past. The authors of those studies often call anything warm between 1000-1500 a “MWP”. But since those periods are often brief, and often don’t overlap between different studies, when they are aggregated into a hemispheric reconstruction those “MWP”s smear and blur into something much smaller. Which is why you end up with reconstruction like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png. This is why finding any one proxy – or any ten, or any hundred – that show a “MWP” doesn’t really tell you anything useful, if you want to compare them against todays *global* temperatures.

    Richard S Courtney: you need to remember the old proverb: if you have nothing to say, don’t say it.

  139. Richard Courtney: Billy Liar suggested that I (and others) only ever invoked C02 as a driver of climate change. That is clearly absurd. It is also the case that IF the MWP and LIA were globally coherent events (which they aren’t) and IF the MWP was both global and warmer than now (which it wasn’t) then this would certainly imply high levels of climate sensitivity. Now I know that you skeptics want to have your cake and eat (ie both a global and warmer MWP AND low sensitivity) but you can’t.

    Which is why you aren’t ‘skeptics’.

  140. Monty:

    Thankyou for returning.

    I will ignore your ridiculous ad hominem and deal with the substantive issue in your post addressed to me at April 19, 2012 at 1:58 am.

    You assert;
    “Now I know that you skeptics want to have your cake and eat (ie both a global and warmer MWP AND low sensitivity) but you can’t.”

    But your assertion is plain wrong for the reason I have repeatedly stated above; e.g. at April 18, 2012 at 3:48 pm I wrote;

    “But at April 18, 2012 at 9:58 am I wrote;
    “In this thread Monty made an assertion about the indication of climate sensitivity on the basis of the magnitude of the MWP. ‘Billy Liar’ pointed out that the assertion is daft (it is an example of the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ similar to “the milk has turned sour so there must be a lot of witches near the cows”).”

    Of course, the significant points are
    (a) it cannot be known if “all other things are equal”
    and
    (b) it cannot be known what is not known.”

    However, your assertion proclaims you DO know those two unknowable pieces of information. Forgive me, but I need more than your say-so before I accept that you have such deific omniscience.

    Furthermore, you clearly adhere to the ‘Connolley school of misrepresentation’ because you say;
    “Billy Liar suggested that I (and others) only ever invoked C02 as a driver of climate change.”

    But he did NOT say that. The nearest to it is his comment at April 17, 2012 at 1:07 pm which says to you;
    “You imply that CO2 is the sole cause of temperature change on earth.”

    And the important point which refutes your assertion was put to you by Craig Loehle at April 17, 2012 at 12:51 pm where he wrote;
    “Monty: more importantly, if it was warm at the MWP and even warmer 6000 yrs ago, we are not near any sort of castrophe.”

    You have not answered that. The nearest you got to it was your reply to Loehle at April 17, 2012 at 1:18 pm where you assert (wrongly) that the MWP was not “global”. Simply, you avoided the issue and changed the subject.

    And there are many papers in the peer reviewed literature which show the MWP was both global and warmer than now. Indeed, Loehle’s article above this thread provides a link to Idso’s summary of 100 of them at

    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/quantitative.php

    If you are so sure of your case then one wonders why you changed the subject instead of continuing to argue that a warm MWP (and warm “6000 years ago”) must mean a “high climate sensitivity”.

    And you iterate this in your post that I am answering where you write;
    “It is also the case that IF the MWP and LIA were globally coherent events (which they aren’t) and IF the MWP was both global and warmer than now (which it wasn’t) then this would certainly imply high levels of climate sensitivity.”

    That is the logical fallacy of ‘Argument By Assertion’.
    Evidence and or logic would support your case. You are mistaken when you think your case is supported by your ravings, your ignoring of presented evidence, your misrepresentations of others, your ad hominems, and your claims of your possession of deific omniscience.

    Richard

  141. wmconnolley says at April 19, 2012 at 1:42 am:

    “Richard S Courtney: you need to remember the old proverb: if you have nothing to say, don’t say it.”

    I see Connolley is projecting again. Sad, so very sad.

    Richard

  142. William Connolley
    You said: “What you’ll find is large number of proxies, many of which have warm periods in the past. The authors of those studies often call anything warm between 1000-1500 a “MWP”. But since those periods are often brief, and often don’t overlap between different studies, when they are aggregated into a hemispheric reconstruction those “MWP”s smear and blur into something much smaller”.

    Yes, this is largely the approach taken by Soon and Baliunas except that they went further by saying almost ANY climate departure over the period 800-1300AD was evidence for the existence of the MWP. They also defined the LIA as the period between 1300-1900AD and said that any climatic departure (ie colder, drier, wetter) for 50 years was also evidence for the LIA!
    Which is why it was nonsensical.

  143. Over at my blog we’ve been looking a bit at some of the studies that the Idsos pic shows large MWPs from. We think we’ve found the 4.75 oC one (http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_durresmaar.php) and predictably enough, when you check it out it doesn’t add up.

    First of all, even from the CO2 science link, you can see immeadiately that the peak warmth was only for one brief period – 5 years – which is hardly a “MWP”. But its more interesting to look at the actual paper itself (http://www.clim-past.net/7/1011/2011/cp-7-1011-2011.pdf). If you read the abstract, you’ll find:

    “At High Medieval Times, the amplitude in the reconstructed temperature variability is most likely overestimated”

    Oddly, CO2science didn’t have space to mention that. For more details, you need to read section 5.2 and the discussion of figure 5, which contains text like:

    “During High Medieval Times lasting from the 10th to 13th century, our reconstruction shows evidence for above-average temperatures, whereby the amplitude in the reconstructed temperature variability is most likely overestimated. However, temperatures were not high in general; rather distinct warmer episodes lasting a few decades are demonstrated…” and “Despite the overall relatively high uncertainty in our reconstruction and the certainly overestimated temperature variability particularly at High Medieval Times…”

    Finally, although you can read a peak out of that record, there is no clear “current warm period” in their record, and 1998 is certainly not included. So anyone who thought that “current warm period” meant 1998, or that the CO2science figure comparison is MWP-vs-1998, will have to reconsider.

  144. Connolley, you’re flogging a dead horse. The MWP and LIA were real events. Deal with them, instead of spouting True Belief talking points. Do a WUWT archive search for “MWP” and “LIA” if you want to become educated. Alternatively, you can bask in your ignorance.

  145. Smokey: first, you don’t know what I do for a living. And second, S&B haven’t dedicated their careers to this subject. If they had…they should change jobs.

    Richard Courtney: My answer to Craig about his assertion that the Holocene peak was warmer than today still stands. Of course, if true it also suggests high sensitivity doesn’t it. Your bluster that we don’t know all the forcings sound like special pleading to me.

    Similar arguments are made by those who assert that since we don’t know everything, we don’t know anything. Occam’s Razor would say that if the past climate was more variable than we imagined, so sensitivity is most likely to be higher. I know that you don’t like this.

  146. Smokey: glaciers in some parts of the world reached their historic maximum in the 17th century. Others reached theirs in the 19th century. This doesn’t sound like coherent events does it. Imagine if California had an enormous drought in the 1820s and New England then had one in the 2020s. Would you say they were the same event?

  147. Monty,

    I suspect that what you do for a living is something along the lines of being a parasite on honest taxpayers, taking some or all of your income from the public. And unlike you Soon & Balunias are legitimate Harvard peer reviewed scientists. They simply wrote a paper that deviated from the alarmist narrative; therefore the cockroaches had to attack.

    And you have no concept of Occam’s Razor, or how it works. None. It mandates simple explanations over those with complicated extraneous entities. Superfluously adding CO2 as an unnecessary extraneous entity flies in the face of Occam’s Razor. And the null hypothesis also deconstructs the alternative CO2=CAGW conjecture. Not that you understand that, either.Your previous comments make it clear that you don’t even understand the scientific method.

  148. wmconnolley says:
    April 19, 2012 at 1:42 am
    Bill Tuttle> The evidence for a warm MWP exists independently of the sourcing for a single figure in a single post — and in “massive quantities”…
    No, it doesn’t. What you’ll find is large number of proxies, many of which have warm periods in the past. The authors of those studies often call anything warm between 1000-1500 a “MWP”. But since those periods are often brief, and often don’t overlap between different studies, when they are aggregated into a hemispheric reconstruction those “MWP”s smear and blur into something much smaller. Which is why you end up with reconstruction like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png. This is why finding any one proxy – or any ten, or any hundred – that show a “MWP” doesn’t really tell you anything useful, if you want to compare them against todays *global* temperatures.

    I didn’t say “proxies,” I said “evidence.” As in historical, geological, and archaeological evidence.

    “The Greenlanders prospered. From the number of farms in both colonies, whose 400 or so stone ruins still dot the landscape, archaeologists guess that the population may have risen to a peak of about 5,000.”

    http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

    “The Britons themselves grew wine grapes in England in the 11th and 12th centuries, during the Medieval Warming. The Domesday Book, compiled right after the Norman Invasion of 1066, records more than 70 vineyards.”

    http://www.cgfi.org/2006/03/time-cover-story-offers-no-evidence-of-human-driven-warming/

    No proxies — physical evidence.

  149. Monty:

    Your post at April 19, 2012 at 3:32 am confirms my point that you are a member of the ‘Connolley school of misrepresentation’.

    You say;
    “Richard Courtney: My answer to Craig about his assertion that the Holocene peak was warmer than today still stands. Of course, if true it also suggests high sensitivity doesn’t it. Your bluster that we don’t know all the forcings sound like special pleading to me.”

    Bluster!? YOU dare to accuse ME of bluster? Have you taken leave of your senses?
    Answer my points and arguments instead of throwing ad hominems like confetti.

    And, to answer your question, No, the Holocene high temperature does NOT suggest high sensitivity except in your closed mind.

    Climate sensitivity is not known but the empirical evidence indicates it is very low.
    I cite
    Idso SB ‘CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change’, Climate Research, Vol. 10: 69–82, 1998.
    That paper has never been challenged in the peer reviewed literature. It can be read at

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf

    In the paper Sherwood Idso describes 8 natural experiments to determine climate sensitivity. His empirical (n.b. NOT model-derived) results are:

    1. Changes in atmospheric water vapour at Phoenix, Arizona 0.173 C/W/m2.
    2. Changes in atmospheric dust at Phoenix, Arizona 0.173 C/W/m2.
    3. Annual temperature change (land 0.171 coast 0.087) 0.113 C/W/m2.
    4. Earth total GH effect 0.097 C/W/m2.
    5. Equator to pole temperature gradient 0.103 C/W/m2.
    6. Venus – Mar extrapolated to Earth (0.4 C) 0.1 C/W/m2.
    7. Faint early Sun paradox (0.4 C) 0.1 C/W/m2.
    8. Tropical ocean water vapour (ocean 0.071 land 0.172) 0.101 C/W/m2.

    He concludes that his “best estimate” is 0.10 C/W/m2. The corresponds to a temperature increase of 0.37 Celsius for a doubling of CO2.

    So, the real world indicates that the high climate sensitivities in the models are way, way too high. And their range proves that climate sensitivity is not known.

    But who cares about reality when we have dozens of models that each differs from every other model but each fails to emulate the real world?

    The models vary in climate sensitivity from each model uses a different value for “Total anthropogenic forcing” that is in the range 0.80 W/m^-2 to 2.02 W/m^-2
    (ref. Kiehl JT,Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GRL vol.. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007)

    Thanks to Bill Illis, Kiehl’s Figure 2 can be seen at
    http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/8167/kiehl2007figure2.png ]

    Please note that the Figure is for 9 GCMs and 2 energy balance models, and its title is:
    ”Figure 2. Total anthropogenic forcing (Wm2) versus aerosol forcing (Wm2) from nine fully coupled climate models and two energy balance models used to simulate the 20th century.”

    It shows that
    (a) each model uses a different value for “Total anthropogenic forcing” that is in the range 0.80 W/m^-2 to 2.02 W/m^-2
    but
    (b) each model is forced to agree with the rate of past warming by using a different value for “Aerosol forcing” that is in the range -1.42 W/m^-2 to -0.60 W/m^-2.

    In other words the models use values of “Total anthropogenic forcing” that differ by a factor of more than 2.5 and they are ‘adjusted’ by using values of assumed “Aerosol forcing” that differ by a factor of 2.4.

    So, the models use a vast range of climate sensitivities but the lowest of those values is about 8x greater than is observed in the real world.

    And your evidence for high climate sensitivity is WHAT?
    Bluster, pure bluster such as this;
    “Similar arguments are made by those who assert that since we don’t know everything, we don’t know anything.”

    NO!
    1. I say we do not know climate sensitivity because we don’t (if we did then every model would use it)
    and
    2. I say the available scientific evidence (Idso, Lindzen&Choi, etc.) indicates climate sensitivity is an order of magnitude less than is used in the models.

    And you continue your bluster saying;
    “Occam’s Razor would say that if the past climate was more variable than we imagined, so sensitivity is most likely to be higher.”
    NO!
    Occam’s Razor says when the evidence does not fit an existing understanding then that understanding is wrong. Simply, your unsubstantiated and illogical assertions are wrong.

    But you conclude your post by making a statement I do agree when you say;
    “I know that you don’t like this.”
    You are right. I don’t. I never like nonsensical bollocks of the kind you have presented.

    Richard

  150. Richard Courtney:
    Sensitivity is an output FROM models, not an input To them. Low sensitivity is not consistent with what we know about past climate change. Explain how we can obtain high Holocene warmth if sensitivity is low? The only way you can do this is if the forcings are enormously underestimated. The same goes with all other geological indications of sensitivity which also suggest that it is high (see Lunt et al 2010; Pagani et al 2010; Zeebe et al 2009; Breecker et al 2010; Annan and Hargreaves 2005 etc).

    Your bluster is getting you nowhere. May I suggest you do some proper research?

  151. wmconnolley says:
    April 18, 2012 at 2:20 pm

    What are you talking about? Wiki? You don’t have a clue; you have no idea what happened. Prove me wrong’ provide some diffs.

    That is what got you in trouble in the first place. The equivalent of “because I said so” is not a defense, nor justification for supressing science you do not agree with. The facts are public knowledge. That you continue to deny your guilt clearly shows you are unrepetent and that Wiki will continue to suffer as long as you are associated with them. I will not trust them for accuracy as long as they allow people with an agenda of suppression of data to edit articles to which the editor has a vested interest in.

    I have a clue. You have no defense.

  152. Tuttle> I didn’t say “proxies,” I said “evidence.” As in historical, geological, and archaeological evidence.

    > “The Greenlanders prospered. From the number of farms in both colonies, whose 400 or so stone ruins still dot the landscape, archaeologists guess that the population may have risen to a peak of about 5,000.” http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

    A best, that would be evidence for Greenland being warmer then. But since we have good proxies from the ice cores, we know that anyway. But since the current population of Greenland is ~50k, what you’ve quoted isn’t evidence for it being warmer then, anyway.

    > “The Britons themselves grew wine grapes in England in the 11th and 12th centuries…
    So they did. But so what? We grow wine now. We grow wine now even though transporting wine from regions where growing grapes is much easier (France, NZ, anywhere) is very cheap. Back then, transport was expensive, so growing (small amounts of) wine locally was valuable. Its a factoid, but it isn’t evidence that then was warmer than now.

    philjourdan>

    Still no diffs, eh. Come now, surely you must know at least one terrible thing that I actually did, rather than merely relying on second hand reports from biased people?

  153. “The Britons themselves grew wine grapes in England in the 11th and 12th centuries, during the Medieval Warming. The Domesday Book, compiled right after the Norman Invasion of 1066, records more than 70 vineyards.”
    This was a time when wine was extremely important in church ceremonies and imported wine was expensive, so any local-grown, poor quality wine would have been acceptable. There are now about 400 commercial vinyards in England and Wales.

    I find it instructive how few people here are curious about the exact meaning of ‘current warming period’ in the graph shown. For a bunch of self-styled ‘sceptics’, you’re not very sceptical, are you?

  154. Richard Simons:

    This was a time when wine was extremely important in church ceremonies and imported wine was expensive, so any local-grown, poor quality wine would have been accepted.

    You of course have a time machine so you can speak authoritatively on changes in tolerance of wine quality over time. >.>

    Seriously though, I guess it hasn’t occurred to you that hybridization has also advanced in the intervening centuries, as well as other aspects of agricultural science? While I agree it is warmer in England now than it was 1000 years ago (based on the preponderance of evidence), the variation in temperature from year to year still swamps the relatively modest temperature changes (and it is this, which relates to plant stress which generally limits how far north or south a particular species can grow), so generally it is improvements in agricultural science that have allowed grapes to be grown in more northern climates.

    I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t the increase in yields from this curve to argue for global warming, would you? (If for no other reason that it would put you in the awkward position of acknowledging a beneficial effect from warming. Of course generally yield increases also have to do with advances in science and technology predominantly.)

  155. Monty:

    I am starting to wonder if you know anything about this subject and if the projection of your bluster onto others is merely your attempt to deflect attention away from your ignorance.

    Your post at April 19, 2012 at 5:05 am completely ignores the contents of my post at April 19, 2012 at 4:21 am which you claim to be answering.

    For a start , you say;
    “Sensitivity is an output FROM models, not an input To them.”
    Wrong. Plain wrong.
    The models are tuned for best fit and climate sensitivity is a tuned variable. An idiot might claim the tuning value which provides a best fit is “an output”: is that what you are asserting?

    You follow that error with this assertion of your deific ominiscience;
    “Explain how we can obtain high Holocene warmth if sensitivity is low? The only way you can do this is if the forcings are enormously underestimated.”
    NO! The “only way” that fits your understanding is as you say. But your understanding is wrong because it ignores the empirical evidence (some of which I cited) that climate sensitivity is low.

    And you conclude by saying to me;
    “May I suggest you do some proper research?”

    NO! Instead I cite my existing research which is proper. I suggest you come out from behind your cowardly concealment behind the pseudonym of ‘’Monty before making libellous comments like that.

    I address all three of those silly responses from you by citing a post I made in another thread. On second thoughts, finding it would clearly tax your research abilities so I copy it to here from

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/pat-michaels-on-the-death-of-credibility-in-the-journal-nature/

    Allan MacRae:

    In your fine post at April 13, 2012 at 3:39 am you say;

    “So Charlson, Hansen et al ignored these inconvenient aerosol measurements and “cooked up” (fabricated) aerosol data that forced their climate models to better conform to the global cooling that was observed pre~1975.

    Voila! Their models could hindcast (model the past) better using this fabricated aerosol data, and therefore (falsely claim to) predict the future with accuracy.”

    Yes! That is exactly what I reported in my 1999 paper which I reference in my post that you are replying. My work used information that was provided by the Hadley Centre to assess how the Hadley Centre GCM was developed. And that was as follows.

    1.
    The GCM ‘ran hot’ (i.e. it showed much more warming over the 20th century than HadCRUT indicated had occurred in reality).

    2.
    The modelers postulated that sulphate aerosol from industry had provided cooling which negated some GHG warming in reality.

    3.
    The aerosol washes out of the atmosphere within days so its cooling effect would be near industrial activity (i.e. the postulated aerosol cooling and industrial activity would have similar spatial distribution).

    4.
    The magnitude of actual aerosol cooling was not (and still is not) known but this did not matter because its magnitude would have to equal the degree of excess warming indicated by the GCM if the postulate were correct.
    5.
    Therefore, a degree of aerosol cooling was input to the GCM
    (a) with magnitude of cooling which forced the model’s indication of 20th century warming to match the observed warming
    and
    (b) the spatial distribution of the cooling was input to the GCM to emulate the spatial distribution of industrial activity.

    6.
    This was a sensible test of the postulate that anthropogenic sulphate aerosol cooling was the reason why the GCM ‘ran hot’; i.e. if the postulate were correct then the addition to the GCM of the postulated aerosol cooling would provide similar spatial distribution of warming to that observed in reality.

    7.
    But the modified model output indicated a very different pattern of temperature changes over the 20th century than was observed; e.g. the model showed most warming where most cooling was observed, and it showed most cooling where most warming was observed.

    8.
    This result was inconvenient because it disproved the postulate that aerosol cooling was the cause of the model having ‘ran hot’, and nobody could think of another possible cause of the model having ‘ran hot’.

    9.
    This finding would have caused scientists to reject the model, but the next IPCC Report was scheduled so the Hadley Centre shouted about the match of global warming indicated by the model and observed global warming over the 20th century.

    10.
    But this match was fixed as an input to the model and was NOT an output of the model.

    Long after my paper about the Hadley GCM, in 2007 Kiehle (see reference in my above post) showed that all other climate models also ‘ran hot’ but by different amounts. And he showed that they each adopt the aerosol fix. But they each adopt a different amount of aerosol cooling to compensate for the different degree of ‘ran hot’ they each display.

    This need for a unique amount of aerosol cooling in each climate model proves that at most only one (and probably none) of the models emulates the climate system of the real Earth (there is only one Earth).

    Richard

  156. Richard Simons:

    At April 19, 2012 at 6:48 am you say;

    “I find it instructive how few people here are curious about the exact meaning of ‘current warming period’ in the graph shown. For a bunch of self-styled ‘sceptics’, you’re not very sceptical, are you?”

    Really? You find it “instructive” that people understand “current warm period” to be the very recent past that peaked in global temperature at 1998? How so? What possible instruction can it give you other than to inform you that those people can read?

    Richard

  157. wmconnolley says:
    April 19, 2012 at 5:41 am
    A best, that would be evidence for Greenland being warmer then. But since we have good proxies from the ice cores, we know that anyway. But since the current population of Greenland is ~50k, what you’ve quoted isn’t evidence for it being warmer then, anyway.

    Didn’t even bother to read the link, did you? Finding the ruins of farms with large barns means the Greenland Vikings raised cattle — a lot of them — which meant there was plenty of grass in the spring and summer; it also meant they could harvest enough hay to feed them through the winter. Cows are rare in Greenland today for the simple reason that there’s not enough grass for a lot of cows to graze on and the growing season for hay is short, so the havest is small.

    So they did. But so what? We grow wine now. We grow wine now even though transporting wine from regions where growing grapes is much easier (France, NZ, anywhere) is very cheap. Back then, transport was expensive, so growing (small amounts of) wine locally was valuable. Its a factoid, but it isn’t evidence that then was warmer than now.

    You don’t grow grapes up along Hadrian’s Wall, because it’s too cold. But that’s where a lot of the vineyards were during the MWP — and they made enough wine to export it — which *is* evidence that it was warmer than now.

  158. Richard Simons says:
    April 19, 2012 at 6:48 am
    This was a time when wine was extremely important in church ceremonies and imported wine was expensive, so any local-grown, poor quality wine would have been acceptable.

    Entirely too parochial a viewpoint (Catholics will “get” that). Wine was also important to the nobility and the growing mercantile class, and so it was important that the wine *was* of good quality — the expense of importing it was one of the reasons the British *established* vineyards.

  159. Richard S Courtney says:
    April 19, 2012 at 8:09 am

    “Long after my paper about the Hadley GCM, in 2007 Kiehle (see reference in my above post) showed that all other climate models also ‘ran hot’ but by different amounts. And he showed that they each adopt the aerosol fix. But they each adopt a different amount of aerosol cooling to compensate for the different degree of ‘ran hot’ they each display.”

    I recall thinking, after reviewing Kiehle’s analysis, that it would be the death of all the endless recitations from the “consensus” community about the doom filled “projections” of the GCMs. With such obvious manipulation exposed no rational person could possibly offer the models to support any argument without looking completely foolish. We all know how that worked out.

  160. Richard Courtney:
    Why didn’t you address my point? You are quite happy to favorably quote Idso on sensitivity, but not much more recent papers on geological constraints. Why? Maybe because Idso is a well-known skeptic and that latter results are ‘inconvenient’?

    I’ve got an idea…..why don’t you try and publish your ideas in the peer-reviewed literature if you think sensitivity is low and our understanding of paleoclimate is wrong. Of course you won’t. It’s much easier to sit and bluster than do the hard work that science demands.

  161. Richard,

    Monty has no idea what he’s babbling about. Ignore him. He’s just an alarmist troll who has no understanding of how climate peer review works.

  162. Hi Smokey
    Still arguing that the LIA and MWP was globally coherent?

    Earlier I said ” glaciers in some parts of the world reached their historic maximum in the 17th century. Others reached theirs in the 19th century. This doesn’t sound like coherent events does it. Imagine if California had an enormous drought in the 1820s and New England then had one in the 2020s. Would you say they were the same event?

    What’s your answer to that?

    Also, here is Soon and Baliunas’ methodology “Anomaly is simply defined as a period of more than 50 yr of sustained warmth, wetness or dryness, within the stipulated interval of the Medieval Warm Period, or a 50 yr or longer period of cold, dryness or wetness within the stipulated Little Ice Age”.

    Do you see the problem or are you only ‘skeptical’ over AGW?

  163. Monty:

    I quoted each statement you made and answered each of them in turn. So, I am at a loss to know which “point” you made that I failed to answer.

    However, you have not answered any of the points I put to you but – as onlookers can see – you have babbled and blustered instead.

    My 1999 paper (which I reported) WAS a peer reviewed publication in a peer reviewed journal.
    I have done the research. You have not.

    Your behaviour (extreme arrogance combined with sublime ignorance) suggests you are a first year undergraduate. When you learn what science is then you will acquire the ability to assess my work. Until then, learn

    Richard

  164. “Still arguing that the LIA and MWP was globally coherent?”

    It’s been proven, troll. I’m not going to explain it to you again, you obviously lack the capacity to understand.

    You also fail to understand that glaciers have been receding since the LIA. The proces is continuing. But you cannot understand that. I know this because of your questions.

    You also do not understand Soon and Balunias’ methodology. Here, this could possibly educate you. But I’m not counting on it. S&B collated 200 peer reviewed studies into a meta-study. Not that you would understand.

    You really don’t understand the issues at all, do you? You’re simply a lemming, following mindless alarmist talking points that have been repeatedly debunked.

    And I note that you are still hiding out from trying to falsify my testable hypothesis:

    At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmess, and beneficial to the biosphere.

    You’re hiding out because no one has been able to falsify that. And from your questions you are less intelligent than most. So how could you possibly falsify a hypothesis? You don’t even understand how climate peer review works.

  165. Richard Courtney
    Your long post at 8.09 am added very little to the debate. To what extent can 20th century climate change allow us to estimate sensitivity. Not much is the answer given that you are really measuring transient rather than equilibrium sensitivity. Either you knew that (in which you are deliberately trying to muddy the waters) or you didn’t, in which case you are incompetent. I’m going for the latter but you can make a case for the former if you wish.

  166. Richard Simons says:
    April 19, 2012 at 6:48 am
    …so any local-grown, poor quality wine would have been acceptable.

    Addendum (found this and it was too good not to toss into the flowing bowl):

    “This district [Gloucester], too, exhibits a greater number of vineyards than any other county in England, yielding abundant crops and of superior quality; nor are the wines made here by any means harsh or ungrateful to the palate, for, in point of sweetness, they may almost bear comparison with the growths of France.” — William of Malmesbury (c.1095 – c.1143) cited in The History of the Wine Trade in England, A L Simon, 1906.

    Good article about English viticulture in the MWP — http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2006%20March.htm#vino

  167. Smokey:

    I understand your advice and from late tonight will be forced to adopt it because I shall be going overseas so will be out of contact for at least a week. Regulars on WUWT will recognise that I often go out of contact for this reason.

    I will check here and address any points put to me before I leave. After that the trolls can say what they want. Their comments are usually self-defeating so I have no concern at that.

    Richard

  168. Smokey; I note you fail to answer my question.

    [snip . . what’s this, a willy waving contest? . . put some content in please . . kbmod]

  169. Monty:

    I copy your entire post at April 19, 2012 at 10:37 am so there can be no claim I am quoting out of context. It says to me:

    “Your long post at 8.09 am added very little to the debate. To what extent can 20th century climate change allow us to estimate sensitivity. Not much is the answer given that you are really measuring transient rather than equilibrium sensitivity. Either you knew that (in which you are deliberately trying to muddy the waters) or you didn’t, in which case you are incompetent. I’m going for the latter but you can make a case for the former if you wish.”

    OK. I will spell it out.
    1,
    You said;
    “Sensitivity is an output FROM models, not an input To them.”
    2.
    My “long-post” explained how and why that assertion is plain wrong.
    3.
    You now say my explanation “added very little to the debate”.
    4.
    So why did you make the fallacious claim that “Sensitivity is an output FROM models, not an input To them” if my correcting that claim “added little to the debate”?

    Either the matter is important (as you claimed) or is not important (as you now claim having been shown to be wrong).

    The rest of your post
    (a) Is obfuscation
    or alternatively
    (b) is an assertion that climate sensitivity in the 20th century differs from climate sensitivity prior to the 20th century.

    If you are trying to assert (b) then that would be consistent with your claim that a warm MWP indicates high climate sensitivity (but only at the time of the MWP).

    Please clarify. Are you asserting (b) and, if so, what do you think is causing climate sensitivity to vary over time and how?

    Richard

    PS I am ignoring your ad hominem because I recognise that you are incapable of not including ad hominem in each of your posts.

  170. Monty:

    I do not know why kbmod has snipped one of your posts but not mine. However, having observed the careful and caring moderation that kbmod has always applied in the past, I think I can make a good guess.

    Kbmod always tries to protect somebody who is attempting to enter an intellectual gunfight armed only with a toothbrush.

    Richard

    PS kbmod, I know you will snip this post, but it is sincere.

  171. Richard: You said “I am ignoring your ad hominem because I recognise that you are incapable of not including ad hominem in each of your posts”. Yet earlier you said: “Your behaviour (extreme arrogance combined with sublime ignorance) suggests you are a first year undergraduate”. Be consistent!

    Of your two options you can’t even the question correctly. You cannot obtain a clear estimate of climate sensitivity from the 20th century as I pointed out earlier.

    You also said: “When you learn what science is then you will acquire the ability to assess my work”. I am a scientist with a large number of publications in mainstream science journals (ie not Energy and Environment where your climate ‘research’ is published). I also have a doctorate.

  172. Richard: I forgot to answer your question. Yes, CS does vary over time given that its an ‘equilibrium’ sensitivity and ice sheets etc grow and melt.

  173. Since we are dealing with theological concepts the issues of stigmata` stomata is of some interest. Eli as a vegetarian can say is that plants grow pretty close to the ground, and one of the things that happens there is they respire, right along with all the bunnies and carrots, so measuring CO2 in a forest or grassland is not exactly a good indicator of what the CO2 mixing ratio is the free troposphere is (the level above which such ground effects have an effect), it will always be higher, sometimes, esp in the growing season, much higher. CD Keeling was the first to study this, but in general it is not a very useful thing to do if you want to measure the global CO2 mixing ratio, sort of like trying to measure the CO2 concentration in the middle of Paris (they did that and are still doing it, but now for other reasons), or in the middle of any built up area.

  174. wmconnolley says: April 19, 2012 at 5:41 am

    Still no diffs, eh. Come now, surely you must know at least one terrible thing that I actually did, rather than merely relying on second hand reports from biased people?

    What? You were editing when you could not even read? Well, it must be so. Since you apparently skipped over what I wrote. No matter, since you are incapable of remembering what you did, incapable of research, and based upon historical facts, incapable of editing, I guess you will remain clueless. That is your problem, not mine. All I have said is correct. All you have done is show a total lack of responsibility for your own actions.

  175. Monty:

    You do not know what an ad hominem is.

    [snip . . . really ! . . this is just a pointless exercise that adds nothing to anything . . please, by all means, pitch in with the content that enlightens us all but this is just nothingness . . kbmod]

  176. Monty says:
    April 19, 2012 at 11:59 am
    Richard: You said “I am ignoring your ad hominem because I recognise that you are incapable of not including ad hominem in each of your posts”. Yet earlier you said: “Your behaviour (extreme arrogance combined with sublime ignorance) suggests you are a first year undergraduate”. Be consistent!

    He’s being consistent. His comment was not an ad hominem attack, it was his assessment of your educational level, which *does* have a bearing on the quality of your arguments.

  177. Richard Courtney
    OK…it’s probably about time to call it quits here. All I will end with is a suggestion that you read the geological literature on high climate sensitivity that I listed (Pagani, Lunt etc). Also remember the difference between transient and equilibrium sensitivity, and the futility of using the 20th century to measure CS (let alone ESS).

    And the way to “do” science invariably ends with it being reviewed by other experts in the field, not discussed in blogs. So, if you think all the evidence is for low sensitivity then please publish it…..I and lots of other scientists will be very interested in your results. Given your skepticism of journals like Nature, why don’t you publish in Open Access journals like CPD? I also suggested this to Pat Frank a week or so ago when he purported to show that isotope paleothermometry was wrong, but he refused.

    I know that you won’t do this, but at least others can see that I suggested this.

  178. I had lots of work to do, and a food fight broke out. Not very pretty. Both sides were claiming authority (MWP was warmer/synchronous/was not/was so) rather than showing pictures or citing references. Eli: while the absolute level of CO2 is of course higher within vegetation, the relative level over time within veg will change along with the overall atmosphere. This makes plant stomata an interesting proxy for CO2 level, though I can’t comment on precision.

  179. kbs mod:

    You snipped all of my post so the part which related to the science went.

    I am now resubmitting that part although I don’t remember the words I first used and I am having to write this in a great hurry. Also, I regret that I will be unable to reply to e.g. requests for clarification for at least a week.
    ————————-

    Monty:

    I asked you two questions in my post at April 19, 2012 at 11:33 am; viz.

    Question 1.

    So why did you make the fallacious claim that “Sensitivity is an output FROM models, not an input To them” if my correcting that claim “added little to the debate”?

    Either the matter is important (as you claimed) or is not important (as you now claim having been shown to be wrong).

    Question 2.

    The rest of your post
    (a) Is obfuscation
    or alternatively
    (b) is an assertion that climate sensitivity in the 20th century differs from climate sensitivity prior to the 20th century.

    If you are trying to assert (b) then that would be consistent with your claim that a warm MWP indicates high climate sensitivity (but only at the time of the MWP).

    Please clarify. Are you asserting (b) and, if so, what do you think is causing climate sensitivity to vary over time and how?

    In your post at April 19, 2012 at 12:01 pm you provide a partial answer to my second question where you say;
    “Yes, CS does vary over time given that its an ‘equilibrium’ sensitivity and ice sheets etc grow and melt.”

    OK. We can – and do – agree that climate sensitivity varies trivially over time in the Holocene as a result of “its an ‘equilibrium’ sensitivity and ice sheets etc grow and melt.”

    Howevever, during the MWP the CS would have needed to be much higher than values of CS used in the models (which are greater than empirically derived values of CS by a factor of at least 5 and more than double that in some models) for your assertion that existence of the MWP would indicate a “high” value of climate sensitivity (CS) to be true.

    I look forward to your explanation of how variations in ice cover could achieve such “high” values of CS.

    Richard

  180. Monty:

    I am leaving to catch a plane. This is a science blog and review is conducted here. I fail to understand why you think I have not read the literature. I have no time to say more.

    Richard

  181. Monty says:

    “I am a scientist with a large number of publications in mainstream science journals… I also have a doctorate.”

    Prove it. Identify yourself.

    If I were bragging about what may or may not be true, I would identify myself. You claim a “large number” of publications. Prove it.

  182. “Monty” also says:

    “Smokey: glaciers in some parts of the world reached their historic maximum in the 17th century.”

    …which fits right in with being at their maximum in the depths of the LIA. “Monty” also says:

    “…I forgot to answer your question.”

    Actually, you do that all the time — while incessantly demanding that everyone else must answer your questions. I won’t pester you with questions, I will only ask that you do your best as a [pretend? real?] scientist to try and falsify my testable hypothesis:

    At current and projected levels, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.

    Falsify that hypothesis, if you can. Since “carbon” is central to the entire debate, that hypothesis must be falsified per the scientific method, for the alternative CO2=CAGW conjecture to be upheld. But so far, no one has been able to falsify the hypothesis that CO2 is harmless and beneficial. Few even try, because there is no testable evidence showing global harm due to the rise in CO2. Thus, you are ceding the battlefield to scientific skeptics: and silence indicates concurrence. If not, speak up.

    I also challenged you to prove that you are a published author [like numerous commentators who post here], and a PhD. If you continue to evade the question, the reasonal presumption is that you are a charlatan. So: proof, please.

  183. Richard S Courtney @ April 19, 2012 at 8:18 am said:

    “You find it “instructive” that people understand “current warm period” to be the very recent past that peaked in global temperature at 1998? ”

    That is NOT what I wrote. I find it instructive that people who like to call themselves sceptics do not bother to find out what was intended by the ‘current warming period’.

    “How so? What possible instruction can it give you other than to inform you that those people can read?”

    I looked in the description of the procedures and was completely unable to find the phrase clarified. I checked a few of the descriptions of individual papers to see if that made things clearer. One paper (Bertler et al., 2011. Cold conditions in Antarctica during the Little Ice Age — Implications for abrupt climate change mechanisms. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 308: 41-51) is described as comparing the Medieval Warm Period to AD 1808 to 2000.

    In a report of one of the papers (Tyson et al., 2000. The Little Ice Age and medieval warming in South Africa. South African Journal of Science 96: 121-126) there is a reference to “the Current Warm Period (AD 1961-1990 mean)”. So it seems that the ‘Current Warming Period’ refers to 1961-1990, or possibly 1808-2000, but definitely not to a few years centered on 1998. I guess the ‘sceptics’ who all assumed that it referred to ‘the very recent past that peaked in global temperature at 1998′ were being too cursory and jumping to conclusions.

  184. The current warm period appears to be a moving target which makes it useful for just about any argument. Eli has seen a reference to the current warming period being the past 11K years and in the geological/ice age sense that is a valid characterization.

    So come on, let’s ask the Idso;s what they mean rather than going around the barn. If they answer we can see how their definition is good or bad, but we know what it means. If they don;t answer, well let’s not go there until we have to

  185. Eli, you’re spot on. It would be very helpful to have a identifiable time frame whose dates everyone agrees on. Being able to abbreviate it as the CWP would also save a lot of electrons…

  186. Richard Simons says:

    “I looked in the description of the procedures and was completely unable to find the phrase clarified.” Then Richard Simons goes on to explain what is, and what is not, the Current Warming Period. That is just a personal opinion by someone who admittedly cannot find a good reference.

    I suggest everyone look again at the word “Current”. ‘Current’ includes now, by definition:

    current adj. belonging to the present time; happening or being used or done now

    And the “AD 1961-1990 mean” is simply a reference, not the beginning and ending of the CWP, which by definition must include the present time. Unless, of course, someone can find a reference to a specific ending date of the CWP. Maybe Michael Mann can invent a date. He’s good at inventing.

  187. Smokey says:
    April 20, 2012 at 9:01 am
    Unless, of course, someone can find a reference to a specific ending date of the CWP. Maybe Michael Mann can invent a date.

    Why don’t we suggest 1998, then wait for the fun?

  188. Smokey says: April 20, 2012 at 9:01 am
    “Then Richard Simons goes on to explain what is, and what is not, the Current Warming Period. That is just a personal opinion by someone who admittedly cannot find a good reference.”

    No, it is NOT my personal opinion. It was two different definitions of the Current Warming Period, as used in the source for the figure. If you think I am incompetent because I can’t find a good reference, how about you point me to a better definition of ‘Currrent Warming Period’ as used in Idso’s summary.

    “And the “AD 1961-1990 mean” is simply a reference, not the beginning and ending of the CWP, which by definition must include the present time.”
    You are wiling to go through quite impressive contortions to avoid admitting that there is no clear definition of ‘Current Warming Period’ in Idso’s summary. Whatever happened to your ‘scepticism’?

    BTW: the answer Eli got from Idso does not really clarify things.

  189. “You are wiling to go through quite impressive contortions to avoid admitting that there is no clear definition of ‘Current Warming Period’ in Idso’s summary. Whatever happened to your ‘scepticism’?”

    Well, ^that^ is a non-sequitur if there ever was one.

    If giving the dictionary definition of “current” is a quite impressive contortion, then I guess I’m just naturally impressive to some folks.

  190. Smokey: I see you are still wriggling to avoid admitting that Idso gave no definition of what he meant by ‘Current Warming Period’. At Eli’s place, he said “the period of highest proxy temperature value during which time the IPCC and other climate alarmists claim the planet experienced unprecedented global warmth, i.e., since the 1980s.” This contradicts what he wrote in the description of one of the papers and raises the question of just which proxies he was using to determine recent temperatures (e.g. ice cores aren’t done on fresh snow) and why measured temperatures were not used. Also, how long was the ‘period of highest proxy temperature’ – a week, a year, 10 years, who knows?

  191. Richard Simons,

    Two points: first, I never click on a blog where the owner speaks about himself in the 3rd person. It is abnormal, and I prefer normal. Further, you appear to be fixated on someone who actually refers to himself as a bunny.

    And second: you are also fixated on Dr. Idso, to whom I have never referred, and do not care about in the context of this discussion [although the Idsos’ are certainly up to speed on CO2]. I was merely defining the word “current”, which must by definition include now. If you don’t like it, go argue with the presumptive authorities you mentioned. Maybe a bunny can educate you.☺

  192. Thank you Dr. Craig Loehle. Those of us who read the literature have known for decades that Dr. Mann doesn’t do science well. He chases the AGW money tree, not the science tree.

    Well written and factual to boot.

    Dr. Mann’s book is pure utter rubbish when read with a discerning eye. You have exposed how poor a scientist he is, and by extrapolation, how poor a politician he is as well.

  193. On another thread, someone says of people who deny global warming is a serious problem “They’re interested in getting to the bottom of things, be it data, or the elusive falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW.”

    You folk aren’t living up to your image of yourselves. The only people who seem the slightest bit interested in getting to the bottom of the meaning of the figure are those who accept the reality of global climate change. I don’t often visit here, but when I do I see a pattern of people gullibly accepting anything that is perceived to attack the idea of serious climate change.

    “I was merely defining the word “current”, which must by definition include now.”

    I am not interested in the dictionary definition. I am interested in how it was used in the source of the figure. As the quotes I gave show, it could mean AD 1808-2000, 1961-1990 or, as some here think, 1998, but certainly not 2012. Why is it so hard for you to agree that the usage is not clear?

  194. Richard Simons says:
    April 22, 2012 at 6:09 am
    On another thread, someone says of people who deny global warming is a serious problem “They’re interested in getting to the bottom of things, be it data, or the elusive falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW.”
    You folk aren’t living up to your image of yourselves. The only people who seem the slightest bit interested in getting to the bottom of the meaning of the figure are those who accept the reality of global climate change.

    If you came here more often, you’d realize the foolishness of your last sentence. No one here doubts the reality of climate change, because that’s what the climate *does*. We don’t live on a static planet. What we contest is your assertion that human beings are somehow the cause of climate change at this particular point in time.

    There’s nothing going on today that hasn’t happened in the past. The only difference is that someone decided that because we just happen to be here while it’s happening, we are somehow causing it.

    What collosal hubris.

  195. Smokey says “Mann is also vilified by average folks, and by his scientific peers as well.”

    Perhaps you have Mann.
    Dr Michael is well regarded and well recognised by his peers:

    “Mann was awarded the Phillip M. Orville Prize in 1997 for an outstanding dissertation in the earth sciences at Yale University.

    His co-authorship of a scientific paper published by Nature won him an award from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) in 2002, and another co-authored paper published in the same year won the NOAA’s outstanding scientific publication award.

    He was named by Scientific American as one of fifty “leading visionaries in science and technology.”

    The Association of American Geographers awarded him the John Russell Mather Paper of the Year award in 2005 for a co-authored paper published in the Journal of Climate.

    The American Geophysical Union awarded him its Editors’ Citation for Excellence in Refereeing in 2006 to recognize his contributions in reviewing manuscripts for its Geophysical Research Letters journal.

    Mann’s work and that of several hundred other scientists who contributed to the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report received recognition with the award of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.[2]

    In 2012, he was elected a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union.

    He was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union in 2012.”

  196. kiwirob,

    Thank you for your naive appeals to corrupt authorities. No doubt Stalin awarded plenty of medals, too. But of course they are worthless just like Mann’s, which are only intended to prop up a corrupt pseudo-scientist who hides out from the transparency requirement of the scientific method, and to keep the grant gravy train on track. It’s hard to imagine someone more credulous than you. Do you really believe those political awards mean anything regarding honest science? Furthermore, Nature was forced to publish a major Correction of Mann’s MBH paper, which invalidated Mann’s conclusions.

    Really, could you be any more of a mindless buttkissing sycophant? What we need are Mann’s data, methods, code, and methodologies. But Mann hides out as usual, absolutely refusing to disclose his data and methods, and refusing to debate honest skeptical scientists. If Mann actually believed in what he’s peddling in return for taxpayer loot, he would stop being a coward, and enter the debate. Instead, Mann hides out. Mann always hides out. What does that tell you about your chicken?

    Does not the plain fact that the planet — the ultimate Authority — debunking Mann mean anything to you? Or are you a True Believer, immune to empirical evidence and rational thought?

Comments are closed.