Three questions for Andrew Revkin and Michael Mann

UPDATE: 7:10PM PST Rather than answer the questions, I appear to have been blocked by Dr. Mann from viewing his twitter account. See below

Earlier today, this tweet exchange took place.

I found this curious. And it prompts me to ask these three questions:

1. If in fact Yamal was “largely” irrelevant, how then do you explain this graph?

One makes a hockey stick, the other does not.

2. If in fact Yamal was “largely” irrelevant, why then did CRU fight the FOIA requests, invoking a decision by the ICO? According to Steve McIntyre:

Phil Jones’ first instinct on learning about Climategate was that it was linked to the Yamal controversy that was in the air in the weeks leading up to Climategate. I had speculated that CRU must have done calculations for Yamal along the lines of the regional chronology for Taimyr published in Briffa et al 2008. CRU was offended and issued sweeping denials, but my surmise was confirmed by an email in the Climategate dossier. Unfortunately neither Muir Russell nor Oxburgh investigated the circumstances of the withheld regional chronology, despite my submission drawing attention to this battleground issue.

I subsequently submitted an FOI request for the Yamal-Urals regional chronology and a simple list of sites used in the regional chronology. Both requests were refused by the University of East Anglia. I appealed to the Information Commissioner (ICO).

A week ago, the Information Commissioner notified the University of East Anglia that he would be ruling against them on my longstanding FOI request for the list of sites used in the Yamal-Urals regional chronology referred to in a 2006 Climategate email. East Anglia accordingly sent me a list of the 17 sites used in the Yamal-Urals regional chronology (see here). A decision on the chronology itself is pending. In the absence of the chronology itself, I’ve done an RCS calculation, the results of which do not yield a Hockey Stick.

3. If in fact Yamal was “largely” irrelevant, why not advise your friends at CRU to release the previously existence denied regional chronology still being contested with the ICO?

In my opinion, Dr. Mann is untruthful about the relevance of Yamal tree ring chronologies.

If I’m wrong, sue me. I look forward to the discovery process.

===============================================================

UPDATE: It appears Dr. Mann can’t handle the questions, I posted this tweet to his account, as did another user “Decatur Alabama”. It was the first tweet ever to Dr. Mann (from WUWT).

Now what I get is this:

That “loading tweets seems to be taking awhile” is code for “you’ve been blocked”.

As Louis Gray points out:

Quietly updated with the ongoing rollout of #NewTwitter, it now looks like trying to view the timeline of someone who has blocked you no longer works. Instead of a list of their tweets, you see a white lie from Twitter that says “Loading Tweets seems to be taking a while”. In actuality, this means those tweets are not going to be showing up for you ever – at least until the other person unblocks you or you use a second account.

I’m betting those two tweets have been removed as well. Can anyone who hasn’t been blocked by Dr. Michael E. Mann confirm and supply a screen cap? Revkin seems to have removed the tweet I made to him as well.

In related news, I was surprised to discover that Dr. Mann has 3,105 followers and WUWT has 4, 645 followers. I suppose he can’t block all of them, can he?

UPDATE2: 8AM PST 5/8/12 Mann has removed both tweets as I predicted he would…note the yellow line I added demarcation of his tweet just prior to the ones on the three questions.

I’m thrilled!. I’ve made one tweet to Dr. Mann in my entire life, asking three relevant questions about his hockey stick science. He responds by blocking me and deleting the tweets. “Who’s the denier” now?

UPDATE3: 1:30PM PST some commenters suggest I’m not really blocked, but when I’m logged into twitter as “wattsupwiththat” and press the “Follow” button, I get this:

The Learn more link take you here: https://support.twitter.com/articles/117063#

They say…

Blocked users cannot:

  • Add your Twitter account to their lists.
  • Have their @replies or mentions show in your mentions tab (although these Tweets may still appear in search).
  • Follow you.
  • See your profile picture on their profile page or in their timeline.
About these ads

119 thoughts on “Three questions for Andrew Revkin and Michael Mann

  1. Mann won’t sue. But he won’t retract either.

    The faithful will continue to believe (and cite) him as the Oracle.

  2. Inspection of that chart reveals the climate is characterized by a period of uninterrupted cooling for at least the last 1000 years. Captain America to Hulk – “Hulk, smash!”

  3. Mann trying the Jedi Mind Trick. “These are not the treemometers you are looking for.”

  4. Josh’s cartoon on this is going to show the hockey/non-hockey stick graph above, Briffa and Jones, halos somewhat askew, saying ‘We would never select or manipulate data in order to arrive at some preconceived or regionally unrepresentative result’ (with Mann as an angry demon whispering ‘it is just a molehill’ in Phil’s ear).

  5. Dear Mr. Andrew Revkin,

    I thought you were bright.

    Do you expect an honest answer from anyone associated with Climategate?
    Surely, you could ask someone, not even connected, what that graph means.

    You’ve been pawnd so long…. and you go back for more????
    1: You either like the pawning
    OR
    2: You aren’t bright

    Good luck with that.

  6. Yamal is largely irrelevant but an increase of a few parts per million of CO2 will doom us all.
    /sarc

  7. How long is Revkin going to go on embarrassing himself? One of theses days he is going to have to roll up his sleeves and actually read the Climategate documents.

  8. too much in a hurry to make fun, messed up my name…serves me right. That said, Mann, you’re a lying liar! :D

  9. Hiding in the dark, Mann sits stroking the core from YAD061, cooing softly to it, “Yes, Precious, you will be protected, you are the One tree to rule them all. McIntyres is mean and lies, we must make his lies go away.” /sarc

  10. Perhaps it is time to relocate the RealClimate link from “Pro AGW Views” to the “Transcendent Rant and way out there theory” category.

  11. Unlike the Guardian, Revkin sharply criticized Gleick.
    Revkin is an excellent reporter. Just because someone holds different opinions than you doesn’t mean that they aren’t entitled to respect.

  12. Mann’s molehill link is a 2009 post http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/ discussed in my article. It accused me of “randomly” including the Khadyta River data, data now revealed to have been included in the withheld regional chronology. The no-dendro chronology in this post relied on upside-down contaminated Tiljander data and is worthless. Mann et al 2008 should have been retracted. Etc etc.

  13. Thanks a lot for your work Steve, much appreciated. Mr.Bastardi, as usual, speaks the correct also.

  14. If Revkin is an excellent reporter he will realize that being pointed to a three year old debunked post from realclimate is not an adequate discussion of new information obtained from a recently granted FOI request!

  15. It’s an opportunity to plug the book!

    >
    Michael E. Mann ‏ @MichaelEMann
    @Revkin I talk about Yamal & efforts by McIntyre to manufacture bogus controversy in “The Hockey Stick & Climate Wars” http://bit.ly/sRasaq

  16. Not sure how to send the screen cap, but yes, your’s and Decatuer Alabama’s tweets are there in Mann’s twitter thing. I can’t see the tweet with the “mountain meet molehill” text though.

  17. Steve McIntyre
    I respect your knowledge,that’s all I can respect because I don’t know you. I do not respect Revkin’s knowledge, so what is there to respect? A journalist should be respected? Not in my world. This demanding of respect is all part of shutting people up. This man is worthy of respect so he should never be criticised. is that how it goes?
    I do not like Revkin because I have seen some awful comments on his pages. Comments that he must be fine with, as he allows them to stand.
    I could be wronging him, free speech and all that, but the comments do seem to lean one way.

  18. “In related news, I was surprised to discover that Dr. Mann has 3,105 followers and WUWT has 4, 645 followers. I suppose he can’t block all of them, can he?”

    He’ll get some poor grad student named Harry to do it.

  19. I have always looked at Yamal with a jaundice eye.
    When I saw this post, it made me think of this song.

    Please forgive me!

    I had to DJ in my college days :)


    .

  20. I made a PDF of ALL of Mann’s tweets, retweets, etc. – can I send you a link to it, Anthony?

  21. re: Steve McIntyre’s link to Real Climate post of 09/30/09:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/

    Why is it that every time I read something in the “public” discourse by Michael Mann it feels as though I’m hearing from a whiny adolescent??

    There truly is something shocking and juvenile about Michael Mann’s public bearing, his petty snarky way of responding to reasonable questions and/or criticism.

    Linking this 2009 article in a tweet, as a pretend response to new info and questions on Yamal, is truly contemptible. The whiny sarcasm of the RC 2009 post was bad then, and it hasn’t aged well at all. The fact that MM thinks this is an adequate response to Revkin now is extremely revealing.

  22. @Steve Mc

    I read through your posts to catch up on the Yamal Yankee’s regional disinterest. Good sleuthing. Once tweaked to the obvious that they probably already calculated everything they could think of, it makes sense to look for traces of the suppression of what contradicted the great hope for CO2.

    It seems that early on they took a WAGuess about what CO2 might do and have pressed on hoping that a random silver bullet of proof would find the bull’s eye. It took too long which left Mann to play Lone Ranger. He fired his best shot at removing the MWP but since then things have turned upside down and he has been unhorsed.

    So in retrospect the saddle of the Lone Ranger is still empty, we thought. Your silver bullet seems to have in fact hit home. Glad to hear you are feeling better – perhaps the former is the result of the latter: you seemed wan; you’ve seen Yamal.

  23. Steve McIntyre says:
    May 7, 2012 at 7:33 pm
    “Unlike the Guardian, Revkin sharply criticized Gleick.”

    “Sharply”?

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-admits-to-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files/

    “It’s enormously creditable that Peter Gleick has owned up to his terrible error in judgment.”. Ooh, yeah, the enormously creditable Peter Gleick. Who still has not admitted the fabrication of the laughable “strategic memo”.

    Sorry. Might be better than the Guardian. Still not credible. Won’t trust Revkin.

  24. Mann is a piece of work – The pain and destruction he and his fellow liars and crooks have caused is unpardonable. One day they will be held to account. His friends and financial backers are slowly feeling the pinch, the money pit is running dry and so is the lie. it’s always about the money as history has shown us over and over again!

  25. Out of curiosity, Mann has degrees in applied mathematics and physics. Has he ever published any papers in the hard science fields outside of the (very narrow and specialised) climate sciences?

  26. It appears Mann is reduced to publishing on Twitter. I wonder–are his tweets peer reviewed?

  27. I’m following rather closely and have read through Briffa’s 2009 response (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/sensit.htm). In this he calculates a Yamal_ALL chronology – a counter to the claim that his isolated chronologies (i.e. alleged cherry picked) provide a distorted picture. With regard to this I note:

    – his tree count for this max’s out at 75, compared to Steve’s almost 400 (current, 2009?).
    – he does still produce a hockey stick. (goes without saying ;-) )

    I’m curious if someone can respond, in a nutshell, why or how (his method isn’t detailed) he could still come up with a HS after including all — by his definition — of the trees?

    And, with regard to the average calculations, when Briffa takes an average for multiple regions does he average all trees or average regional averages? (which could obviously explain large discrepancies)

    And just as a comment, I find this focus on regions and/or research expeditions to be completely unscientific. When it comes to people like Briffa doing their work the region label should be thrown out in preference for scientific characterisations, geographic, biological etc, the fact that some guy went out to a certain region on a certain date doesn’t change the tree’s growth profile. Up to date studies should take this approach and provide an empirical basis for selection from the pool of samples. Of course spatial averaging and the like is completely valid, but should be explicit with everything else.

  28. Given the Alexis (sp?) website comparative figures AW put up a few days back it would hardly be worth Mann doing anything on RealClimate , so few would be looking at it !! /sarc off

  29. In my opinion, Dr. Mann is untruthful about the relevance of Yamal tree ring chronologies.

    You’re too charitable — if Mann told me it was sunny outside, I’d go looking for an umbrella.

  30. Anthony,

    Mann shouldn’t know me from from Adam so I doubt you specifically are blocked. My used-once Twithead account gives me the same message.

    But I was able to get his tweets.

    From my Twithead homepage I searched for his account name. With his pic in the leftside “People” box, clicking on the pic brings up an annoying “page overlay” with his last three tweets, then you can click on “Details” for individual bird droppings. They’re also in the main Search results. Last three:

    Kudos to State Farm for ending its association with the antiscientific Heartland Institute fb.me/1Ri8RdHLP
    10:00 PM – 7 May 12 via Facebook

    Note: The URL’s are a LIE. Show one thing, on mouse-over show the same, but actual links are something else. Is using those “t.co” fake links a Twithead “feature”?

    MT @climateprogress @BBlakemoreABC ‘Hug The Monster’: Why So Many Clim. Scientists Have Stopped Downplaying Clim Threat bit.ly/Lysqvb
    5:46 PM – 7 May 12 via web

    Third is his already-mentioned upcoming Florida vacation where he and cohorts will discuss the urgent need to get someone else to pay for future upcoming vacations as well.

    Curious. The media should make quite a deal of this upcoming “Florida Sea Level Rise Conference” in Boca Raton. The Tourism Board should be all over it, “Come see Florida while it’s all still here!” Intresting juxtaposition for Boca Raton as well. The expected drunk partying college students, and a conference with expected discussions on how to save the planet by enlisting the support of those future guardians of the environment.

    Maybe a free six pack of “carbon neutal” organic beer for anyone driving a hybrid?

  31. Posting Help Requested:

    On my side, it looks like wordpress automatically “fills in” a tweet when I only post an URL. Never posted a tweet URL before, learned something.

    Is there a way to post the URL by itself without the filling in? I carefully copied the text, and I know some people won’t be getting the “fill in”, using text-only browsers or Twithead might be blocked etc. So how do I make the URL a clickable item without the filling in?

    Like this? Make it its own link? (testing…)

    1st: https://twitter.com/#!/MichaelEMann/status/199680096032927745

    2nd: https://twitter.com/#!/MichaelEMann/status/199616254955372545

  32. Oh no. Mann’s bit.ly-link is to the notorious “Hey ya mal”-post at RC!

    Every die hard warmist I’ve ever met refers to that post when I try to explain that the hockey stick is broken. It’s becoming really annoying. I think we need a point by point debunking of it once and for all to refer back to.

    Should be quite easy, because the hockey sticks Gavin refers to either begin in the middle of the LIA or contain bad data (greybills or upside down tiljander). Even the Kaufmann-without-yamal is bogus, I think, since Gavin wrote this before Kaufmann issued a correction without the upside down series.

  33. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    May 7, 2012 at 10:29 pm

    just re the URL shorteners, I don’t think that’s any nefarious issue, or at least not particular to Mann or climate science….

    A lot of people like to use such “short” URLs, especially on Twitter where there is such a space premium for only 140 characters. It is distasteful that one does not see beforehand where the link will take you, so it depends upon whether you trust the person posting the link. Some of the issues are explained here:

    http://www.insidefacebook.com/2009/12/14/facebook-testing-new-url-shortener-fb-me/

    I sometimes use tinyurl which has an option to allow a user to go to a “preview” page so they have some idea of what they are getting without actually getting to some different URL.

  34. From Skiphil on May 7, 2012 at 11:00 pm:

    (…)
    just re the URL shorteners, I don’t think that’s any nefarious issue, or at least not particular to Mann or climate science….
    (…)

    No its not that issue, in this case, although not knowing where those short URL’s really go is annoying.

    I mean this:

    1st Mann tweet I mentioned:
    Tweet says – http://fb.me/1Ri8RdHLP
    Actual URL – http://t.co/NQetPyJO

    Twithead swaps out the original posted URL, which can already be short, to somewhere else that then goes to the posted URL. From the ubiquitous “t.co” usage I’ll guess that’s a tracking feature, although it does interfere with a simple right-click address copying.

  35. I suppose it is too obvious to suggest to those on twitter (the tw@teratti?) that this would be a great “I am Spartacus” moment to use the retweet option?

  36. DaveG says: May 7, 2012 at 9:00 pm
    “Mann is a piece of work – The pain and destruction he and his fellow liars and crooks have caused is unpardonable….”

    Too right!

    A billboard with Meltdown Mann’s ugly fizzog on would have been way more appropriate than Manson or the Unabomber. Who cares what the latter pair think? The thermaggedonists couldn’t have objected and the great mass of people (who have never considered the “consensus science”) wouldn’t have cared two hoots. But it would have cheered all those who have enquiring minds, at least. And, as a real bonus, Mann would have received the publicity he always craves but in a form that would seriously piss him off.

    Mann is arguably already responsible for more pain & destruction than Manson & Unabomber put together. He just did it with his keyboard instead of conventional weapons.

  37. Mann is the fastest account blocker on twitter, the Mann cannot defend his positions so it seems he has given up even trying.

  38. Your tweet is still there, and I am blocked. To determine if you are blocked click on “follow” and if you cannot, you are blocked.

  39. Skiphil says:
    May 7, 2012 at 11:00 pm
    “A lot of people like to use such “short” URLs, especially on Twitter where there is such a space premium for only 140 characters. ”

    Twitter will go down in history as the biggest advancement in communication since… wait… the Sumerians already had clay tablets that allowed for richer expression… since before the Gilgamesh epos.

  40. Mann operates with impunity. Who endows impunity in democracies? The press. Who can be turned? The press. LBJ once famously said “If we’ve lost Walter Cronkite, we’ve lost the war!” Too bad Andy Revkin has too much to lose by pursuing this. His entire peer group would turn on him. He would lose access to all of the Team “scientists.” But there he sits precariously on the fence and you just know the right Canadian push might make him slip. Eh, it’ll never happen. Two mice, no men.

  41. Espen says:
    May 7, 2012 at 10:54 pm

    Oh no. Mann’s bit.ly-link is to the notorious “Hey ya mal”-post at RC!

    Every die hard warmist I’ve ever met refers to that post when I try to explain that the hockey stick is broken. It’s becoming really annoying. I think we need a point by point debunking of it once and for all to refer back to.

    Excellent idea. Like to do one?

  42. Oh no! He’s coming to Florida. To talk about “sea level rise”. A subject that I’m sure he’s an expert at.
    .
    .
    .
    Oh, wait. It’s okay. He’s going to Boca. That’s not really Florida. Whew!

  43. Lucy Skywalker says:

    Excellent idea. Like to do one?

    I would like, but I’m not sure I currently have the time. On the other hand, it’s pretty easy to dismiss most of the other hockey sticks than the Kaufmann (2009) one, because it looks much more convincing than the spaghetti graphs and all those sticks that begin in the LIA. What I discover that I’ve been missing when informally debunking this to warmists that I know, is to know what Kaufmann looks like if both Yamal and upside-down Tiljander are removed. I wonder if Steve McIntyre has tried that? If you look at Gavin’s figure in some detail, the blade of the hockey stick already looks quite a bit less impressive without Yamal, but this is almost hidden under the red instrumental record.

  44. It appears to me that Mr. Mann views himself as Mr. Science. Therefore anyone who asks critical questions which might undermine his scientific views is a anti-science hack.
    The first law for a “warmist scientist”, never ever debate with a critics who has scientific credential.

  45. He has blocked me too – I’m proud to be in such distinguished company! Anybody else?

    It is interesting that twitter is being ‘economical with the truth’ with the message that “Loading Tweets seems to be taking a while”. One way to check you really have been blocked is to log out of twitter then google Mann’s twitter account, and it loads immediately (or, you can set up a second twitter account). Another way to check is to try to follow him – not that you’d really want to of course – then you get a message confirming that he has blocked you.

    My last tweet to him agreed with him (about people being misled). But there was an earlier one mentioning that a certain 4-letter word was used by Mann’s peers to describe his work, so I expect that’s why I was blocked.

  46. If Revkin were an excellent reporter, his wide readership would know (a) that Steve McIntyre is more astute than Michael Mann, (b) that Michael Mann has successfully misled tens of millions of the world’s most powerful and influential people, and (c) that Justin Gillis’s NYT piece suggesting that only one skeptic (Lindzen) has only one hope (clouds) to disprove even a portion of AGW is one of the most outrageous examples of biased journalism that even the Times has ever produced.

    Don’t sell your coat.

  47. Andy Revkin has been treated badly by Mann and the rest of the team for sometime. They have manipulated and misled him for many years.

  48. Nerd says:
    May 8, 2012 at 5:13 am

    “Mike “Piltdown” Mann…”

    Mike ‘Meltdown’ Mann may also be appropriate at some stage…

  49. What still amazes me is not the fraud, cherry picking and upside down data manipulation, but the fact that anyone would consider that dendro was a suitable proxy in the first place. A proxy for what ?
    There was a piece here just last week about an official, but badly sited instrument that might have been up to 5c out. If Manns dendro results are a proxy for THAT , its seems like a whole lot of hogwash to me

  50. Joseph Bastardi says….. “Confidence from ignorance of anything that challenges them.”

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolved-primate/201006/when-ignorance-begets-confidence-the-classic-dunning-kruger-effect

    Thanks for the “When Ignorance Begets Confidence: The Classic Dunning-Kruger Effect” reference! It’s a keeper. It ties in nicely with a previous reference I printed out “Critical Thinking in the Engineering Enterprise- Novices typically don’t even know what questions to ask. How can engineering leaders help then catch on more quickly”. http://www.criticalthinking.org/files/Niewoehner_2008.pdf

    The Niewoehner article came to my attention via either a WHWT reference in Tips and Notes of over at Climate, Etc.

  51. Mann’s ego will in the end be a real asset to AGW skeptics , keep him in the public spot light , keep the pressure on and wait for him to blow .

  52. DavidA wrote:
    “I’m curious if someone can respond, in a nutshell, why or how (his method isn’t detailed) he could still come up with a HS after including all — by his definition — of the trees?

    I will take a stab at that. There is a widespread belief in the dendro community that some trees at timberline track temperature, but for various reasons others nearby might not. So first you grab a regional temperature curve and pick a “calibration” interval. Then you assess the trees in your population based upon their conformity to the documented temp curve during the calibration interval. (If you fudge it a bit to ensure closest conformance with the late 20th century it helps to get a HS). Now reject all trees that do not conform. Voila! A hockey stick. I suspect that when Mann acccused Steve Mc of “randomly” adding data, he most likely meant that Steve did not filter out the trees that did not closely track the recent rise in temperature, but there are other possibilities. It is the same duel on all fronts: the team wants you to see only the data that best supports the theory, Steve wants you to have all the data so you can make your own judgement if you are able.

  53. Criticize this thought pattern then: Mann’s entire career (his life’s work and energy and his entire academic and worldwide (fundraising) credibility) are based on his theory of tree-ring growth that:
    “An increase/decrease in worldwide temperatures will cause an increase/decrease in tree ring thicknesses” … and so therefore … (if everything else and all other factors are assumed to be the same)
    “I can use tree ring thicknesses to back-calculate worldwide average temperatures.”

    Further, Mann is determined, fixated, and mesmerized by his theory that:
    “An increase in man-released CO2 is driving an increase in worldwide temperatures.”

    Can anybody, anywhere, regardless of what their opinions are about CAGW, disagree with those two statements?

    If so, then look at two cases:

    A. Global Average Temperature (and all other factors!) remain steady, CO2 increases linearly over time since 1950. Tree ring thickness during the growing season increases.

    B. CO2 (and all other factors!) remain steady, Global Average Temperature increases linearly over time since 1950. Tree ring thickness during the growing season increases.

    How does he separate the influence of CO2 increasing (and causing an increase in tree ring growth by as much as 27%) from temperature increasing over that period? Tree ring widths have increased recently, but how can he tell WHY they increased between CO2 and temperature?

    If he has not factored CO2 increases into EVERY recent tree study for EVERY tree specie since 1950, or has over-corrected (or under-corrected) for CO2 increases in growth rates for one or more tree species over that same period, does that not require Mann to “reverse his temperature proxies” to force them to match the recent thermometer record?

  54. RACookPE1978 says:
    May 8, 2012 at 7:45 am
    Further, Mann is determined, fixated, and mesmerized by his theory that:
    “An increase in man-released CO2 is driving an increase in worldwide temperatures.”

    In other words, he is unable to hear reality over the sound of his own awesomeness…

  55. Sooner or later we are going to see the e-mails Mann is fighting so desperately to see. Eventually the third and largest tranche of clmategate e-mails is going to be released.
    Both of these data groups are unlikely to help Mann or the rest of his team. All we need to do is encourage Mann and his pals to be themsleves, stick to the high ground, and keep on pointing out the holesin AGW extremism.

  56. Still would like to hear him address the issue of no hockey stick in China. Anthony, lets have that post brought forward again. I love it

  57. Revkin is a rag doll for the climate alarmists. When Climategate first came out he panicked for a moment and was almost going to have an opinion of his own, but the alarmists didn’t take long to put him back in his box. He is quiet a revolting person really, as he completely lacks intelligence and a back bone..

  58. RA Cook Other factors apart from temperature affect tree ring growth for example rainfall even if temps are lower they grow and, drought with high temps no growth etc completely unreliable as a proxy as shown by Yamal etc… Only reliable temp are radiosonde and satellite meters and they show no warming but flat since recordings began RSS shows a slight warming but I don’t think its significant

  59. Maybe I am being simple-minded about this…

    “If in fact Yamal was ‘largely’ irrelevant” one question I would have is why in the ‘hide the decline” discussion in the Climateagate emails, Michael Mann leaned on Keith Briffa so hard to not give any mixed signals (by showing the decline in Briffa’s data), when if Mann’s reconstruction was definitive all he had to do was argue HIS data (which shows a steep incline in the 1990s) over Briffa’s (which showed a decline in that same period) and try to make Briffa use Mann’s instead of Briffa’s. Or to add in Mann’s choice of Yamal data.

    I say this because the Divergence Problem (DP) certainly doesn’t show up in Mann’s Yamal-inclusive data. If the subject was connected with the DP, where is Mann’s argument that there IS no DP? His graph shows none, but how could he be showing no DP when every dendroclimatologist out there knows there IS one? If the DP exists – and it does – no proxy graphs should show anything else. (Multi-proxies might not, but tree-rings should – which was Briffa’s work, as far as I understand it.)

    Steve Garcia

  60. I don’t listen to Michael Mann anymore. He isn’t credible. Just moving on to science…leaving him behind in the dustbin. Same thing happened to Fred Hoyle. Fred could not deal with the fact that he was wrong about the big bang. Who is Fred you say? Exactly my point. The Space telescope wasn’t called the Hoyle. It was called the Hubble.

    Who was Michael Mann? He was that guy who played hockey for Penn State. Right?

  61. I just lost my comment, dammit. I was logged in and WordPress asked me to log in again. Every time it does that, I lose my comment. It only does that every now and then, and with no warning. And stupid me, I forget to copy-clip before hitting . Screw it.

    [I copy and hold till the comment appears . . frustrating I know . . kbmod]

  62. “I appear to have been blocked by Dr. Mann from viewing his twitter account.”

    I’m surprised that he didn’t report you as a spammer. That seems to be SOP for a certain segment of the Twitterati these days.

  63. Matt Skaggs there is perhaps a simpler explanation, Mann and the IPCC needed the numbers to produce a result which was ‘useful’, so he came up with a way to do this which actually did not depended on the reality of the data.

    From virtually day one the ‘Hockey stick’ was a political piece of work not a scientific one, it later became a religious ‘Icon’ for ‘the cause’, to be defended onto death.

    Much of the behavior of climate scientists makes sense once you drop the word scientists and use the word ‘faithful’ instead, the very idea of deniers finds a far happier home in any church than it will ever do in any lab.

  64. larrygeiger says:
    May 8, 2012 at 3:56 am

    Oh no! He’s coming to Florida. To talk about “sea level rise”. A subject that I’m sure he’s an expert at.
    .
    .
    .
    Oh, wait. It’s okay. He’s going to Boca. That’s not really Florida. Whew!
    __________________________________
    Darn it is too late for a snow storm and too early for a hurricane…. Think someone could lure him into the Loxahatchee Wildlife Refuge where Mother Nature in the form of an alligator or jaguar might take pity on the world?….. NAH, they would get too ill.

  65. When you can no longer defend your position you have two options: surrender or run away. Looks like he ran away.

  66. hunter says:
    May 8, 2012 at 8:18 am

    Sooner or later we are going to see the e-mails Mann is fighting so desperately to see. Eventually the third and largest tranche of clmategate e-mails is going to be released.
    Both of these data groups are unlikely to help Mann or the rest of his team. All we need to do is encourage Mann and his pals to be themsleves, stick to the high ground, and keep on pointing out the holes in AGW extremism.
    ______________________________
    Let’s just hope the Regulating Class has not implemented complete control by then. They are getting frighteningly close.

    ….The draft Copenhagen Treaty is still available in a few corners of the Internet.[xv] It is 181 pages of dense, convoluted, bureaucratic language, slow and difficult to read. The draft contains options and blanks to be filled in. Nonetheless, it is clear enough.

    The Treaty would have set up a new bureaucracy with the power to regulate CO2 emissions worldwide, able to regulate any market, over-riding national governments as required.[xvi] It could also fine and tax any signatory government.[xvii] In the hands of a judge from the regulating class, it could be interpreted to give this new global bureaucracy the power to tax every signatory nation and regulate its energy use almost completely—just look at how the US Constitution has been extended by interpretation over the years, and that’s a much clearer document. A hint in the Treaty could become the basis for a full blown mechanism to do almost anything the bureaucrats wished.…. http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/climate-coup-the-politics/

    That is not the only method being used BTW. The World Trade Organization, formed in 1995, has TEETH that no other treaty has. The secretive WTO tribunal, an unnamed three-judge panel, can order a nation to bring its practices ‘into conformity with its obligations under the (WTO’s) SPS Agreement.’ Failure to comply with WTO demands can result in hundreds of millions dollars in annual fines. However this is not enough power for Pascal Lamy, former Chief of staff for the President of the European Commission. He really wants the WTO to work like the EU only with much tighter control. Lamy calls for strengthened system of global governance…

    In The Globalist he writes an article titled Global Governance: Lessons from Europe

    …What marks the essence of the European governance paradigm is the coming together of a political will, a goal to be attained as well as an institutional set-up. It is the combination of these three elements — and not the specific method of governance used…. [In other words input from the masses is not required although he blathers on about "democracy" He even restates this idea in bold - gc]

    What is required to have a governance system work is a combination of political will, capacity to decide and accountability.

    …In the longer term, we should have both the G20 and the international agencies reporting to the “parliament” of the United Nations. In this respect, a revamping of the UN Economic and Social Council could lend support to the recent resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly on a UN-system-wide coherence.

    This would constitute a potent mix of leadership, inclusiveness and action to ensure coherent and effective global governance….

    A very similar article is found in The Global Journal July 1, 2010 by Lamy: Of What Use is Global Governance?

  67. Anthony,
    [i]That “loading tweets seems to be taking awhile” is code for “you’ve been blocked”.[/i]
    When I used Twitter regularly I used to get that message or a very similar one quite frequently, most often when trying to log into my own account. I therefore wouldn’t take it for granted that you have been blocked.

    REPLY: I didn’t, I tested using the “Follow button” I’m blocked for certain – see results added to the post in a few minutes – Anthony

    kadaka,
    [i]Note: The URL’s are a LIE. Show one thing, on mouse-over show the same, but actual links are something else. Is using those “t.co” fake links a Twithead “feature”?[/i]
    Yes, short links are used to help tweets fit into the character limit. There’s no reason to be upset about them. Most web users will know that browsers usually allow one to mouse over any link and see the actual URL.

  68. kakada,
    re my previous post: sorry, I was mistaken about those links. I seem to remember mousing over Tiny links and seeing the actual URL but I must have been mistaken.

  69. Mann’s self-serving overconfidence and aggressive arrogance appear to be compensation for his lack of self-esteem and for his self-knowledge of the well audited and publically known problems with his science.

    I thank McIntyre for being such a prolific contributor to the audits of Mann’s work.

    John

  70. Michael Mann is well on his way out of science and into full-time advocacy. He will tread the path worn by Gleick and Hansen. Wealthy moonbat ladies of a certain age will donate money to his cause, and coo over his every word on the lecture circuit, where they will keep him, like a pet.

  71. I rip so many places apart with the questions to stop any group of warmers involving the simple explanation for why they thought Mike Mann’s Math was real and why everyone they know thought it was real,

    and why, everyone they know, CAN’T TELL a TREE isn’t a HEAT SENSOR.

    I just did a flyover at Ars Technica and lit em up with that simple formula: asking people to explain in a way that wouldn’t make coffee shoot out people’s noses onto keyboards, what their personal explanation to me is

    for those phenomena.

    Priceless.

  72. Matt thanks for responding. His 75 count total is a clue, so it’s likely as you say that a filter process has been quite hockey stick hungry. Steve has his code and data sources posted in his blog, no such from the Briffa.

  73. I keep telling you people, they are not “tweets” they’re “twits”. Mann proves it every time.

  74. Sorry. I haven’t read every comment, but just when does Mann say Florida is going to be the next Tuvala?

  75. I’ve tried to read and understand this story but it seems to have become very jumbled and confused. I thought it was something to do with Steve McIntyre’s excellent work on Yamal (interesting), but it is now all about Michaela Mann’s twitter account (boring and trivial)

    Any chance we can get back to the real strong coffee, not just the froth on the top, please?

  76. Responding to my own question, re Briffa’s Yamal_ALL. Steve does comment on this very topic in his post:

    [quote]
    As shown above, there are obvious and visible difference between the regional and Yamal chronologies. However, in their website response to Climate Audit in October 2009 and to their submissions to Muir Russell, CRU claimed that there was little difference between their Yamal chronology and a chronology using “all the data”. How can these contradictory claims be reconciled?
    The graphic below shows compares core counts of CRU’s “all the data” (violet) to the core counts of the Yamal-Urals regional chronology that CRU had calculated in 2006. Evidently, contrary to their representations, CRU did not use “all the data” after all.
    [/quote]

    His Figure 5 shows core counts with violet “CRU 2009″ having a max count of about 75, so that should be it.

  77. just when does Mann say Florida is going to be the next Tuvala?

    I’m wondering what you’re reading, because neither Tuvala nor Tuvalu have been mentioned in this thread. It is however unlikely that Florida will do anything like disappear off the map, unless we get an order of magnitude or more than Al Gore’s prediction.

  78. It’s ironic that Anthony states in his contact section that he won’t “do research” for people because he doesn’t have the time, but expects Dr. Mann to spend time answering his questions. [Trimmed, see site policy. Robt] seem to lack the ability to identify irony.

    [But here I assume university writers can read site policies..... Robt]

  79. Have you ever wondered why a study has never been produced that actually refudiates the 1999 and 1998 studies by Mann et al.? It seems like every comment hear claims that the two works are incorrect, and yet not a single study has been offered that contradicts the conclusions. On the contrary, several studies have validated the findings and every paper that supposedly contradicts the findings has eventually been ripped to shreds on close examination. Very odd that so many people would deny scientific discovery and accept Heartland funded propaganda.

  80. “[But here I assume university writers can read site policies..... Robt]”

    “Andy” is a university writer??

    “Refudiates”? and: “…every comment hear…”?

    No wonder our schools are turning out failures! They are being taught by failures.

    Andy claims that no study “refudiates” Mann. Andy is as ignorant of facts as he is incompetent at spelling. I’ll help educate Andy:

    Nature, which published MBH98/99, was forced to issue a Corrigendum, showing that Mann’s paper was no good. It was riddled with errors. A Corrigendum is very rare, and is only published when there is irrefutable evidence that a paper is fatally flawed.

    However, due to the incestuous journal/pal review system, Mann himself was allowed to write the Corrigendum. So of course he tried to whitewash himself. But the fact remains that Nature was forced to print a Corrigendum of Mann’s paper.

    Andy probably also doesn’t know that Mann’s original Hokey Stick, which the IPCC repeatedly published up to AR-4, can no longer be published. Why not, Andy asks? Because Mann’s hockey stick chart has been debunked. That’s why not, Andy.

  81. Andy says:
    May 9, 2012 at 3:14 pm …Very odd that so many people would deny scientific discovery and accept Heartland funded propaganda.

    Ah, the old-Heartland-Koch-brothers-big-oil-funded lie refutes itself (er, returns) again. The following from Bishop Hill’s site, from “Tom” over who did the real work:

    I’m going over the Climategate emails now with “Yamal Urals” plugged into the search. It’s interesting to read now with this background. I recommend it, http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=yamal+urals

    How’s this one just for a bit of fun, the aim of the divergence project is…

    Dear Hakan
    this is a request from us in the hope of getting your support and collaboration for a project we are submitting to the UK NERC , concerned with the “divergence” issue. We would be really pleased if you feel you could support this. It is aimed at providing Tom with a salary for the next 30 months. Please see the attached letter for more details.
    Thanks
    Keith. Tim and Tom
    Very best wishes
    Keith

    So, a single grant, which resulted in getting half of the funds requested from a single, non-government-funded supplier is “Heartland-funded propaganda” according the CAGW-propagandists, but 80 billion in government funding to run government-funded labs and pay government-funded salaries of so-called scientists and mega-computers for those universities and labs by government-funded “scientists” that strangely enough only yield results that favor those same government-funded agencies who ONLY fund government-funded research projects which are approved by those same government-funding agencies to promote results that favor government control and new government taxes …. In the order of 1.3 trillion … are “independent science”. In the mind of CAGW-extremists.

    Could 1.3 trillion dollars corrupt “scientists” who favor politicians and extremists who – by their own words – seek to destroy capitalism and the world’s energy systems? That seek activity and publicly to kill millions of people in the name of population control and sustainability?

    OK. So, if “Big Oil” funding corrupts scientific research, please support your charge with ANY evidence of corruption or results that been changed, cherry-picked, or data hidden BY the people who got funded by non-government resources. Or, barring that, since you obviously have evidence” that money can corrupt scientific research”, please explain exactly what that evidence is and who was corrupted by how much money at what time.

    That may be a bit difficult, since YOU seems to have only been associated with government-funded so-called “scientific research” – which, by the way, appears to be paying your own salary and research projects. Obviously, since you are only experienced with government funding of “big science” yielding CAGW results, you must have first-hand experience WITH corruption BY government funding yielding CAGW-favorable results.

  82. More irony that Smokey’s link goes to the Heartlander site and not to Nature. Kudos for pointing out my typos. I forgot that this web site is dedicated to nothing but total correctness.

    REPLY: And yet you are here – Anthony

  83. Ah yes, the ever popular McIntyre and McKitrick paper that incorrectly stated that Mann used the wrong average for normalization. More irony. McIntyre and McKitrick’s paper led to several recreations of Mann et al.’s original work that showed the original conclusions were the same regardless of the normalization process. In the process McIntyre and McKitrick were proven wrong and their paper was removed from Nature. The reason Mann et al.’s graph is no longer used is because the advancement of climate change research is more important. The only folks who are obsessed with the “hockey stick” graph are people who try to claim that it has been “debunked.” It hasn’t been. But, it has been validated in numerous studies.

    REPLY: And yet, Yamal – Anthony

  84. Andy,

    Just trying to help out an aspiring writer. De nada.

    Regarding the Nature Corrigendum, when I clicked on the Nature link I had saved [and had posted here numerous times before], I got a 404. I told you about the incestuous relationship between journals and pal review. There’s a good example.

    But the info is in the Heartland article. And you will not find Mann’s original MBH99 hockey stick chart in any new IPCC publications, because it has been thoroughly discredited.

    The alarmist crowd always likes to accuse scientific skeptics of ‘denying climate change’. That is pure psychological projection [imputing your faults onto others]. The fact is that Mann tried to show that the climate did not change until the industrial revolution [the long straight shaft of his hokey stick]. But skeptics have always known that the climate naturally changes. In reality, it is the climate alarmist crowd that refuses to accept that the climate changes naturally. Here is one of many examples. I have plenty more if you’re interested, just ask.

    And for some perspective, see here.

  85. To RACookPE1978:
    Your “money buys climate scientists” argument is circular reasoning. You argue that climate scientists are somehow reaping a financial windfall through US federal funding and they therefore have been bought off. This would presume that the US government is espousing global warming when in fact Congress has spent thousands dragging scientists into investigations that attempted (but failed) to discredit their work. Very strange behavior for a government trying to push global warming while holding mock trials to debunk it at the same time.

    As with any political agenda, one must follow the money. Who loses money if science is left to stand on its own merits? Fossil fuel producers stand to lose trillions of dollars if the US enacts legislation to reduce the use of coal, gas, and oil. Heartland is funded by Koch Industries and the major oil producers. Why would the fossil fuel producers spend money putting anti-global warming propaganda on line and in the media? Because they expect a return on that investment.

    As for your accusations about me being involved with govermnemt fraud, well, you base your attack on … I don’t know what you base it on. I guess you just made it up. That’s a common tactic, to attack the messanger. It kind of puts your arguments in the light of drawing conclusions without facts. You know, the oposite of science.

  86. Smokey you lack an understanding of the methods used in Mann et al.’s 98 and 99 papers. Short term variation in yearly temperatures is included in the data that was used. When that data is normalized, what’s left is the long term trends. The data is what it is. One thousand years of fairly steady state variations in global temperatures followed by an extreme climb starting during the industrial revolution. Additionally, the graph contains upper and lower confidence intervals representing the range of error. As for peer review, it seems you’ve never had a paper reviewed for a science journal. Papers are put out for review to scientists who have not colaborated with the authors and who have no connection to the authors. That’s how the process works. It makes for good “scandal” to insinuate that real evaluation doesn’t occur, but it does. Far from being discredited, Mann et al.’s articles are still in Nature (you can look them up) and they’ve been thoroughly vetted and reproduced. Mann was correctly asked to respond to McIntyre and McKitrick’s incorrect accusations against him. That is to be expected at any scientific journal. When an author is accused of gross error, the author is given space to answer the accusations. Subsequently, the McIntyre and McKitrick paper was found to be seriously flawed to the point of being completely wrong in its methods and conclusions.

    A note to the editor. I had a word deleted from my post because it didn’t meet with the site’s policy. I used a derogetory term for a group ascribing to a certain philosophy. That was an appropriate edit in keeping with your policies. However, Smokey’s last post refers to “the alarmist crowd.” It’s odd that this term is acceptible.

    REPLY: “The alarmist crowd” has no connotation with Nazi Germany, yours did. Be as upset as you wish, but if you use the term we’ll snip it. – Anthony Watts

  87. Andy is so naive, he’s cute. I’ll bet he really believes what he’s writing: “Papers are put out for review to scientists who have not colaborated [sic] with the authors and who have no connection to the authors.”

    I recommend that Andy read A.W. Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion, available on the right sidebar. If Andy reads it, he will see how preposterous it is to believe that there is no connection between pal reviewers and authors. In fact, they collude constantly.

    Andy also believes that: “One thousand years of fairly steady state variations in global temperatures followed by an extreme climb starting during the industrial revolution.”

    Of course that erases the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, but true believers are not concerned with long established facts. The narrative is everything to them. It doesn’t matter that there has been no modern acceleration in the long term warming trend since the LIA. Andy simply believes the narrative, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He’s a true believer.

    And if Michael Mann believed what he is trying to sell, he would be anxious to debate his ideas in public, with skeptics. But he hides out like a craven coward, and refuses to appear anywhere, unless it is totally scripted. Does that sound like a scientist who believes in the transparency required by the scientific method? Or does it sound like a scientific charlatan riding the grant gravy train?

    Finally, Andy repeats the terrible [to him] accusation that the Koch brothers funded Heartland. So what? George Soros funds far-left causes with hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Koch gave Heartland a one-time, trivial donation. What is wrong with that? Andy, the dainty flower, is the one complaining about ad-homs, but he’s at the head of the line when he wants to trash the Kochs — who made their money fair and square, and can give it to whomever they want. For Andy’s edification, Heartland is an excellent organization that operates on a shoestring budget. They punch far above their weight in this debate.

    Andy should quit being such a hypocrite, man up, and admit that the whole runaway global warming scare is based on money and politics, not science. Will Andy man up? We’ll see.

  88. Anthony, Yamal is just the latest in a long string of half truths drug out as proof of a conspiracy that doesn’t exist. Looking at individual tree-ring chronologies and comparing them to global average temperatures is like measuring tire pressure on one car and claiming that everyone’s car has improperly inflated tires.

    REPLY:
    And when you remove YAD061 it lets the air out of the paleo-tire. Sorry, you won’t win this argument. – Anthony

  89. Andy,

    Keep digging, I’m enjoying it. And re-read RACookPE1978’s comment @May 9, 2012 at 4:02 pm again. It will do you good.

    The only “half truth” about Yamal is Briffa’s cherry-picked inclusion of one tree that skews the entire result: YAD061.

    Without that one cherry-picked tree, there would be no hockey stick chart. That is not science. That is pseudo-science. You really could not be more credulous.

  90. Anthony is right, I can’t win a debate here. I’m discussing scientific discovery and the remainder of the posters here are arguing conspiracy without proof. Thanks for the oportunity to go on record debunking the nonsnese on this thread. Thought I’d try reason, but I didn’t realize that nobody here has any scientific training. Good luck.

  91. Andy says:

    “…I can’t win a debate here.”

    You can’t win a debate anywhere, unless you can cite verifiable, testable, reproducible evidence supporting the CAGW conjecture. You have been out argued by folks who have facts, versus your opinions. You have ‘debunked’ nothing; that is pure psychological projection on your part. Equating skeptics with Holocaust deniers is the best you can do.

    Most commenters here can easily destroy the CO2 = CAGW conjecture, therefore we are not allowed to post on alarmist blogs; we are censored out. That is because skeptics routinely deconstruct the crap that passes for science on the blogs that Andy frequents.

    Andy cannot handle it here for one reason: he lacks the scientific facts to support his belief system. So long, Andy. Enjoy your fantasy world. We deal in reality here.

  92. Re-read my posts. I cited verifiable, testable reproducible evidence that supports global warming. The three of you who responded, skirted my citations and haven’t offered any verifiable, testable, reproducible evidence to prove that the earth isn’t warming. And therein lies the problem. All of the science points to global warming caused by increasing CO2 levels. No studies exist to say otherwise that are verifiable, testable, or reproducible. When I provided citation and evidence, you ignored it and/or attempted to demean me. BTW, back to my original inquiry. Anthony, why would Dr. Mann have time to answer your questions about a study with which he is unconnected when you state in your communications section that you don’t have time to do other people’s research? Seems a bit hypocritical. Lastly, if all studies that show evidence of global warming are imediately dismissed on this site, how can you claim impartiality and an open forum for discussion?

  93. Andy,

    No one here disputes that the planet has been warming since the LIA. That is a pure red herring argument. The planet has been warming naturally along the same trend line since the LIA. Warming has not accelerated; the trend line is within it’s normal parameters.

    From that red herring you segué into an unsupportable position: “All of the science points to global warming caused by increasing CO2 levels. No studies exist to say otherwise…”

    You are either totally ignorant of this subject, or deluded. “All of the science points to…” is a baseless appeal to a non-existent authority. You can not produce any testable measurements showing that X amount of anthropogenic CO2 causes Y increase in temperature, because there are no such verifiable measurements. If there were, the climate sensitivity number for 2xCO2 would be definitively known. It is not; there is a wide discrepancy in opinions, from the IPCC’s preposterous 3+ºC, to Dr. Miskolczi’s 0.00ºC, and many numbers by other climatoologists in between — most of which are at 0.5ºC or less.

    The fact is that most of the rise in CO2 is the result of a warming ocean, which outgases CO2 the same way that a warming Coke does. There is verifiable, empirical evidsence [ice core data] showing that rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature, from months to hundreds of millennia. Effect cannot precede cause, therefore rising CO2 must be the result of rising temperature.

    Finally, your citations are based on computer models, not on testable, verifiable evidence [note that models are not evidence]. When you have evidence that allows you to directly measure the rise in temperature per rise in unit CO2, wake me. You don’t have that, all you have are conjectures. That is no good here. Not by a long shot.

  94. Keith W. says:
    May 7, 2012 at 7:28 pm
    “Hiding in the dark, Mann sits stroking the core from YAD061, cooing softly to it, “Yes, Precious,”

    Thanks Keith for the good laugh!

  95. I’m pissed at all the double talk climate liars (not warmists or alarmists). Why can’t someone take that lying POS to court and force him to divulge all his nasty little secrets? I’d donate $100 to the cause, anyone else?

Comments are closed.