Mann’s secret hot sauce

Steve McIntyre finds yet another instance where Mann applies his special “secret hot sauce” to data, selling the sizzle, rather than the steak. It is another familiar tale of data holdback, gatekeeping, obfuscation, and cherry picking by The Team. One wonders just how long the rest of science will stand idly by.

From Climate Audit:

Mann et al 2008
Fisher 2002 (Holocene) carried out a principal component analysis on a wide variety of proxies for the 210 year period from 1761-1970 when the proxies were all available. Fisher created an archive of these proxies for the period 1761-1970, one of which was Law Dome (LAWA210.ANT). This was obviously only a fraction of the available data but was the portion used in his analysis.

Even though Mann had a current and much longer version of the Law Dome O18 series that he/Jones had obtained from van Ommen, Mann et al 2008 substituted the truncated version used in the Fisher principal components analysis. The difference in the two versions is shown below.


Figure 3. Law Dome versions. red- 2003 version; blue – Mann et al 2008 version ( truncation of 1997 version to 1761-1970).

It would take a while to calculate the effect of Mann’s use of an obsolete and truncated version of the Law Dome series on his SH reconstruction, but no one should assume that it didn’t and doesn’t “matter”. My guess is that this decision had a material impact.

Full story here

About these ads

52 thoughts on “Mann’s secret hot sauce

  1. For some reason these Warmists never have to explain why some data is relevant and other data not. In fact they don’t seem to be required even to share the raw data. If this was in another branch of research, say medical or herbicide trials or perhaps something more akin, say astronomical dating,, the data would be poured over government, academia, industry, and peer reviewers.

  2. The CERN researchers show how it should be done. They found an unexpected result so released all of the data to allow aproper audit. They made repeat observations (both the original group and other “denier” groups) and eventually identified an erroronous signal from their instruments. Had Mann worked at CERN he’d have demanded the whole of physics to be re-written!

  3. Yikes! This is even worse than Mann’s hockey stick. We can only hope it gets commensurate coverage in the media but I’m sure not holding my breath.

  4. “Two all BS patties,
    special sauce,
    you won’t lettuce see the data,
    cheesy claims,
    cherry picking,
    smells like onions,
    on a sesame seed bun”

  5. Aaahh, he would have inverted (imagined anyway) it anyway if it didn’t meet his needs. Nothing like a little MMannaestra’s special hot hot sauce mixed with viagra for raising drooping members.

    Sure looks like most of his research is spent searching for lost outliers so he can fan them into the flames of present day scares. His widespread outlier resurrection efforts will someday spark books about how the CAGW scam was built. From paper hanging (graphed figures are often hung on walls) to global tyrant wannabe. May his reward be the one he desires most for all of us, toasted, thirsty, dirty, hungry and grubbing for his existance along with us peasants. Of course, after the scam is fully cleansed to it’s roots and it’s discovered that all of the scares are grossly overstated, that means he’ll be stuck in suburbia like many of us, only he’ll be working as a Kmart clerk. Spill in aisle 3, boy!

  6. @Tom Murphy

    I’m noticing a very interesting trend in troll behaviour. When an article appears on WUWT that is of general interest, a new paper with an interesting look at some specific issue.there’s plenty of comments, but nary a troll to be seen. But put up an article that directly questions the results of a member of the “Team” and out roll the trolls with links to articles claiming their egregious comments were taken out of context and citing whitewash inquiries as proof that they did nothing wrong.

    Really trolls? You think you are fooling anybody? Your pathetic whitewash inquiries have been discussed in depth on this site, and anyone bothering to look into the details of them can only come away incredulous at the lengths to which the inquiries went to inquire about…. well, nothing. As for the accusation of being “out of context”, that too has been done to death on this site and others, and again, anyone who researches the context of comments like “Mike’s Nature trick” and “hide the decline” and so many others knows that the full context is hundreds of times worse than the out of context remark itself.

    But most telling about you trolls is that you do not show up in the majority of the strictly science discussion threads at all. Even in the threads about the “Team” you restict your comments to indirect and misleading defenses of what and fair minded person in possession of the relevant facts can only conclude is criminal behaviour.

    Why is that Tom? Why to you and your troll budies refuse to discuss the science head on? What are you afraid of?

  7. @Phil C,

    The Y-axis is the (log, I think) Oxygen 18 measurement, and the X-axis is calendar year. Basically, higher the O18 number, the higher the temperature, and vice versa.

  8. I found it telling that disruptive troll Phil C even needed to ask the question…I was hoping he’d figure it out himself.

    Yes Oxygen18, a proxy for temperature, and years. Pretty obvious if you’ve been following climate science for any length of time, or bothered to read the CA post in full.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9418O

  9. “davidmhoffer says:
    June 5, 2012 at 11:17 am
    @Tom Murphy

    Excellent troll fight. Only I think you missed the /sarc at the end of Tom’s post.

    Shame to waste a good troll shot though. When the chance comes again, and it will, don’t forget to add that they show up whenever certain folks post here too. Often they show up as blind waves of trolls then, not really knowing wwhat they’re posting about; shouting at the wind without rationale.

    I like your posts David! Everyone is allowed minor slips every now and then, especially when the trolls get us all keyed up with their spinning illogic arguments. It’s like an Excel sheet, there should be an automatic function in wordpress that publishes their words in red as soon as the argument goes into circular reasoning. Chicken, egg, chicken, egg, chicken; given the forever circular reasoning of the trolls you’d think there is no rooster or barnyard or feed, only CO2 and the ‘team’.

  10. davidmhoffer says:
    June 5, 2012 at 11:17 am

    Blue on blue there David; you missed the /sarc tag at the end of Tom’s post.

  11. Billy Liar says:
    June 5, 2012 at 12:04 pm
    davidmhoffer says:
    June 5, 2012 at 11:17 am
    Blue on blue there David; you missed the /sarc tag at the end of Tom’s post.
    >>>>>>>>>>>

    And so I did! The troll comments are so formulaic that once you’ve seen one you’ve seen most of them. I wind up skimming as a result.

  12. I found it telling that disruptive troll Phil C even needed to ask the question…I was hoping he’d figure it out himself.

    I’m baffled that you would find it acceptable to call me a “disruptive troll” for asking a straightforward scientific question. I merely asked what units were being plotted here. Is that really a bad thing? Even Ged, who answered the question for me, isn’t sure. Does not he deserve a smackdown for posting an answer that he’s not sure about? What’s the standard you’re applyting here?

    REPLY: Not for asking this question, but for your history of behavior here, which is all troll. Be as upset as you wish. – Anthony

  13. When you look at full cores, it is obvious that Oxygen18 is not a proxy for temperature. Specifically, the Vostok core shows 4 Deuterium peaks and 11 Oxygen18 peaks in the same time period. This demonstrates (to me) that they can not both be temperature proxies.

    I have 3 plots at http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Icecore_Data/Vostok.html
    In some cases, the Deuterium increases before Oxygen18, while in other cases, that relationship is reversed. The third plot, zoomed in around 1,800 meters, clearly shows the problem.

  14. “One wonders just how long the rest of science will stand idly by.”

    As long as their bread is getting buttered. Honest science has been totally corrupted by money and power which is why 98% of it is total crap.

  15. “I wonder why they bother to get data at all. They make it up anyway.”

    They don’t care about getting data but they care about the apparence of getting data.

  16. And this Mann has a PhD to his name?If Steve M carries on exposing his tricks like this he’ll be known as the David Copperfield of climate science!

  17. mycroft says:
    June 5, 2012 at 1:59 pm
    And this Mann has a PhD to his name?If Steve M carries on exposing his tricks like this he’ll be known as the David Copperfield of climate science>>>>

    With apologies to Arthur C Clarke:

    Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from science.

  18. Why do these little history re-writes always seem to trend towards a warmer 20th century?

    Hey Michael Mann, we know you read this blog, even if you don’t participate. Here is my message to you….

  19. @davidmhoffer

    What’s more telling than missing the /sarc tag (an honest mistake that anyone can make – skeptic or alarmist) is the reaction such a post garnered. I think you were correct to presume that a Mann et al 2008 apologist would likely assert contextomy on the part of McIntyre (and now Watts because he referenced McIntyre).

    But at day’s end for Mann et al 2008, it’s removing “this” (ostensibly because the data didn’t “fit, align, parallel” some calculated regression) and adding “that” (the data that does fit some… desired intention – not observation). Warmists can call this deliberate obfuscation of the data a “neat trick” and assert that skeptics are guilty of quote mining along the lines of “hide the decline,” but anyone (again, skeptic or alarmist) with an open mind (and perhaps a mediocre appreciation of common sense) can perceive the hollowness of such… deceit. Thus, your troll comments on the sarcasm are understandable.

    Perhaps this is why a majority of Americans think it likely that some climate scientists have *gasp* falsified their papers on global warming – http://tinyurl.com/3wesauw (Rasmussen Reports link). That’s not to say Americans deny global warming’s occurrence but rather question how its impact is being represented or more appropriately – manipulated deliberately (i.e., with intention).

  20. Once again its worth remember that for some all things done to support ‘the cause ‘ are automatically good and justifiable and never mind the facts or the reality of the data . This is not science at work but owes far more to a religions outlook were ‘faith’ in such ‘self evident truths’ overrules all other issues.

  21. [snip. Gratuitous name-calling. If you don’t like it, you can go on the internet and complain. ~dbs, mod.]

  22. After reading the posts in this thread it’s apparant that nobody here understands scientific reasoning, or the scientific process. It’s a sad commentary on education that so many people can be so ignorant of basic reasoning skills. I think it’s safe to assume that if anyone has read any of the Mann papers that they rail against, they didn’t understand them. Try reading the original material people. Don’t rely on the falsifications that appear on this and other scientific denier (not a referrence to Nazis Anthony) sites.

    REPLY: I’ll assume you must be a student at your university, because I seriously doubt a staff member would act as you do. – Anthony

  23. Supposedly this site is committed to exploring alternative theories. Unfortunately if one criticizes McIntyre, their post is scrubbed. Forget that the title of the post is gratuitously name-calling. That doesn’t fly when one legitimately criticizes the fraudulant McIntyre paper that was completely debunked in Nature. As with most scientific neo-phytes, if this site can’t argue facts, it’ll argue by eliminating dissent. Good luck with that.

    REPLY: You are welcome to criticize, but the language you used was inappopriate and violates site policy – Anthony

  24. There’s a point at which it is no longer sensible to assume good faith by people like Mann.

    Actually it’s not Mann but those who allow him to operate this way who are the real criminals. And I mean criminals, because if you obtain money by deception this way it is a crime.

  25. “There’s a point at which it is no longer sensible to assume good faith by people like Mann.”

    This statement is more accurate if you replace “Mann” with “McIntyre.”

    REPLY: At least Mr. McIntyre publishes his full name with his criticisms, something you have not the courage to do. – Anthony

  26. Andy said: “…it’s apparant (sic) that nobody here understands scientific reasoning, or the scientific process. ”

    You mean this reasoning?

    “We will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” , director of CRU to Michael Mann.

    Is that how the scientific process should work?

  27. Two comments:
    1) I know of no other scientific discipline where it is acceptable to maneuver data like this.
    2) Phil, really? You can’t look at the graph and tell what it is? The 6th grader in my house figured it out…

  28. So…. all that derision I mistakenly heaped on Tom Murphy?

    Please read it again as if it were addressed to Andy.

  29. As if to prove my point:

    Andy;
    That doesn’t fly when one legitimately criticizes the fraudulant McIntyre paper that was completely debunked in Nature. As with most scientific neo-phytes, if this site can’t argue facts, it’ll argue by eliminating dissent. Good luck with that.>>>

    I read all your comments Andy, and nary a fact amongst them. Some name calling, some reference to some article in some journal, but an actual factual discussion of the science itself appears nowhere in any of your comments. Thank you for making my point.

  30. Andy, since you are still at the university, try taking some advanced statistics in the next couple qtrs/semisters. You then can understand how Mann is a liar. Lying by omission is still a lie, especially in statistics. Not publishing your data and models is just writing a story of fiction. For the ethical statistician, you worry that you missed something that better explains your results, never try to fit the results to expectations/desires, and mourn your model’s demise when it is falsified and move on.

  31. I see a lot of criticism of Steve McIntyre in comments here but not a whole lot of substance in the reasons why. Upset that he’s just called out “your boy” once again for being a snake oil salesman, and backed it up, once again, with data?

    You want to call out Steve, great. You better have some data to back it up. Otherwise, you’re just a whining, bitter, SOB…

  32. Andy says:

    “Forget that the title of the post is gratuitously name-calling. That doesn’t fly when one legitimately criticizes the fraudulant McIntyre paper that was completely debunked in Nature.”

    The post’s title is a witty, double entendre, as opposed to gratuitously name-calling. An example of what Andy alleges would be, “Well, it’s the old line about getting into a fight with a pig – you’ll get dirty and the pig enjoys it.” In this quote, Mann was calling Marc Morano a pig in a March 2010 interview – http://tinyurl.com/76l6xzk (Climate Science Watch link) “…[Y]ou know, [it’s like] getting down in the mud with some professional climate change denier like Morano.”

    And regarding the practice of “debunking” a peer-reviewed paper, you should read a pro-AGW web site’s recommendation for the “Debunking Handbook,” which states, “Don’t lead with the wrong view you’re trying to debunk, but rather, with the correct view you want to instill.” – http://s.tt/198DL (Desmogblog.com link). For Andy’s edification, the conclusions of M&M 2003 and 2005 were supported by the Wegman Report 2006 – http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf . That report (similar to the M&M papers) were spuriously and viciously attacked by Mann and his apologists in a deliberate and concerted effort to personally destroy the authors. This effort was richly detailed in the Climategate e-mails; all one needs is the courage to read them.

    The irony with the above situation, though, is that Mann bleated petulantly about a right-wing, Big Oil conspiracy against him and other pro-AGW scientists without having offered a scintilla of evidence for its existence, while he and other pro-AGW scientists plotted and implemented (as detailed in the Climategate e-mails) a conspiracy against M&M and Wegman. And the response from most of the scientific community? The e-mails were taken “out of context” – how dutifully convenient for Mann – http://tinyurl.com/yzwdavp (Union of Concerned Scientists link). Mann 2008 just dismissed the M&M papers as “bizarre” and failed to address the very real shortcomings of his previous papers; Mann was apparently comfortable with the fallacious reasoning of appealing to authority vis-à-vis the whitewashings that he didn’t need to apply the scientific method.

    Science to Mann means never having to say your data is flawed. Science to Mann’s supporters means blindly pledging allegiance to a man (as exemplified by Andy’s words).

  33. Richard says:
    June 5, 2012 at 9:52 am

    “I wonder why they bother to get data at all. They make it up anyway.”

    I can think of two good reasons: it’s cheaperto make the data up and it’s quicker – leaves more time to spend in Tahiti and such places.

  34. Andy says:
    June 5, 2012 at 4:31 pm
    After reading the posts in this thread it’s apparant that nobody here understands scientific reasoning, or the scientific process. It’s a sad commentary on education that so many people can be so ignorant of basic reasoning skills.

    You need to re-take English Comprehension 101 next semester and then go for Logic for Sophomores.

    I think it’s safe to assume that if anyone has read any of the Mann papers that they rail against, they didn’t understand them. Try reading the original material people. Don’t rely on the falsifications that appear on this and other scientific denier (not a referrence to Nazis Anthony) sites.

    I think it’s safe to assume you don’t know what you’re talking about. How is a relevant extract from a paper and commentary on that extract a “falsification”?

    REPLY: I’ll assume you must be a student at your university, because I seriously doubt a staff member would act as you do. – Anthony

    I concur.

  35. For people like Andy, et al, who are quick to level accusations of being anti-science, biased, cherry-picking etc against those who dont buy the cAGW myth, I’ll tell you what first brought my attention to global warming. Having known about global warming, but never having taken more than a passing interest, I was aware of the theory that rising CO2 levels resulted directly in higher temperatures. Then, around 2009, I read a headline that said something like ‘2008 tenth hottest year on record’. That seemed odd because, whilst you would expect anomolous years due to variability, 2008 being tenth meant that 10 years of CO2 rise hadn’t raised 2008 above 1998. To cut a long story short, I then started looking deeper and doing my own research and dicovered what a load of unsubstantiated nonsense cAGW is. I have a physics degree and understand the scientific principle which, if applied properly, now demands a rethink of the CO2 warming theory because it doesn’t fit real-world data.

  36. Andy says:
    June 5, 2012 at 4:57 pm
    This statement is more accurate if you replace “Mann” with “McIntyre.”

    Obviously, you’re completely missing that McIntyre is very modest in his critique of the complete abuse/ignorance (make your choice) of statistical methods that Mann and several other climate scientists (the latest being Gergis et al in Australia) display.

    I recommend that you take a course in statistical methods – then you may understand what a can of statistical worms you open up if you do statistics the Mannian way.

  37. Jonathan Smith says:
    June 6, 2012 at 12:05 am
    I have a physics degree and understand the scientific principle which, if applied properly, now demands a rethink of the CO2 warming theory because it doesn’t fit real-world data.

    I have no science degree, but I understand English and I understand the dictionary (the Oxford English Dictionary, to be specific) definition of the scientific method: “a method or procedure…consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”

    Nothing I have seen from the CAGW side conforms with that definition. What I *have* seen from that side is supercilious disparagements, noisy declamations, spurious appeals to emotion, data skewed or cherry-picked to fit the hypothesis, and flat-out lies.

  38. Andy, why don’t you spell out for us exactly what we’re missing and why we’re wrong, since we’re all obviously so stupid….

  39. This is a question, not an accusation.
    Isn’t that a very good example of fraud?
    I’m not scientific, but if i tried that in high school i’d have been severely reprimanded.
    And failed.

  40. @Andy – If your one of Manns students I mourn for your furture, might want to learn the phrase “Do you want hot sauce with that?”.

  41. REPLY: I’ll assume you must be a student at your university, because I seriously doubt a staff member would act as you do. – Anthony

    Based on the behavior we’ve seen, even right here, from university staff members, I think that’s not a safe assumption to make.

  42. TonyG says:
    June 6, 2012 at 10:38 am
    Based on the behavior we’ve seen, even right here, from university staff members, I think that’s not a safe assumption to make.

    Based on our host’s reply, I’d guess that Andy’s IP originates from an institution whose staff still maintains a modicum of scholastic integrity.

  43. HOCKEY STICK RECIPE
    By: just some guy
    Ingredients:
    – Hundreds of random data from tree ring samples
    – 1 tree ring sample shaped like a hockey stick*
    – “short-centered PCA” (or other method to mine hockeysticks)
    – 1 gallon of Mann’s Secret Hot Sauce
    – Pre-cooked GISS temperatures data
    – Five or Six AGW peers

    Step 1: Mix tree ring data together, along with the 1 hockey stick tree ring data.
    Step 2: Cook data for a three weeks
    Step 3: Add short centered PCA
    Step 4: Continue Cooking data for 1 month, stir frequently, make adjustments as necessary.
    Step 5: Add Mann’s Secret Sause
    Step 6: Check mixture to see if it resembles a hockey stick, if not, repeat steps 2-4.
    Step 7: Remove from oven, attach pre-cooked GISS data to the “blade” of the stick
    Step 8: Stir in peers, let sit for one week.
    Step 9: Serve

    *These can be difficult to find, one has been reported in the Yamal region of Siberia.

    Note: For even better results, make a copy of the one hockey-stick data sample, than repeat steps 1 through 6 several times, using variations of the remaining data. Place multiple hockey-sticks together on the same graph, to give the impression of “repeatability” and “robustness”.

  44. @Andy the Student

    I find it intersting that your basic ‘point’ to be scored is that you feel people do not read and understand the works of M Man; that we don’t ready his papers and we do not undesrtand where the leaning is and where the props are located. You argument, such as it is an argument, will not fly with this audience – in fact it makes you look as if you are locked in hero-worshipping mode. You are addressing people who don’t care to tow any party line and carry no truck with the endless nonsense perpetrated by the AGW alarmist community, fattened at the public trough as it is.

    Take a break from the team’s papers and read well beyond them. Look into the works where real science is done and proper accounting shown, where the correct application of difficult maths is to be found. Mann’s hocky stick paper has to be the most influential example of bad math that was ever deliberately and knowingly published in the Common Era. Do you understand that? Can you follow what happens when a non-reviewed, uncorrected misunderstanding of principal components analysis is applied to real data? Do you know what PCA is? Can you comprehend the billions of dollars that have been wasted chasing a CO2 influenced pipe-dream, their waste promoted by the endless repetition in print of that infamous and incorrect graphic?

    People who do read and understand these papers, many of them here, are rightly appalled at the abuse of position, title and heritage that has been our common misfortune to witness. The coverups are examples of the serial failure of the ‘safety nets’ of science that should be prosecuting the crooks out of academia. Please don’t waste your student days lauding and defending the Lettered and Awarded. Abandon the kingom of Names and inhabit, rather, the fastness of Truth and the humble plain of Honesty.

  45. Oh, hockey sticks, hockey sticks,
    Hokey in every way!
    Oh, what fun it is to make
    Hockey sticks all day!
    Hockey sticks, hockey sticks,
    Hokey in every way!
    Oh, what fun it is to make
    Hockey sticks all day!

  46. And for an even spicier uptick, try Mann’s Extra Extra Hot Super Secret Sauce. It’s guaranteed to get your 20th century boiling, mmm mmmmmm good!

    Mann’s….. It’s peer reviewed!

  47. Looking at get some extra kick for your stick? Try Mann’s Extra Spicy Secret Hot Sauce! aaai Karumba! They use only hottest ingredients from the hottest trees, that’s how they guarantee you’ll get the most sizzling results, or your money back!

    Mann…. Now that’s hot!

  48. Sorry, one more….

    Are you tired of bland trends and boring flat lines? Do your proxies have a case of the chills? Why not spice things up a bit with Mann’s Super Ultra Hot -n- Spicy Sauce! Put some pizzaaz in your data! Give your stick a sizzling uptick! And best of all, results are guaranteed, or your grant money back!

    Mann…. It burns!

Comments are closed.