This is hilarious, I finally got a retraction out of Dr. Michael Mann.
The AGW proponents must be reeling from McIntyre’s takedown of Marcott et al, because I watched the most hilarious smear genesis unfold this morning a few minutes after a note about McIntyre’s analysis was sent to Joe Romm of Climate Progress.
First, I sent this note to Romm this morning at 6:40AM PST. It was a little good-natured ribbing over Romm’s extrapolation of the Marcott hockey stick (in red):
I sent a one line note with a link to McIntyre’s latest:
I got his back almost immediately from Romm at 6:45AM PST:
Now you are denying the instrumental record, too?
This made me laugh, because neither Romm’s graph, nor Marcott’s, has the instrumental record in it, only Marcott’s reconstructed temperature and Romm’s red line “projected” add on. Plus, as McIntyre points out, Marcott et al did NOT splice on the instrumental record:
I have consistently discouraged speculation that the Marcott uptick arose from splicing Mannian data or temperature data. I trust that the above demonstration showing a Marcottian uptick merely using proxy data will put an end to such speculation.
Ten minutes later, at 6:55AM PST, this appeared on Dr. Mann’s Twitter feed:
Wait, what?
Coincidence? Maybe, but I don’t think so. Note Mann says “News Alert” and “now denying”, which implies immediacy. Of course since I am blocked by Mann on Twitter (as are dozens if not hundreds of people), I’m not allowed to post a response, so I have to do it here.
For the record, I don’t “deny” the instrumental record, but I do study it intently. For example, via this peer reviewed paper published in JGR Atmospheres of which I am a co-author:
Fall, S., Watts, A., Nielsen‐Gammon, J. Jones, E. Niyogi, D. Christy, J. and Pielke, R.A. Sr., 2011, Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends, Journal of Geophysical Research, 116, D14120, doi:10.1029/2010JD015146, 2011
Certainly it has gotten warmer in the last 100 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1912/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1912/trend
It also hasn’t warmed significantly in the past 15+ years, much like that period post 1945 to the late 1970s in the graph above:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/trend
My view of the instrumental record is that it is clearly showing some warming, but as I point out many times, some of that warming trend is due to siting biases and adjustments.
Following the initial conversation, over the space of an hour, while starting to write this post, I communicated in several emails to Romm how his characterization of my “denial” of the surface temperature record was wrong, and how the Marcott et al graph he posted on Climate Progress had no instrumental record in it at all, only proxy data and projection:
And, “somehow” this must have been communicated to Dr. Mann, (and If Joe Romm sent my email along, I thank him) because up until this blog post there has been no public discussion here of my supposed “denial of the instrumental record”. Shortly after my last email to Romm at 8:35AM, Dr. Michael Mann, to his credit, tweeted this rare retraction at 8:58AM PST, though he just couldn’t resist getting another jab in:
Watching the reverse denial now of Marcott et al failings, I think we have entered the era of climate satire.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I really hope at some point the serious science community, computing, engineering, physics,maths,atmospheric physics…. will realise the damage that “climate science” and the “work” they are undertaking is damaging the reputation of science as a whole.
I’d say we’ve now entered the era of “climate farce,” thanks to people like Mann and Romm. Thanks for breaking another hockey stick over their heads.
This is funny. Mann & Romm are behaving like scared musk oxen on Baffin Island. Circling with their hind ends to the center to defend against the rabid predators of climate denial, who surprise them by appearing in the center. Tag-teaming musk oxen, with a penchant for face-palming, er, snout-hoofing. Maybe Josh could work on this one.
You keep poking them with a stick, and I’ll keep popping the popcorn, this is the best show in town these days.
w.
The whole world gets more and more Wonderland-ish. Thanks Anthony, it’s a real window into who these people really are.
More popcorn please!
Also, the term “Climate change denier” is mental gunk, language which makes it impossible for its user to think. Notice Mann slings it around. He’s not stupid. He just knows that it will gunk up the brains of his readers. (“Watts denies that the climate changes?! Wow! I didn’t realize Watts was that out of touch with reality!” Do you see?) The local rag in my town uses the term to smear local deniers of AGW theory, too. (“So-and-so, a climate change denier, said that…”)
No one who thinks the AGW theory is false is a “climate change denier.” They all, to a man, believe that the climate is changing, always has, and always will.
To conflate “climate change” with “AGW” is the sophistical tool of a junk scientist. He can’t sell his theory on the evidence, so he must conflate it with common sense in the language in order to get enough people to be confused enough to accept it, so that he continues to be funded.
You couldn’t make it up. Oh…hang on….they just did…………………
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
Gigglin
New Alert: Michael E Mann doesn’t know the difference between instrumental temperatures and proxy reconstructions.
Great work Anthony. Mann has gone in way too deep in support of Marcott et al. But so did Science and so many blogs and media outlets. Exactly how it will all fall apart and in what order, who knows. Pass that popcorn, Willis.
These guys spend a great deal of time trying to prove something they claim to already proven. sort of like a sand castle at the wave line.
Apparently Michael Mann does know the difference, so I withdraw the claim. But he still thinks it’s ok to mix & match them arbitrarily to create the desired result.
Wait!
I want to know more about the “Ladder of Denial”, with labels on the various rungs.
Does Romm have a posting on this?
Maybe Josh should do a cartoon on the same.
Kurt in Switzerland
Has Mann ever publicly retracted a claim? Might be useful in the NRO lawsuit.
I just wish the media would report Mann’s and other similar activists’ pathetic descent in [snip]. But I know it is not going to happen. A farce indeed, but it is becoming rather sad.
The ‘team’ is all in a lather now. It seems they are desperate. They have pulled all the stops and have astronomers joining the cause. It’s pathetic to watch them squeel like children when they don’t get their way.
Due to the need to find a snappy term in the German language, the German media usually used “Klimaleugner”, climate denier, which is even more absurd.
(And yes, the flagship of “German journalism” or what goes for it, Der Spiegel itself did it as well:
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/versoehnungstagung-der-klimakrieg-kann-weitergehen-a-742612.html
)
The warmists were always fighting a propaganda war and not a scientific cause. They were dishonest to a man from the beginning.
@JustAnotherPost
The “serious” ones are fully aware of the damage being done by the so-called “climate sciences”, and many are plenty worried about the long term ramifications.
As for me, I look at it in a more positive way. I thank these climate fraudsters for opening my eyes and making me skeptical of everything, which is my recommendation to others. Trust no one, do your own vetting and seek the truth. I believe “climate science” has taught us all (those who wish to learn) this valuable lesson, which I believe needs to be taught and re-learned periodically. The climate cons have us well this time. So what can be at stake if you simply play the role of the sheeple? Don’t be a sheeple!
We actually need a different, and more accurate term for us.. “climate change isn’t as much as what you say it is nor is it caused entirely by what you say it is denier”
“Notice Mann slings it around. He’s not stupid.”
Allow me to strongly disagree with that sentiment. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this entire episode stands as evidence in favor of the proposition.
the behavior of those behind the “science” of “climate change” is now indistinguishable from a pack of junior high girls.
So Mann is saying “Ok, you are right, but you are still a ninny”. That sounds so mature. [snip]
It appears that Mann & Co. have figured out how to use GIGO to create more garage out than garbage in. If only there was a way to turn the extra garbage into energy.
Kurt
“This is funny. Mann & Romm are behaving like scared musk oxen on Baffin Island. Circling with their hind ends to the center to defend against the rabid predators of climate denial, who surprise them by appearing in the center. “
I think their hind ends are pointing outwards. They don’t seem to be able to get anything right.
Stuck-Record:
Excellent. Romm & Mann as musk oxen in a circle with their hind ends facing outward.
McIntyre & Watts as polar bears teasing their tails.
Josh should draw it for us!
Kurt in Switzerland
McKibben just excelled himself in the LA Times, via Climate Depot
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/20123/Climate-Activists-White-America-condemned-to-Hell–Warmist-Bill-McKibben-laments-White-America-has-failed-White-America-has-fallen-short-by-voting-for-climate-deniers