Monday Mirthiness – Watch the genesis (and retraction) of a smear

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):

Romm_stick-Carbon-Final

I sent a one line note with a link to McIntyre’s latest:

romm_uptick_mail1

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:

mann_tweet_marcott_instrumental_lie

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.

WFT_trend_Hadcrut100yrs

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:

Watts_response_romm_mann

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:

Mann_tweet_watts_instr_withdraw

Watching the reverse denial now of Marcott et al failings, I think we have entered the era of climate satire.

151 thoughts on “Monday Mirthiness – Watch the genesis (and retraction) of a smear

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. You keep poking them with a stick, and I’ll keep popping the popcorn, this is the best show in town these days.

    w.

  5. The whole world gets more and more Wonderland-ish. Thanks Anthony, it’s a real window into who these people really are.

  6. 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.

  7. New Alert: Michael E Mann doesn’t know the difference between instrumental temperatures and proxy reconstructions.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. @JustAnotherPost

    I really hope at some point the serious science community….

    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!

  16. 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”

  17. “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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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

  20. And are any of those involved in the “peer-review” process going to be held accountable?
    After-all their approval of this kind of report ensures that $Billions will be wasted worldwide.
    No doubt their Teflon reputations and incomes are totally unaffected.

  21. If Mann thinks there’s an instrumental record in Marcott et al, he clearly hasn’t read it. Does that mean he wasn’t one of the peer reviewers? Not necessarily…

  22. Not surprising that Romm and Mann got confused, since it’s traditional in Clymutt Syunts™ to graft the instrument record onto the end of proxy data.

  23. An honest, real scientist would never behave in such a way in a public forum. He should be forced to do janitorial services at PSU. At least something might get cleaned up.

  24. Evidently those “climate scientists” haven’t progressed beyond their own I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I scientific method.

  25. As noted at Tips and Notes, I posted a comment at RealClimate. The primary contributors there work for or are paid by the government. It is hardly surprising that they would support “science” that provides such excellent cover for government incomptetance. I noted that Bloomberg’s papers screamed “this is what global warming looks like” rather than “this is what poor planning for a predictable storm surge looks like”. Dr. Schmidt, Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann know who signs their paychecks and they aren’t going to let anyone slow down their gravy train.

  26. You’ll enjoy this;

    Joe Romm says:
    March 8, 2013 at 3:38 pm

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/08/1691411/bombshell-recent-warming-is-amazing-and-atypical-and-poised-to-destroy-stable-climate-that-made-civilization-possible/#comment-771141

    Uhh, I’m running climate blog here so you should pretty much expect posts on climate science and solutions and politics. If you don’t understand the purpose of this blog, I can assure you, tens of thousands of people do. It is not only the most widely read climate science blog in the world, it is also the fastest growing in social media. We’re very much an expanding circle.

  27. I got tired of being attributed by others of things which I neither said nor did, so now I pass on only those things which I witness first-hand. The medium is the message, so allocate blame 50% Romm, 50% Twitter — but Romm at least fixed his mistake.

  28. I wonder what metric prefix is typically used when measuring the thickness of Michael Mann’s skin… Zepto has a nice ring to it.

  29. It is beyond funny (or sad) that these “experts” didn’t understand where the uptick came from. Way to go Anthony!

  30. Warmists’ responses to McIntyre and Watts: But… but… but…

    Adding Warmist “butter” to the popcorn makes it even more tasty. :-)

  31. Well – you were against it before you were for it – written by your biographer Michael Mann. And he is, as I understand is from a Canadian point of view, one of America’s great fiction writers of his day.

  32. Hmmm… amazing, to actually get a retraction from Mann … but not much else has changed – still prefers to argue on the basis of labeling and denigrating.

    Seems to be some error in Joe Romm’s Marcott chart ? Blue is proxy temp? It shows a recent new record temperature but it still should be lower at the recent peak than for 25% of the Holocene.

  33. “Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends… Certainly it has gotten warmer in the last 100 years.”

    And if we examine the Suns exposure on instruments which influence on the Historical temperature record. If we were to remove it’s signal this claimed “warming” over the last 100 years would decrease further.

    Oxford: 1865-2012

    http://wp.me/p1f2qz-6f

    Stornoway: 1875-2012

    http://wp.me/p1f2qz-69

    Armagh: 1875-2012

    http://wp.me/p1f2qz-5u

  34. I must say I’m most curious about exactly what Romm said to get the response ‘LOL! Legal already? There’s no threat here, only a discussion of facts, and I’m allowed to defend myself when Mann reacts like that.’ from Anthony. Was Romm feeling threatened? Threatening a lawsuit? Anticipating one? What on earth was going on there? Wish I was a fly on the wall for that exchange! :)

  35. Hey Mike-
    I know it’s somewhat moot at this point since you are on “permanent sabbatical”, but
    State pen instead of Penn State- I’m in the US- sue me!

  36. Could it be that Romm is in charge of Mann’s Twitter feed? As he said “It is not only the most widely read climate science blog in the world, it is also the fastest growing in social media. We’re very much an expanding circle.”

  37. Now wait a minute….I thought the whole purpose of global warming was to give some credibility to a field of science, and the people in it, that had previously been the laughing stock……..

    They’re back sliding again…………50% chance of weather tomorrow

  38. I must issue my own retraction and an apology:

    I was convinced Mann was complicit in the statistical torture of Marcott et al.’s data. However, it’s clear from his tweet that he was truly convinced they spliced historical temperature data onto proxy data. I was wrong, so I apologize.

    But let’s think this through:
    Mann’s been doing the Snoopy dance since this ‘goat entrail’ paper was published. The fact that he believed Marcott et al. spliced historical temperature data onto proxy data (and condoned it) confirms he is not a true scientist. It confirms he is one of the worst climastrologists evah!

  39. “‘LOL! Legal already? There’s no threat here, only a discussion of facts…”

    What is the context here? did Romm threaten legal action?

  40. In the future this period may go down as the romm-mann warm period. It really wasn’t that warm thermally but the heated exchanges more than made up for it.

  41. Oh, Jeeeeez. His name might be “Mann” but he’s such a child, he really is. I mean, seriously, when all you have is name-calling it’s just so pathetic and sad. Wish I could laugh about it like you, Anthony, but I can’t. Sigh.

  42. Dr. Michael Mann has, by posting disparaging Tweets containing inflammatory language regarding Anthony Watts’ conclusions concerning Global Warming / Climate change / Global Climate Disruption / Extreme Weather events, etc… and then not allowing Mr. Watts to reply in kind to the very same group of peers (Dr. Mann’s Twitter followers) is in fact committing a form of Cyber Bullying. The responding Tweets that are allowed by his “Friends” which then affirm Dr. Mann’s position and speak against Mr. Watts are a form of Cyber Mobbing. Unless Mr. Watts is allowed to respond directly to and in the same forum as Dr. Mann’s comments, Dr. Mann is no better than the School Yard Bully who picks on the other students and his twitter followers are no better than the Bully’s Lieutenants.
    Speaking as someone that has been repeatedly Physically Bullied, Harassed and even Mobbed through school, I know what is involved and what constitutes Bullying.
    Bullying definitions and citations are listed below
    Bullying is a form of aggressive behavior in which someone intentionally and repeatedly causes another person injury or discomfort. Bullying can take the form of physical contact, words or more subtle actions.
    The bullied individual typically has trouble defending him or herself and does nothing to “cause” the bullying. (1)
    In 2011 President Barak Obama attended the White House conference on Bullying Prevention
    “If there’s one goal of this conference, it’s to dispel the myth that bullying is just a harmless rite of passage or an inevitable part of growing up. It’s not.” That’s how the President explained the first-ever White House Conference on Bullying Prevention during the opening session of the day-long summit. And judging by the attention, passion, and intense interest that the issue has generated over the past few days, it’s a sentiment that millions of Americans share, and hopefully all of this discussion will help those who want to break unfortunate traditions to realize they’re not strange or alone.(2)
    Online bullying doesn’t necessarily harm only young people.
    Cyber bullying among preteens and teens has increased dramatically in recent years as young people spend more time socializing online, according to the Second Youth Internet Safety Survey.
    Cyber bullying includes sending hurtful or threatening e-mails or instant messages, spreading rumors or posting embarrassing photos of others.
    Not all students feel distress when they’re victims of such online bullying, say the researchers.
    They found that only 38 percent of those bullied said such incidents made them very upset or afraid.
    Bullying was most likely to cause worry when it involved offline contact or an adult harasser.
    That distress can have an impact offline, the researchers found. (3)
    From WIKIPEDIA
    Bullying is the use of force or coercion to abuse or intimidate others. The behavior can be habitual and involve an imbalance of social or physical power. It can include verbal harassment or threat, physical assault or coercion and may be directed repeatedly towards particular victims, perhaps on grounds of race, religion, gender, sexuality, or ability. If bullying is done by a group, it is called mobbing. The victim of bullying is sometimes referred to as a “target”.
    Bullying can be defined in many different ways. The UK currently has no legal definition of bullying, while some U.S. states have laws against it. Bullying consists of three basic types of abuse – emotional, verbal, and physical. It typically involves subtle methods of coercion such as intimidation.
    Bullying ranges from simple one-on-one bullying to more complex bullying in which the bully may have one or more “lieutenants” who may seem to be willing to assist the primary bully in his or her bullying activities. Bullying in school and the workplace is also referred to as peer abuse. (4)
    Cyber Bullying
    Legal definition
    Cyber bullying is defined in legal glossaries as
    actions that use information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended to harm another or others.
    use of communication technologies for the intention of harming another person
    use of internet service and mobile technologies such as web pages and discussion groups as well as instant messaging or SMS text messaging with the intention of harming another person.
    Examples of what constitutes cyber bullying include communications that seek to intimidate, control, manipulate, put down, falsely discredit, or humiliate the recipient. The actions are deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior intended to harm another. Cyber bullying has been defined by The National Crime Prevention Council: “When the Internet, cell phones or other devices are used to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person.”
    A cyber bully may be a person whom the target knows or an online stranger. A cyber bully may be anonymous and may solicit involvement of other people online who do not even know the target. This is known as a ‘digital pile-on.'(5)

    (1) http://www.apa.org/topics/bullying/index.aspx
    (2) http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/10/president-obama-first-lady-white-house-conference-bullying-prevention
    (3) http://www.apa.org/topics/bullying/online.aspx
    (4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying
    (5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Bullying

  43. I am tired of being called a “Climate Change Denier”! I’m going to start calling then “Climate Change Exaggerators”. Use their verbiage against them so to speak.

  44. He still has to have a little dig and ad hom you with the usual ‘denier’ rubbish … Perhaps one of his friends should buy him some crayons and a colouring book …

  45. If the warmers had it their way the hockey stick would or could have never been in vented (no Ice hockey).

  46. @robert of ottawa –
    Funny that McKibben rails at white climate “deniers” – when it’s people of color that will suffer the most from the alarmist agenda, while white fat cats like Al Gore – and yes, Hansen and Mann – get richer.

  47. RangerRick,

    Some of these heated gassy obfuscators qualify easily for “Climate Change Hysterics” or “Climate Change Chicken Littles”

  48. RangerRick says:
    March 18, 2013 at 12:13 pm

    I am tired of being called a “Climate Change Denier”! I’m going to start calling then “Climate Change Exaggerators”. Use their verbiage against them so to speak.
    ———-
    How about ‘CO2 Celebrators’? I’m a CO2 celebrator…
    Nah, it doesn’t flow right.

    Never bothered me being called a ‘denier’. I’ve been called worse. ;)

  49. @Bryan A –
    Obama on bullying – what color is hypocrisy? GREEN! What effrontery, for the Bully-in-Chief! He needs to take a good look in the mirror, and as you point out, Bryan, bullying can be done by surrogates. He doesn’t have to get his hands dirty himself.
    Of course it’s OK for Mann et al to bully skeptics. The whole premise of AGW can’t be sustained without bullying – and lying, and deception – because it can’t be sustained by reason and facts.

  50. Just for the record, what does it look like if DO add the 1920-2010 instrument record to Marcott et al.,?
    I don’t think their uptick match’s the instruments.

  51. Whenever I see Mann’s picture he always looks like one of those pictures of bank robbers with stockings over their heads. In his case, it’s always a 10 denier stocking – and we can see right through it.

  52. What does this all say about the relationship between Mann and Romm?
    “The Team” sure seems to be a close-knit bunch. I wonder who their “coach” is.

  53. Consider the flagrant incoherence of Michael Mann’s tweet:

    He acknowledges that Anthony does not “deny” warming in temp. records and immediately says “but he’s still a #climatechange #denier”

    Either that is logically incompetent on Mann’s part, or he has some bizarre definition of “climate change denier” which includes people who explicitly affirm (temp.) climate change.

    Is Michael Mann an imbecile or truly an obsessively dishonest propagandist?

    @MichaelMannScientist #climatechange #incoherent #propaganda

  54. DocMartyn says:
    Just for the record, what does it look like if DO add the 1920-2010 instrument record to Marcott et al.,?

    Do you mean the actual instrumental record, or do you mean HadCrud ?

    They are two totally different things.

  55. If/when the CAGW crowd realizes that Marcott et. al. is bogus, they will simply stop praising it. Rachel Maddow has verified the accuracy of Marcott. There will be no retractions, no apologies. The damage to science has been done.

  56. Michael Mann and the other extreme AGW paradigm pushers are in denial, avoiding the painful truth. Observations and analysis do not support the extreme AGW paradigm. The planet’s response to a change in forcing is to resist the change (negative feedback) rather than positive feedback (amplify) the warming. There is no extreme AGW problem to solve.

    Will the AGW paradigm pushers take responsibility for the billions of dollars that have been wasted on the scams?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/18/newsbytes-climate-scientists-turn-skeptical-as-climate-predictions-fail/

    http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf

    On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
    Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
    We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000- 2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. The present analysis accounts for the 72 day precession period for the ERBE satellite in a more appropriate manner than in the earlier paper. We develop a method to distinguish noise in the outgoing radiation as well as radiation changes that are forcing SST changes from those radiation changes that constitute feedbacks to changes in SST. We demonstrate that our new method does moderately well in distinguishing positive from negative feedbacks and in quantifying negative feedbacks. In contrast, we show that simple regression methods used by several existing papers generally exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative. We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. ….

    …The heart of the global warming issue is so-called greenhouse warming. This refers to the fact that the earth balances the heat received from the sun (mostly in the visible spectrum) by radiating in the infrared portion of the spectrum back to space. Gases that are relatively transparent to visible light but strongly absorbent in the infrared (greenhouse gases) interfere with the cooling of the planet, forcing it to become warmer in order to emit sufficient infrared radiation to balance the net incoming sunlight (Lindzen, 1999). By net incoming sunlight, we mean that portion of the sun’s radiation that is not reflected back to space by clouds, aerosols and the earth’s surface. CO2, a relatively minor greenhouse gas, has increased significantly since the beginning of the industrial age from about 280 ppmv to about 390 ppmv, presumably due mostly to man’s emissions. This is the focus of current concerns. However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth. Cloud feedbacks are still considered to be highly uncertain (IPCC, 2007), but the fact that these feedbacks are strongly positive in most models is considered to be an indication that the result is basically correct. Methodologically, this is unsatisfactory. Ideally, one would seek an observational test of the issue. Here we suggest that it may be possible to test the issue with existing data from satellites.

  57. The claim of warming based on hadcru data is unjustified. There are no measured global temps prior to the satellite era. Certainly not for the polar regions or most of the global ocean.

    The trend line plot is also not evidence of warming. The plotted temp for 2012 is not significantly warmer than 1912. No error bars implies no information. Measurement errors are certainly greater than 1Celsius for the 1912 data. Not to mention that pooling data from tropical climates with polar climates is also gibberish.

    Here is a more realistic plot.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/to:1980/plot/rss-land/plot/uah-land

    Biased data is bad data. Rejecting known biased data is justified.
    Examine a few surface stations known for higher quality data, or known corrections for TOBS or UHI bias.

    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/europe/western-europe-rural-temperature-trend.php

    No warming since measurements began.

    Examine Antarctic science stations with good data since 1957. No warming. There is no reason to claim that those polar stations are immune from “global warming” if CO2 is the cause.

    The conclusion is obvious. The null hypothesis prevails.

  58. Well, it’ll take some time for them to turn around. I mean, they have to come up with something that shows they got the idea FIRST – so there’s some data adjustment to do and some record changing and a little bit of modelling, but they’ll soon be out there saying they led the way out of madness and could they please have some funding to work out how Gaia failed them and the polar bears let them down.

  59. Go easy on Mr Mann I think as he ages he will admit his mistake a bit like the fellow who slaughtered 40000 elephants because he thought it damaged land. He unreservedly apologised for his mistake at an older age LOL

  60. They’re not called The Team for nothing.
    My earliest suspicions of the hoax arose because of the meticulously co-ordinated nature of the PR campaign.
    Now we’re wise to their every trick.
    We know who the activists are, we know who the ‘s’cientists are and we know who their buddies in the media are.
    This is the kind of intelligence you need to win the war.

  61. RangerRick says:
    March 18, 2013 at 12:13 pm

    I am tired of being called a “Climate Change Denier”! I’m going to start calling then “Climate Change Exaggerators”. Use their verbiage against them so to speak.

    I agree. That’s why I’ve adjusted the CAGW acronym to demean them with my more accurate and damning version: Catastrophic Anthropogenic Genocidal Warmistas.

    In the real world, these yokels are the ones killing millions of people world-wide by making life much more difficult than it should by. These “climate scientists” should be shunned and prosecuted. And they have the nerve to call anybody names–they’re the guilty ones!

  62. ” some of that warming trend is due to siting biases and adjustments.”

    Can only be sustained for so long. Once the cherries are picked and the inconvenient truths erase, the trend will revert to whatever the trend actually is. I think we’re already seeing that happen.

  63. squid2112 says:
    March 18, 2013 at 10:11 am
    “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.”

    Agreed. It’s the Eugenics of our time.

  64. Taking up on Richard M’s earlier comment, I look forward to the sequel to Mann’s book, “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” and suggest as a title:

    “Decline and fall of the Romm-Mann Empire” – preferably written by Mckibben.

  65. So… you are not denying the instrumental record of warming but you are still a climate change denier?

    Got it — I like the logic behind the statement!

    Our Mann outdid himself on that one. I think he acknowledged that you won the entire debate.

  66. “Of course he is still a climate change denier waaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!!”

    The towering Mann-child of the climate ‘science’ world.

    I can hardly imagine what the scientists of even a single generation ago would make of the current crop of ‘scientists’. They are now indistinguishable from spoilt kids.
    What happened??!!?

  67. Michael D Smith says:
    March 18, 2013 at 11:04 am

    I wonder what metric prefix is typically used when measuring the thickness of Michael Mann’s skin… Zepto has a nice ring to it.

    Groucho might be better…

  68. I think what we are looking at here is a blatant attempt by Peter Clark OSU and his foot-soldiers, Marcott, Shakun and Mix to usurp the leadership (and grants) of the Team. They didn’t have to resort to the sordid ‘trick’ of tacking the instrumental record onto the proxy record ( an ‘uptickal’ illusion – with apologies to the genius on CA I stole that from). Clark and the New Team pulled their uptickal illusion straight from the data – way to go!

    The Team is dead (or at least paralyzed wondering what to do); long live the New Team!

  69. The fact that Romm and Mann are in such direct and immediate contact shows just how corrupt the science and the media in tandem with government have become. The people, the scientific institutions and the media have become one with propaganda being their tool of trade. There is little science (if any at all) left in it. It’s political chicanery of the worst kind. Journalists are not journalists but are political activists pretending to be journalists. Scientists are not scientists but are political activists pretending to be scientists. Environmental groups are not environmental groups but are political activists pretending to be environmental groups.

  70. patrioticduo says:
    March 18, 2013 at 2:49 pm

    The fact that Romm and Mann are in such direct and immediate contact shows just how corrupt the science and the media in tandem with government have become.

    ———-
    That doesn’t necessarily follow. They could be lovers for all we know; Romm could’ve shouted about Anthony’s message while Mann was in the shower. Of course I’m not saying they are, not implying that they are, I’m just pointing out an arbitrary example possibility that undermines the argument you’re making.
    ..
    Maybe I could’ve chosen a different illustrative example. :p

  71. Mark Bofill says:
    March 18, 2013 at 2:55 pm
    They could be lovers for all we know;
    ================================================================
    Thanks, now that’s stuck in my head

  72. Marcott’s paper had a fake hockey stick in it – Mann just got sentimental, it must have reminded him of the good old days when his nature trick was still a secret.

  73. Although I no longer find such discoveries surprising, what concerns & disturbs me is the lack of coverage and the lack of genuine honesty among the scientists making such claims, “fudging” or deliberate leaving out of certain data sets, is the lack of oversight by the media. It also concerns me that media in general seem simply unable to follow a logical thinking pattern which would allow them to see through much of this hysteria and question warmists face to face when they make claims that are untenable. These “warmists” (what a horrid way of describing someone, I hate the way these people have made terms so common place in normal scientific & social discourse) get an east ride from the media. I recently heard an archived “discussion” between Marano & Mann on a BBC world service. This was several months ago. I have never, ever been so angry listening to Mann. He painted a picture that reminded me of the movie 1984. He claimed death threats, phone calls in the night, he played the part of the victim, making no factual arguments to refute anyone. He nullified any real cross examination by refusing an on air debate, trying to sell the victim persona to the BBC correspondent.

    This is the future if this man & the rest of his quackademics are not derailed. Censoring of inconvenient data, smashing of public debate leading to policies which will be wrong, and it is me and my family who will suffer because of this. I hope this man realises that when this farce is ended, he will face serious jail time for his contribution to religion. Rant over.

  74. Downdraft says:
    March 18, 2013 at 1:26 pm
    If/when the CAGW crowd realizes that Marcott et. al. is bogus, they will simply stop praising it. Rachel Maddow has verified the accuracy of Marcott. There will be no retractions, no apologies. The damage to science has been done.
    ———-
    Now we will never convert her 12 viewers.
    cn

  75. Mann’s Twitter retraction might be something of a miracle. Luv the dig he still gets in about Anthony being a ‘climate change denier’…..

    If ever there was a fitting use for it, Mann’s latest bit here begs to be called “rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic”.

  76. This is a cri de coeur.

    I don’t have a PhD, just GA Tech undergrad physics & math. I have been following the climate “science” debate for a number of years, and this absolute nonsense has finally reached a critical mass in my frontal lobes.

    At this point, AGW, IPCC and all possible combinations and permutations are simply black-and-white academic fraud: “…an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage…” (cite: definitions.uslegal.com).

    I’m willing to accept Dr. Mann and his ilk felt AGW was a reasonable null hypothesis 10-15 years ago (full disclosure: I once believed in the tooth fairy) . My current opinion is these guys now know the AGW hypothesis, and its collateral baggage, is invalid. Thus, the charge of academic fraud.

    Academic enforcement of the “scientific method”, has failed; academic enforcement of free speech has failed and supposed academic resistance to money (aka: funding) has failed. None of this is too surprising because academia as a whole (not just selected individuals) is only occasionally on the front lines as a defender of the greater good – most time appears to be spent pursuing trivial banalities and funding.

    What is truly dispiriting is the almost willful suspension of common sense by the average citizen. Our founding fathers placed great store in this group’s ability, as a whole, to understand reasonably complex concepts (eg; self-governance; jury duty) and ferret out unworthy ideas. However, despite all evidence to the contrary, it’s stunning how widely it’s accepted that polar bears are quickly going extinct.

    For those of you worrying about the damage this fraud does to academia or science, I’d say the damage is well deserved: the group, as a whole, has not raised up to flush this unfortunate mess from the system by requiring full disclosure of data, algorithms, objectively peer-reviewed results, and free debate. Frankly, this group no longer deserves lavish tax-payer funding ($50B from USA Federal government alone over past 10 years; cite: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11224/03-26-climatechange.pdf)

    Richard Feynman must be sitting on a cloud somewhere wondering how so many supposedly well-educated practitioners have so grievously, now maliciously, lost their way.

  77. I think we need to start labeling Mann the ‘Instrumental Record Denier’. Proclaim it everywhere, any time his name comes up.

  78. mikemUK says:
    March 18, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    “Taking up on Richard M’s earlier comment, I look forward to the sequel to Mann’s book, “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” and suggest as a title:

    “Decline and fall of the Romm-Mann Empire” – preferably written by Mckibben.”

    This is the best of its kind I’ve seen on this site! Ed. Gibbon would even LOL.

  79. DirkH says:
    March 18, 2013 at 2:11 pm

    squid2112 says:

    “ … 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.”

    Agreed. It’s the Eugenics of our time.

    False analogy. Eugenics has a sound scientific basis; at its core, it is nothing else but the application of the principle of selective breeding to the human race. This latter principle has been used widely and successfully to with domestic animals and crop plants, and I have not seen any scientific argument why this should not work with humans. The objections that keep us from using it are ethical in nature, not scientific.

  80. First guy in a bar: “Have you heard the joke involving three climate scientists?”
    Second guy in the bar: “No.”
    First guy: “You have now.”

  81. mikemUK says: March 18, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    Taking up on Richard M’s earlier comment, I look forward to the sequel to Mann’s book, “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” and suggest as a title:
    “Decline and fall of the Romm-Mann Empire” – preferably written by Mckibben.

    Ha ha! I like that!

  82. Michael D Smith says: March 18, 2013 at 11:04 am
    I wonder what metric prefix is typically used when measuring the thickness of Michael Mann’s skin… Zepto has a nice ring to it.

    David Chappell says: March 18, 2013 at 2:30 pm
    Groucho might be better…/em>”

    Thank you both. How about zepto-Grouchometers?

  83. Mann twitted a response to a request for a rebuttal to McIntyre,

    “For the time being, the disturbingly bad track record & documented past misbehavior should suffice”

    It looks like Mann is finally admitting to “past misbehavior”.

  84. “Certainly it has gotten warmer in the last 100 years.”

    And to think they had to stick a thumb tack at the fifty year point and turn the graph counter clockwise to double the warming and get rid of the pesky 1936 record and then, for good measure, triple climate sensitivity to get a hockey stick projection.

  85. As someone who was trained as a scientist, it really makes me sad to see the state that climate science is in. Given how far technology has developed in the past century (satellites to monitor the planet’s climate 24/7? that’s mind bogglingly incredible!), this should be a fascinating and wonderful time to be in the climate science field. The amount and breadth of data we can collect now is just beyond comprehension.

    Sadly, instead of this field being full of lively scientific debate and discussion, it’s a sad example of putting conclusions before evidence, ignoring the scientific method, and using ad hominem attacks to “win” arguments that would otherwise be lost. It’s sad to see adults in a scientific field reduced to petty name calling. Mann and his cohorts are a disgrace to science. Using the word ‘denier’ to try to minimize someone’s argument, or to attempt to shame people away from healthy skepticism, is thoroughly anti-science.

    I guess advocacy just pays a hell of a lot better than actual science.

  86. Now that the Club of Rome’s chief lie (cLIEmate) is wearing thin, expect some new shenanigans to be played. Perhaps the Cyprus Dip is a signal that the ptb know the game’s up and it’s time to dispense with the gloves. Last year we had a rather unsettling announcement on the propaganda, ahem, radio news, to the effect that the German Army is once again permitted to use tanks on German soil, for assisting with civil disturbances, cough cough. The reassuring part of the cheerful report was that such a compassionate decision cannot be made by one person, so I’m hanging my hopes on there not being TWO genocidal scumbags in the chain of command in Berlin. Impossible, never ever been heard of. Hmmm, perhaps I’ll merely end up hanging. Btw, does live cremation count as carbon sequestration, or is it more along the lines of carbon footprint reduction? Nothing new under the sun. Must check that footnote in the Lisbon treaty again…

  87. @Jim Ryan Says: “Notice Mann slings it around. He’s not stupid.”

    I’m sorry, but I disagree. He hasn’t enough wit to be anything but a bully. I’ve thought this ever since the first “Climategate” emails were released. It’s sad to watch this unfold. How pathetic!

  88. Bryan A,

    Give it a rest with all the tripe about bullying. This is bad behavior on the part of a child, coming into the room whining and screaming about the truth being spoken out loud. No matter how loudly the child screams, how often they kick your ankles or how many times they throw themselves in the floor as the hold their breath…it won’t work. Not with real adults like Anthony and Steve Mc and Willis. Unbullyable all. (To coin a word).

    It is just a fact. Strong people cannot be bullied. They can be wronged. They can be punished. They can be tortured. They can even be killed. But the choice to be bullied is just that, a choice and Anthony has obviously made the choice to keep moving forward to the beat of his own drummer and ignore, or tweak, or embarrass those who want to be bullies, but ultimately prove out to be nothing more than small children who have been left crying in the school yard.

  89. Bryan A

    I have in the past stated I believe Dr. Mann to exhibit at least 5 traits of a narcissist.

    He is certainly a bully.

    DaveE.

  90. You really pwned him this time, Anthony! Good for your relentless spirit. It must frustrate Romm no end. His tactic of just repeated nonsensical fallacies and hoping it will pass, probably works within his coterie of beer-siphon-hat swilling comrades. Not for us true blue climate scare deniers.

  91. Name calling is always the resort of those with no arguments. And of the scoundrel

    Sadly however, there are still thousands in positions of influence who believe Mann, Romm, and all the Team to be ‘scientists’ and blindly believe them on those grounds alone. Equally most of those people, inc their cheerleaders in the media and most politicians, lack to scientific and statistical understanding to grasp the scale of the fraud. And they have no wish to learn or to question.

    I’m more than ever glad I never had children. This whole insane situation drives me crazy enough as it is.

  92. Re Stu……Maybe his wife already is. That would explain the facial expression he seems to be saddled with. in fact it would explain a lot.

  93. There is one take away from this all. If we did not know before, we know now. Joe has Mike on speed dial.

  94. Sam The First….Having no children is in this debate the ultimate answer to all other arguments. Their entire whine always defaults to “what about the children”. No children = no issue. Moreover, always mention it when referring to Ecos who have children. Having children makes them responsible for 100% more than your enmtire lifetimes effect for every one they have. So by their yardstick they are indelibly culpable. Traitors to their cause in fact.

    In fact, I see no reason why anyone should have children. Under any circumstances. Its utterly absurd. Except when children are a necessary economic investment in ones own age. Which is not absurd, but exploitation to the point of evil: Oh I love you son, I created you to look after me when Im old.

    Thats just slavery.

  95. It’s always sad and funny to watch people with no children try to tell people what it’s like to have kids. They are always wrong.

  96. The Mann is a wonderful tool for scepticism, praise him when ever you can.
    His pronouncements and demeanour have done more for turning public opinion, than most ,of the science, rebuttal of nonsense and knowledge of history combined.
    I could call the Mann a force of nature, as only the behaviour of nature has done more to discredit the cause.
    Encourage the mann.

  97. Yes, I am proud to be a denier.
    I deny that black equals white.
    I deny that 1 == 999.
    I deny that slavery is just.
    I deny that dictatorships represent a sound form of government.
    I deny the earth is flat.
    I deny there is any proof that man-made CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming (or other climate change).
    I deny that making energy unavailable and unaffordable for individuals or businesses will benefit mankind or the planet.
    I deny tons of stuff. So go ahead and label me a denier.

  98. Michael Palmer says:
    March 18, 2013 at 3:55 pm

    DirkH says:
    March 18, 2013 at 2:11 pm

    squid2112 says:

    Michael Palmer says:
    March 18, 2013 at 3:55 pm

    DirkH says:
    March 18, 2013 at 2:11 pm

    squid2112 says:“ … 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.”

    Agreed. It’s the Eugenics of our time.

    False analogy. Eugenics has a sound scientific basis; at its core, it is nothing else but the application of the principle of selective breeding to the human race. This latter principle has been used widely and successfully to with domestic animals and crop plants, and I have not seen any scientific argument why this should not work with humans. The objections that keep us from using it are ethical in nature, not scientific.

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

    @ Michael Palmer:

    Sorry, but eugenics is in fact an excellent analogy. At the time it enjoyed its greatest support (1890-1939), people who earned a good income or belonged to certain social groups or professions were regarded as eugenically fit. The poor were not: it was assumed they were poor because they were stupid, and deserved it. Eugenics thinking in the US and Canada especially was not allied to any concern about people’s economic circumstances or upbringing: if you failed to get a good education it was because you were a moron, not because your parents’ abject poverty prevented this from occurring.

    In the case of Doris Buck, a black girl growing up in the US in the 1930s, she was sterilized as a pre-teen because a white boy got her sister, a household servant, pregnant through raping her. Doris was mentally normal but was classified as mentally subnormal owing to the need for a privileged family to sweep an inconvenient ‘mishap’ under the social carpet: her sister was insitutionalized. The eugenically fit in the US also included white people, but not African Americans or Asians or Hispanics; in Canada the Ukrainians and Roman Catholics were considered eugenic targets in western provinces. Not a heck of a lot of science drove eugenics: it was a cesspit of class and racial prejudices.

    Eugenics was undermined by real scientists like Lancelot Hogben and Leonard Huxley who found that human intelligence and other important traits were not a simple matter of Mendelian inheritance, and highlighted the role of unforeseen and unpreventable mutations. We don’t have one gene for intelligence and another for stupidity, as was blindly assumed by advocates of eugenics. And normal parents can have children with disabilities, as has occurred in my case. Eugenics was purely a politically driven attempt at social engineering, much like modern climate ‘science’.

    You might object that modern science would enable a workable breeding program for human beings to improve the race. Aside from the obvious moral problems, which human traits need to be bred for? This turns out to be a knottier scientific problem than probably many would assume, as a lot of subjective assumptions would drive the breeding program.

    The shoddy so-called ‘science’ that underlay eugenics should never be lost sight of, lest we give the social manipulators who used fear to gain support for this program an undeserved pass. As science, eugenics was a MASSIVE fail – just as CAGW has been more recently, with an obvious promoter and MANNipulator deserving the derision being served up in this thread.

  99. Anthony, given your popular success in the climate science dialog it is reasonable that you had the stature to get a retraction from Mann. Thank you.

    – – – – – – –

    I suggest to think of Mann the following way:

    Mann is to skeptics as Sisyphus is to the rock.

    John

  100. RossP says:
    March 18, 2013 at 4:50 pm
    Does Michael Mann do any actual work ? He seems to be on Twitter 24/7.
    ====
    Could be early stage Gavinitis.

  101. The ‘Mann’ has died at the Hotel ‘Marrcott.’

    Wasting a’way at zee l’otel Marr’cott.
    Such a Lovely Place … Such an Ugly Face.

    Plenty of room at zee l’otel Marr’cott.
    The ‘Mann’ has died … Without an Alibi.

    XD

  102. The current issue of United Airlines’ Hemispheres has an article on a couple of Napa Valley wine makers. Now what does this have to do with the subject at hand? One of the families likes to sit on the porch in the late afternoon with a glass of chardonnay and (drum roll for the connection) have some popcorn with truffle butter. So take delivery on those popcorn futures, fire up the popper, send the pig out to dig up some truffles, melt the butter (in your solar powered furnace) and enjoy the show.

  103. But wait a minute! I thought we’d been taught NOT to believe in the instrumental record!?

    All those weather stations placed on asphalt, dodgy adjustments by imaginative “scientists” trying to make it look as if the world’s warming, and speculative extrapolations across wide open spaces.

    Or is it just when the graphs are on the up that we get the seed drills out to sow doubt and confusion?

  104. ‘The ladder of denial’ has a nice biblical ring to it. I couldn’t think of anything suitable so these (the next best thing) will have to do.

    ‘And that the ladder of law has no top and no bottom

    Bury the rag deep in your face
    For now’s the time for your tears’

    and

    ‘May you build a ladder to the stars
    And climb on every rung
    May you stay forever young’

    Keep up the good work Anthony, lang may yer lum reek!

  105. mikemUK says:
    March 18, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    “Decline and fall of the Romm-Mann Empire”.

    I like it!

  106. I call it a linguistic hockey stick, to conflate AGW with climate change or even worse with climate. Orwellian at its best. Even AGW is not right, the alleged problem is actually ACO2GW. Words have power.

  107. I comment only rarely here as I am but a lowly practical engineer and enjoy reading and absorbing science. It is with interest for me that my mind has wandered and come to terms with the post normal political science of Mann and Romm et al.

    My poor brain has wandered back to the classics and wondered if these people ever had a real education, it is indeed a serious undertaking to defy the weather gods, those of Greece or the Vikings. These people have not only defied them but told the gods what the weather should be.

    Thus I have learned to love CAGW as the first chapters of a Greek tragedy, it is not man that will bring the end to these characters, it is the weather gods, for they will not be commanded. The fate of these people is in their own hands, their mistakes can be shown to them but they will not listen, for they, like all demigods believe they are omnipotent.

    The last word and the final chapters of this tragedy will come like all Greek epics, as a surprise, and not be kind to those usurpers of the real weather gods.

    Waiting with bated breathe for the final chapter, as the weather gods are being a little contrary to the teams projections.

  108. JustAnotherPoster

    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 couldn’t agree more that that should be the case. but the unfortunate truth is, that quite the opposite is happening. We’re seeing more and more popular – celebrity – scientists on TV extolling the virtues of these brave “scientists”. They seem to be rallying around, not distancing themselves. There is move afoot in the uk where scientists are demanding that they, and their arguments, be given special protection from criticism and that only scientists be allowed to challenge orthodoxy – and they close ranks if anyone from outside that community dare challenge it. This is very scary, as science is nothing more than a combination of method and knowledge. You don’t need a PhD to do it. It might give you a head start but that is all – if you’ve got the ability, skill and time you can become an expert on just about anything and that does not necessitate a qualification.

  109. Do you mean to tell me that after the little ice age it warmed up. I and shocked. by the way it warmed up at the end of each bond event.

  110. Mann’s tweets get funnier and funnier:

    Denying the 20th century uptick in the #ExtendedHockeyStick equivalent to denying the instrumental evidence for #globalwarming. Just sayin..

    ExtendedHockeyStick=Marcott et al.

  111. @ vigilantfish, regarding eugenics

    Thanks for your reply.

    Your comparison of eugenics and the current climate craze makes sense to me with respect to shared elements like scare tactics, overreaching application of misunderstood science and general hysteria. However, what I still maintain distinguishes the current crisis from that previous one is the current profound corruption of science itself.

    In climate science, there is an endless parade of papers that continue to appear in the most influential and prestigious journals, containing nothing but recycled potions of fabricated evidence.

    The proper analogy in genetics would be a scientific paper claiming to show Mendelian inheritance of intelligence and of wealth. Can you show me such papers from the period? If you can, I will concede.

  112. “Does Michael Mann do any actual work ? He seems to be on Twitter 24/7.”

    Like politics. climate science has become show biz. We live in the age of the celebrity climate scientist!

  113. Joe Ryan…..I cannot see anywhere preceding your comment where anyone told you or triedt o tell you anything about “what its like to have kids”.

    What are you mumbling about?

  114. Michael Palmer….without being specific, what comes to mind are Galtons “research” papers indicating the correlation of physiognomy and “character types”.

  115. Jimmy Haigh. on March 19, 2013 at 1:02 am

    mikemUK says:
    March 18, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    “Decline and fall of the Romm-Mann Empire”.

    I like it!

    – – – – – – – –

    Jimmy Haigh & mikemUK,

    I love it.

    In it we will have Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS chronicled as their faithful gopher ( go for ).

    John

  116. @ Michael Palmer,

    I just diverted a certain amount of time from needed obligations to find a quick answer and have to run off to give a lecture in a few minutes. To answer you, the first scientist to hold the Galton Chair Of Eugenics at University College, London, wrote a number of articles and books exploring the issue of human heredity and statistics, and human heredity and Mendelian genetics once he had accepted that theory. He also founded the Biometrics Laboratory to explore links between inheritance and physical and mental traits. Some of his books include:

    Karl Pearson, The groundwork of eugenics (1909)
    Karl Pearson, The problem of practical eugenics(1909)
    Karl Pearson and Gustav A. Jaederholm, Mendelism and the problem of mental defect (1914)
    Karl Pearson, The science of man: its needs and its prospects (London, 1920)
    Karl Pearson, Side lights on the evolution of man (London, 1921)

    Pearson did not promote the crass eugenics practices I described above, but did want to purify the human race and help it to evolve. He certainly lent eugenics a high degree of scientific respectability.

    Hope this gives you enough evidence. I am a historian of biology and have given courses on Darwinism, the theory of evolution, genetics and their social repercussions. Sorry about the briefness of this reply.

  117. @vigilantfish: Thank you again.

    These references are interesting. However, just from the book titles, I’m not persuaded that Pearson committed any scientific errors, not to mention intentional frauds, in his promotion of eugenics.

    I just looked at my university’s library catalogue. It doesn’t offer any of the works by Pearson but some historicists’ monographs on the subject. I’ll go through some of those once the term is over.

  118. @ Michael Palmer,

    The best introductory book on the subject of eugenics as a science is Daniel Kevles In the Name of Eugenics . I’ve not taught a course on Darwinism since the late 1990s and so am not up-to-date on the latest literature, hence this morning’s scramble to find something to answer your question. I don’t have this book at my office (it’s at my home office) which would have made answering this question easier. I have never before encountered a question as to whether eugenicists actually included biologists working on Mendelian genetics and human intelligence! (good question!) Of course the question is complicated by the fact that eugenics developed separately from Mendelism, and had to incorporate Mendelian genetics into its explanations of human heredity once Mendelian genetics began to be more widely accepted in the 1910s (following its ‘rediscovery’ in 1900).

    In further elaboration, the very basis of Hogben’s and Huxley’s and others’ criticisms of eugenics was its misapplication of Mendelian genetics to the understanding of human intelligence and other behavioural traits. They could cite the work of TH Morgan and others that was indicating already in the 1920s that more than one gene pair might be involved in the inheritance of certain specific physical traits. However, even if few geneticists defended human intelligence as a Mendelian trait, another parallel with the alarmist climate science of our times is the fact that few qualified biologists were critical of eugenics, and membership levels by biologists (and doctors) in eugenics societies were very high. Most biologists, including some of the main figures from in my own area (i.e. history of fisheries science), belonged to the eugenics societies founded in the 1910s and 1920s.

    Hopefully your university has historians’ monographs, not those of ‘historicists’! The latter, according to one of the several mutually contradictory meanings of the word, implies determinism and includes Karl Marx as an example of a historicist. (I’ve had to look up the meaning of ‘historicism’, and all I can say is that ‘historian’ is a far less controversial label for what most of us do.)

    Cheers!

  119. @vigilantfish – I meant to say historian, not historicist; my bad (not a native English speaker). I’ve made a note of your book recommendation – it’s available here. Many thanks, and best wishes, Michael

  120. Uhh, Anthony, MM is STILL calling you a Climate Change Denier!!!! I hadn’t realized you denied that Climate Changes!!!!

    I guess Mann has something to teach me after all!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  121. Funny, the only real climate change denier is Michael Mann and some of his ilk.. He has been trying to change the climate of the past so may times, he obviously doesn’t agree with it.

    Mann – The real climate change denier.

    It’s not ‘Real Climate’ it’s ‘Real Climate Change Deniers’

    Why not mention global warming denier? Answer – because there has be no warming for many years and climate change can literally mean anything. So can verbal this rubbish in thinking anybody doesn’t agree with what it even is?

    Michael Mann actually say the truth in this for once and imply what you and your ilk mean, He/we are apparently a denier because there will not be a 6c rise in global temperatures and billions won’t die from it. You can’t say this because it would speak volumes who is the fool.

  122. vigilantfish says:
    March 18, 2013 at 8:58 pm
    “DirkH says:
    March 18, 2013 at 2:11 pm
    Agreed. It’s the Eugenics of our time.

    False analogy. Eugenics has a sound scientific basis; at its core, it is nothing else but the application of the principle of selective breeding to the human race. This latter principle has been used widely and successfully to with domestic animals and crop plants, and I have not seen any scientific argument why this should not work with humans. The objections that keep us from using it are ethical in nature, not scientific.”

    Eugenics drew sweeping conclusions from obvious inheritance of intelligence (Humans are more intelligent than monkey because of genes, so there, it’s obvious as long as you accept the existence of genes.).

    CO2AGW draws sweeping conclusions from an obvious pressure broadening of CO2 absorption/re.emission lines.

    Both movements have nasty political consequences.

Comments are closed.