Jean S (writing at Climate Audit) spots the ultimate fib from Dr. Mann, and the placement of it could not be more hilarious.
No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum. Most proxy reconstructions end somewhere around 1980, for the reasons discussed above. Often, as in the comparisons we show on this site, the instrumental record (which extends to present) is shown along with the reconstructions, and clearly distinguished from them.
Now, look at what Jean S. has noticed in a publication from Dr. Mann.
Update:
He is the most interesting Mann in the world.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Cover not peer reviewed. Not relevant.
I think the credit goes to Jean S rather than Steve for this nice spot.
REPLY: Indeed it does, credit given – Anthony
Is Mann really serious – the guy’s a laugh riot!
Mann isn’t worth a comment. He’s beneath commenting.
Sheldon has much influence outside the Big Bang Theory… Bazinga…
It’s NOT a problem, just a printing artifact!
LOL.
I was going to write, “Has this been pointed out to Mann?” I don’t need to as I realize it’s been pointed out now. 🙂
Poor Mann, he can’t seem to do anything right. Oh well, he still has his funding… [self-snip, self-snip!]
To be fair, I confess to be struggling to see the importance of this. Sure, the IR is not clearly defined in his book cover, unless you use the end of the yellow line as the end of the proxy record? in which case, the later data must be something other than proxy data?
I’ll knock Mann at every opportunity – because he deserves it – but this is petty semantics IMHO. We all know that the modern IR is flawed (after all the adjustments) and to my mind, the hockey stick, complete with its later IR graft, seems to confirm this? What is even better, is the fact that the last 16 years show no warming – and I’d bet if the proxy data was updated (independently of course!) the difference between the IR and the proxy data would be evident again! Has anyone done this? If proxy data used to go to 1980 – it should now go almost to 2000? It is important to know if the ‘recent’ warming is actually ‘confirmed’ in the proxy record. Of course, if it isn’t confirmed, it will be interesting to see which record the alarmists subsequently ‘diss’!!
Seriously, I want to know how Dr. Mann got his degree in the first place. How any reputable institution would hire him. And how he maintains a job given his clearly low level of intelligence. Would Penn St. keep him on if he were to engage in cannibalism just as long as grant money kept rolling in?
I have seen many high school kids who would know that tacking on thermometer data to tree ring data is blatant fraud, and they would never be so stupid as to bring that up in public if they had done so!
How do I obtain ‘industry funding’ for my web site? Finders fee available
Tonyb
Here, I’ll fix it for ya, Mikey:
Puts an end to the hypothesis, you can not judge a book by its cover.
Idea for next cartoon…. Mann sitting in front of mirror painting a bullseye on his forehead.
You people need to be more respectful of Professor Mann……He has won an Academy Award for his portrayal of a scientist that won the Nobel Prize!
“Most proxy reconstructions end somewhere around 1980, for the reasons discussed above. Often, as in the comparisons we show on this site, the instrumental record (which extends to present) is shown along with the reconstructions, and clearly distinguished from them.”
Why does Mann continue to say this? In the famous “hiding the decline” case, the instrumental record is not distinguished from the reconstructions (something even Comedy Central picked up), the proxy record ended in 1962 not 1980, Briffa and other Team members had gathered the data that had for 36 years shown that the proxy record was declining, and Jones, Mann, and others chose not to show the fact that the proxy record contradicted the instrumental record. Mann exists on bluster alone.
Well spotted! The cover might not be peer-reviewed, but if Mann is serious about what he says then it was intelectually lazy of him to approve it.
Kev-in-Uk says:
April 7, 2013 at 2:54 pm
To cut to the chase, what Mann, Jones, Briffa, and the TEAM should have done after finding that their proxy data had been in decline for 36 years is publish that fact. They should have presented their data which screams that the tree rings they were using as proxies had been shown to be unreliable. That was their duty as scientists; that is, their duty was to report on the lack of integrity in their data. Instead, Mann, Jones, Briffa, and others chose to hide the decline in the proxy data by attaching an instrumental record that was contradicted by their data. What purpose could that choice serve? No scientific purpose.
You do not have to believe me. What I have just reported is clear as a bell in the climategate 1 emails, in Montford’s books, and in Fred Pearce’s commentary on climategate published in January after the emails were released.
The way this all makes sense for me is in the attempt to keep separate discursive domains. The bookcover, as the whole book, is the in the domain of public advocacy or propaganda (scientist-as-hero), and this is considered entirely separate from the science discourse. Different rules apply in different domains. As the climategate emails showed, criticism is permitted within the science discourse, but not allowed to leak out — that is the difference between loyal opposition and treason. (And this is perfectly normal and common behaviour — as my Jewish friend used to always joke: hey, I am Jewish, so I’m allowed to be anti-semitic! He meant that in his Jewish circles it was perfectly ok for Jews to critics various aspects of semiticism.) It also seems quite OK to sex-up scientific findings as we have recently seen in Marcott et al. As for the blog-based scepticism, this is dealt with and contained withing the blogs as much as possible. There McIntyre cannot be named (or linked-to) for fear of promoting internally recognised concerns, even if this means plagarism. But the offensive on the blogs (RC etc) is extremely problematic because the civilian-directed propaganda is continually breached through to the science (within the context of the above proclaimation by Mann) . Fighting on the Blogs is like guerrilla warfare for a standing army.
D’OH!
Even if Mann had absolutley no input for the cover……………….
Oh the irony !!!!!!!
Re Kev-in UK
Amongst other things, to do say a forty-year time-series smoothing, (properly), you need twenty years of additional data beyond the end of the smoothing line. (It should be a centre-point moving average). The little upturn at the end of the smoothing line also contradicts the “divergence problem” and…. And…. Amongst other things….
“Jean S (writing at Climate Audit) spots the ultimate fib from Dr. Mann …”
‘Ultimate’ means last or final.
Obviously you haven’t read English at Oxford.
Jean S uses English as a second language, dude.
Mark
I do also admire the reds and yellow of Mann’s “dispatches” cover but keep in mind that the “front lines” have always been chaotic and rife with disinformation. Can we get a little cartoonish Devil to stand on the yellow line and point at the blue oval?
Please go to Mc’s site and at 5:09 PM (just a few comments down) follow his link to the post of 2011/03/29 – It’s tricks all the way down. This is where the issue is discussed. The “cover” (and this flap about it) is important for the fact that it directs attention, especially for those not having read the CA and other posts, to the problems with some people’s science. And that’s not funny.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My favorite trick on a cover is on Al Gore’s book with the reverse hurricane off the coast of Florida:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/not-finding-any-gore-airbrushes-in-hurricanes-for-his-new-book/
Apologies… Jean S did not write that. Not that it matters, such comments are generally frowned upon.
Mark