| UPDATE: The slide originals have been found and posted. See link below. It’s identical to Mike’s AGU trick| As promised earlier this week, I’ve gotten my phone connected and have offloaded all of the photos of Dr. Mann’s slide presentation that I took from my vantage point in the front row. I’ve created a gallery of images with some notes about each. As you can see, it is heavy on politics and light on science. The final slide of his lecture, which depicts his daughter and a polar bear where he talks about “children and our future”, I pixelated out to make it unrecognizable as I don’t think children should be used as props.
I think I got most every slide in his presentation, but there may be one or two missing, as I had issues trying to operate the camera and keeping my hearing assistance device functional (I had to hold it at arms length to get a signal, and put it down to get a photo). Slides go from upper left to right, and are in order. Click the first one and you’ll get a slide show applet in a new window.
I’ll have some commentary about the Q&A session and why I didn’t ask a question, along with some additional photos, a bit later in a separate post.
Lewandowsky’s introduction, leaning on the podium.
Mann’s starting slide, book promotion.
Trying to show that just because the CO2 warming theory is old, it is irrefutable
Mauna Loa CO2 curve. Could you show us something we haven’t seen?
Temperature data set – unclear which it is. Looks like it might be GISS land only.
All the indicators of a warming world.
He cites the IPCC AR5 report and the figures from the Summary for Policymakers (SPM)
Models title slide
Trying to convey what climate models are.
Making Jokes about GISS being about Seinfeld’s “Monks” restaurant – made a big point of saying “GISS was there first”.
Sequence start trying to link models and observed temperature.
Here he is trying to show Hansens’s predictions from 1988 and observed temperature. No citation given on dataset.
Here he is trying to show Hansens’s predictions from 1988 and observed temperature, unsure why he does not display all the record. No citation given on dataset.
Here he is trying to show Hansens’s predictions from 1988 and observed temperature, unsure why he does not display all the record. No citation given on dataset.
Listing climate forcings, while leaving out a bunch. I don’t recall seeing a match between observations and models that close anywhere.
Citing the IPCC again.
Makes the famous Yogi Berra joke about ‘It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.’
Listing the model scenarios for the future
Listing impacts of a warmer world, with a full on belief that severe weather will get worse
Showing the graphic from Scientific American’s page spread on IPCC AR5 report.
Doom ahead, slide 1
Doom ahead, slide 2
Doom ahead, slide 3
Doom ahead, slide 4, I think the polar bear was photoshopped in.
Doom ahead, slide 5, citing the now debunked Moose will die story.
Doom ahead, slide 6 what warming show is complete without dried cracked Earth?
Doom ahead, slide 7 – heat waves – I wonder if he got permission from Accu-Weather to use that graphic?
Doom ahead, slide 8, boat ramp on Folsom Lake in CA, I think. He apparently thinks PDO/ENSO have no effect on CA precip.
Doom ahead, slide 9 – Laughable, cites decline of banana slug in CA
Doom ahead, slide 9 – Laughable, cites decline of banana slug in CA, cites paper.
Doom ahead, slide 10 cites sea level rise in Miami as cause of flooding streets summer 2014. No mention of particularly wet June and early July,, or that the heavy rain causing the flooding is not new or unprecedented.
Doom ahead, slide 10 cites newspaper aticle as “proof” of climate change causing flooding.
Doom ahead slide 11 – collage of climate doom.
Doom ahead slide 12, apparently people never died in heat waves before climate change became a known unknown.
Doom ahead slide 13 – AGW will change the jet stream, making more severe weather. Even IPCC doesn’t show this link.
Doom ahead slide 14 – sayign the 2003 European heat wave was due to AGW, pix of children.
Doom ahead slide 15 – trying to blame 2014 flooding of Somerset levels on AGW, when it was simply a lack of dredging.
Doom ahead slide 16 – trying to blame 2014 flooding of Somerset levels on AGW, when it was simply a lack of dredging. Cites BBC article and Met Office graph as proof.
Title slide “why no action?” – maybe because we don’t believe you!
Obligatory portrayal of steam emissions from smoketstacks in backlighting as “carbon emissions”.
Citing this quote from Frank Luntz in 2002 as the reason that apparently ALL climate skeptics are evil paid shills.
Obligatory Naomi Oreskes book cover.
Beginning of the enemies list headshot parade
Quoting Inhofe
The hockey stick makes its first appearance without his book attached.
More Hockey Stick
Hockey Stick political cartoon, goes on to say how many times the HS has been “exonerated” by pal review, er science.
See? Lots of other hockey sticks, cheap consensus ploy.
Beginning of the newspaper clippings showing how the Hockey League gets more press than say, the non-hockey league
More newspaper clippings showing how the Hockey League gets more press than say, the non-hockey league
IPCC again, over hockey league, even though the hockey stick does not appear in IPCC AR5 it’s still golden.
Beginning of politics and science switcheroo animated slide. Trying to portay that science is politicized I guess.
End of politics and science switcheroo animated slide.
Enemies list headshot #2 – Joe Barton
Joe Barton sent me a letter asking for data, code, and correspondence. HOW DARE HE!
Enemies list headshot #3 – oh wait, that’s a friend.
Enemies list headshot #4 – Shherywood Boehlert (R) nNew York
Enemies list headshot #5 – John McCain, though portrayed as a friend becuase he said something Mike liked.
Enemies list headshot #5 – John McCain, though portrayed as a friend becuase he said something Mike liked.
Enemies list headshot #5 – John McCain, though portrayed as a friend becuase he said something Mike liked.
Enemies list headshot #6 – VP candidate Sarah Palin, snicker heard through crowd, Mann starts making jokes.
Enemies list headshot #6 – VP candidate Sarah Palin, apparently she’s stupid for talking about Climategate emails.
Enemies list headshot #6 – VP candidate Sarah Palin, apparently she’s stupid for talking about Climategate emails.
Enemies list headshot #6 – VP candidate Sarah Palin, apparently she’s stupid for talking about Climategate emails.
Enemies list headshot #6 – VP candidate Sarah Palin, apparently she’s stupid for talking about Climategate emails.
Enemies list headshot #7 – James Inhofe, apparently he’s also stupid for talking about Climategate emails.
Enemies list headshot #8 – Ken Cuccinelli apparently he’s stupid asking to see more emails.
Enemies list headshot #8 – Ken Cuccinelli apparently he’s stupid asking to see more emails.
Enemies list headshot #8 – Ken Cuccinelli apparently he’s stupid asking to see more emails.
Enemies list headshot #8 – Ken Cuccinelli apparently he’s stupid asking to see more emails.
Enemies list headshot #8 – Ken Cuccinelli apparently he’s stupid asking to see more emails.
Enemies list headshot #8 – Ken Cuccinelli apparently he’s stupid asking to see more emails.
Enemies list headshot #8 – Ken Cuccinelli apparently he’s stupid asking to see more emails.
Apparently Republicans in general are just too stupid to accept climate change.
There’s no magic climate bullet, but we all knew that.
Mann’s last slide -picture of his daughter and a polar bear at the zoo. I’ve pixelated it because I don’t think children should be used as props.
UPDATE: A PDF of all the slide originals presented in Mann’s Rutgers presentation was released by Mann on the Penn State web page here: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Misc/HSCW_Rutgers_Sep12.pdf
These were the slides used in a September 2012 presentation at Rutgers, which were the subject of Steve McIntyre’s breakdown of the presentation Mann gave to AGU in December 2012 which he called “Mike’s AGU Trick“. At issue was the staleness of temperature data presented which completely eliminates any hint of “the pause”, as seen below. Mann’s talk in Bristol was the virtually identical set of slides. He hasn’t updated them with anything of significance in 2 years, except for some news headline articles about severe weather events. The data truncated at 2005 has not changed. (h/t to Jean S.)
Excerpt from “Mike’s AGU Trick“:
======================================
There were two components to Mann’s AGU trick. First, as in Mann and Kump, Mann compared model projections for land-and-ocean to observations for land-only. In addition, like Santer et al 2008, Mann failed to incorporate up-to-date data for his comparison. The staleness of Mann’s temperature data in his AGU presentation was really quite remarkable: the temperature data in Mann’s presentation (December 2012) ended in 2005! Obviously, in the past (notably MBH98 and MBH99), Mann used the most recent (even monthly data) when it was to his advantage. So the failure to use up-to-date data in his AGU presentation is really quite conspicuous.
Had Mann shown a comparison of Hansen’s Scenario B to up-to-date Land-and-Ocean observational data, the discrepancy would have been evident to the AGU audience, as shown in the loop below.
…
Update: As reader DGH observed in a comment below, Mann’s presentation at Rutgers also employed Mann’s AGU Trick to hide the divergence between Hansen Scenario B and observed temperature, not showing data after 2005. As noted above, not using up-to-date data in virtually identical circumstances was characterized by Pierrehumbert as “ugly” and “illegitimate”:
Figure ^. Excerpt from Mann’s September 2012 presentation at Rutgers.
As reader ZT pointed out, Mann also used his AGU Trick to hide the divergence in his TEDx talk
here.
======================================
Like this:
Like Loading...
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
…
Thanks Anthony – no wonder he panicked and escaped 10 minutes early, knowing you had him “bang to rights” !
What else would one expect from someone who pretends to be a Nobel Laureate! Science, wot science!
Mann looking at irrelevance in the face!
Amazing actually! Their boat is swamped with irrefutable observational data which contradicts basically all of their predictions and computer models from the past 20 years. But it seems that Captain Mann plans to go down with the ship.
It looks like his Hansen 1988 prediction to temp charts ised the same trick he used at Rutgers and at AGU 2012. McIntyre called him on it then. Hard to be certain given image quality, but looks just like the Rutgers slide, even the black background. Land only temps from GISS rather than land plus sea, truncated at 2005 to hide the pause. In fall 2012, Hansen had GISS land plus sea temps available through mid 2012.
Yes, it definitely is mike’s AGU trick.
Is he really getting something like $10k for these reruns? Seems like the talk was pretty much the same as here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CKNHpVUJKk
I’m surprised you were able to get permission to reproduce the slides.
It was a lecture, open to the public, and I saw no restrictions on photography posted. Many others there were taking photos also. It is a fair use application. In fact, Mann himself gave explicit permission at the end when I said about the photo of his daughter “I expect this will be up on blogs within hours”.
Both Lewandowsky and Mann knew I was in the front row taking photos, and there was no complaint of me doing photography when I announced the Cook lecture.
Generally speaking, you should NOT assume you have the right to reproduce displayed slides, any more than you should assume you can video a movie in a theatre.
rabbit, this is not a movie theater.
The first question I would ask is: who pays the freight? It seems that Mann has been riding the taxpayer gravy train for a long time. He doesn’t work for a private corporation.
As a taxpayer, I expect to have access to his work product.
Otherwise, I want a refund.
dbstealey:
Just telling you the law. Both a presentation and a film are covered by copyright. Just because someone gives a public showing doesn’t mean they are ceding the right to reproduce.
And your argument about “who pays the freight” doesn’t hold up in law. Both professors and universities are allowed to hold copyright, even when funded on the public dime.
rabbit,
Are you a lawyer? If so, what’s your opinion on fair use? Where is the line drawn? These slides were just a small part of the presentation. Mann’s presentation was not recorded.
Of course, if you’re not a lawyer…
dbstealey:
Reproducing 80 or more slides likely goes far beyond fair use.
And no, I’m not a lawyer, but that does not stop someone from knowing something of the law, just as you don’t need a degree in climatology to know something about climate. I was an R&D manager for many years, and it was part of my job to understand the basics of intellectual property law. People have been stopped from photographing my presentations due to copyright violation (don’t blame me, I wasn’t the one doing the stopping).
Nor am I claiming I am definitely right in this matter — only a judge can decide that — but I think it would almost certainly raise concerns with lawyers.
I know why you’re putting up these arguments. You don’t like the idea that Watts may have pulled a no-no. Neither do I.
rabbit says:
You don’t like the idea that Watts may have pulled a no-no. Neither do I.
Who said I think it was a ‘no-no’? I don’t. I’m fine with it. If showing slides that were a small part of a presentation isn’t fair use, what is? Mann didn’t complain, and clearly he expected it. He never said not to post anything, he even said he expected pics of his daughter to be used.
You don’t like it. I get that. The tone of your comments is hard to miss.
@rabbit:
Here’s the advice from the UK Intellectual Property Office. This article is non-commercial research, it was necessary to use the amount that was taken, and the work reproduced is supported by a sufficient acknowledgment.
Although the extract seems quite long, a shorter extract would not have achieved the objective of demonstrating the content of this lecture fairly. And the slides are only a small part of Dr Mann’s performance. So I don’t see the problem.
“You are allowed to take short extracts of works when the use is for research that you do not make any money from or for private study, for educational courses or even for use in connection with a hobby. Such use is only permitted when it is ‘fair dealing’ (discussed below).
The purpose of this exception is to provide students and non-commercial researchers more access to copyright works. In assessing whether your use of the work is permitted or not you must assess if there is any financial impact on the copyright owner because of your use. Where the impact is not significant, the use may be acceptable.
If your use is for non-commercial research you must ensure that the work you reproduce is supported by a sufficient acknowledgment.”
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-other/c-exception/c-exception-research.htm
“Factors that have been identified by the courts as relevant in determining whether a particular dealing with a work is fair include:
* Does using the work affect the market for the original work? If a use of a work acts as a substitute for it, causing the owner to lose revenue, then it is not likely to be fair.
* Is the amount of the work taken reasonable and appropriate? Was it necessary to use the amount that was taken? Usually only part of a work may be used.”
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-other/c-exception/c-exception-review/c-exception-fairdealing.htm
There is a specific educational exception in copyright. If this blog is anything, it is educational.
Concern troll alert.
Beng:
Screw off, okay? There are very real legal issues here, and one should be able to bring them up with some moron screaming “Concern troll”.
If the slides and presentation were developed and assembled using government money, it is highly unlikely that the individual could claim copyright. It becomes public property, and public knowledge. If anyone should be interested in charging a fee, it is the US government, not Mann.
Ralph
Ralfellis::
Nice theory, but it doesn’t work that way. Here’s a link…
Statement on Copyright
To quote..
it has been the prevailing academic practice to treat the faculty member as the copyright owner of works that are created independently and at the faculty member’s own initiative for traditional academic purposes. Examples include class notes and syllabi; books and articles; works of fiction and nonfiction; poems and dramatic works; musical and choreographic works; pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; and educational software, commonly known as “courseware.”
Mann’s last slide -picture of his daughter and a polar bear at the zoo. I’ve pixelated it because I don’t think children should be used as props.
If Mann is using his daughter as a prop then the issue is settled no? I too agree with the sentiment but rather than downplay the correct thing is to throw a spotlight on the practice of cute polar bears and “for the children.”
I wish it would not come to this but letting it slide is only going to encourage more.
Nicholas Stern pulled the same emotional trick of bringing his wife and baby on stage at the end of his TED talk. But then it was TED….
https://www.ted.com/talks/lord_nicholas_stern_the_state_of_the_climate_and_what_we_might_do_about_it?language=en
I wonder if they get this maudlin with disappointing weather forecasts. Do they bring out the wives and children? Do they say, Look how the lousy forecast affected them? /sarc
I think I would have lost my lunch if I had to sit through all of that.
They actually had a slide sequence “Why no action?” ? Seriously? The $100 billion+ spent (wasted) on this nonsense counts as “no action”? These are strange times indeed.
Actually, it IS nothing compared to the countless trillions they actually WANT us to spend
What a pathetic presentation, especially from someone who is a scientist. That malarkey isn’t going to convince anyone … though alarmists probably lapped it up, like they always do.
Sadly, what you say is probably right!
Readers, click on any picture to activate slide show.
How many carbon credits did Mann buy to offset this incredibly boring, childish presentation? If this passes for a scholarly presentation, then I must be getting old.
Has for the picture of Mann’s daughter , while with him has a dad, can you image having to grow up dealing with that massive ego and a tendency to see conspricy everywhere , she already has enough problems , so no need to show her.
Seems like he may be using an image of “Monks” coffee shop in Seinfeld (Toms in reality). Did he pay a royalty or at least get rights?
@lemon: You don’t need permission to take photographs in public in the USA, nor to use a photograph or a trademark in commentary in the UK. Otherwise most TV news would infringe one or the other. There’s an excellent blog about the former: http://photographyisnotacrime.com/
Mann is a circus barker. He’s no more a scientist than your typical bare-back performer. What a disgrace!
“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
– Abraham Lincoln (Probably fake too)
“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, and most of the time that’s quiet sufficient. ”
-Dad
“You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.”
G.W. Bush
“There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”
G.W. Bush
At least you’re not quoting Dan Quayle.
“I’ve now been in 57 states — I think one left to go.” – Barak H. Obama
How about… But you can make a fool of yourself anytime.
This seems to have been a Mann ‘backslapping’ session. I think he was trying to make himself feel warm inside before getting a good ol SLAPP on the back.
My niece went to that talk and probably has never seen that Mauna Loa curve before. You may be surprised but the talk was not just for you.
Good snarky point.
Best not to overwhelm the uninitiated.
Exactly. A talk should be pitched at the audience and this was a public lecture. Most members of the public will not have seen the curve. It is arrogant of Watts to think the talk has been tailored for him.
So basically he hasn’t done any research in almost 10 years.
it would appear mann is stuck in the last century and is unaware of the observations of the climate in the last 14 years. i have an ongoing debate with an earth scientist that contributes to sks on another forum,he takes umbrage when i bring up mann as he is apparently no longer relevant in the debate , “that was a long time ago” is the phrase used.
all well and good apart from the fact mann and the cabot institute are still promoting last centuries propaganda.
Hansen maintains his own chart of the 1988 predictions against observations on his personal webpages.
The relevant comparison here is the Blue line (most relevant prediction) against the Black line (GISS land-ocean temps).
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/PNAS_GTCh_Fig2.gif
Yes. And also Scenario C with no increase in CO2 emissions from 2000 onwards that didn’t occur.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/15/james-hansens-climate-forecast-of-1988-a-whopping-150-wrong/
If these Charlies are the be all and end all in climate science … the settled science … then that graph alone rings the BS alarm bells, CO2 does pretty much nothing !
I find it interesting that scenario C is actually quite close to observations. I’m assuming that scenario is one in which CO2 emissions cease and there is no additional forcing? If so, it seems we have a model prediction of what would happen if additional CO2 forcing was zero (or very low) that has been started well on its way to being validated by observation.
I tried to find the answer as to what scenario C represents, but his web-site gave me a headache.
IIRC, it was a low end projection through the year 2000, after which temperatures became de-coupled from CO2 (its forcing ceased to be factored in).
No. The model is rubbish, it has no predictive ability.
Bless the Mann.
For no one challenging the credibility of the CAGW meme could have invented such a character.
He and Al Gore have done more to encourage scepticism and serious questioning of This prothesized Doom by Magic Gas, than any number of serious scientists.
They both reek of Bovine Excrement.
In an among friends:
%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fstringthink.wordpress.com%252F%3B1700%3B2200
What a pathetic presentation.
Nostalgia as deception: “… nostalgia … in some forms can become a defense mechanism by which people avoid the historical facts …” (Wiki).
Lewandowsky cura te ipsum.
Does anyone besides me have a real gripe about “greenhouse effect”? A greenhouse becomes warm and remains warm because convection of heated air is inhibited. Nothing more, nothing less. In the free atmosphere, atmosphere that is heated for whatever reason rises and cools at approximately the adiabatic lapse rate.
Yes:
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
And linked in the geologist site…
http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/simple-explanation-of-why-greenhouse.html
Richard111 September 27, 2014 at 10:09 pm
Thanks for that! It’s quite interesting that you provided a link to physicist. Yesterday I offered a “Tip/Note” for Anthony here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/tips-and-notes-2/#comment-1747788
I found the geologist and you provided the physicist. I think we’re on a roll.
Anthony, can you give us a sense of how the audience felt about Mann?
It’s hard to imagine, given the amount of exposure his ‘trickery’ and self aggrandisement has received that very many of them have genuine faith in him as a Scientist.
There was applause, but no standing ovation. The book line was short.
Polite applause?
Applause because they were thankful it was over?
Just wondering.