Michael Mann's Lecture at URI and the "blogger who must not be named"

Dr. Michael Mann gives a lecture on his work at the University of Rhode Island.

People send me stuff, and for that I’m always grateful, and happy to oblige posting relevant comments and content for the wide distribution WUWT now enjoys. Gary Boden writes:

I video taped Mann’s lecture at the University of Rhode Island last month  and finally was able to get it converted to digital format and uploaded to Photobucket.  The quality isn’t great, but not so bad considering it was shot with a handheld mini-DV camcorder from the balcony.

Here are the links to the several parts (I had to split it up for size-constraints).  The lecture is in parts A – E and there are two questions and answers.  The very last item (Q and A part 2) is Mann being asked to respond to Steve McIntyre’s criticisms – and Mann’s comments about Steve.

Here is the event description from URI:

September 23 — Scientific Evidence of Global Climate Change — Michael E. Mann, director, Earth System Science Center at Penn State. Click here for more information. Please Note: change of venue from Chafee 271 to Edwards Auditorium.

While Dr. Mann certainly seems committed to his work, and his work is important to many, the lack of courtesy for even basic recognition to other professionals whom have also worked equally hard is troubling. You can watch the videos (at the links below) of his entire lecture, and judge the content for yourself.

Each of these videos will open in a new full sized window, you can then resize the window to your liking.

Mann at URI – Part A

Mann at URI – Part B

Mann at URI – Part C

Mann at URI – Part D

Mann at URI – Part E

Mann at URI – Q and A Part1

Mann at URI – Q and A Part2

Advertisements

73 thoughts on “Michael Mann's Lecture at URI and the "blogger who must not be named"

  1. Darn. I couldn’t hear much. My machine, or the poor quality of the recording, or both. Anyone able to give a concise recap?

  2. Pingback: Michael Mann’s Lecture at URI and the “blogger who must not be named” « An Honest Climate Debate

  3. Well, his first response in the Q&A – in citing Kilimanjaro – was completely misinformed. He should have been more equivocal about ice sheet loss and his case cite of Kilimanjaro indicates to me he’s dug in far too deep and hasn’t kept abreast of the most recent studies. Case in point is Kilimanjaro: The decline of Kilimanjaro’s ice fields has been due to other factors like soot deposition and loss of arboreal microclimate precipitation. That in conjunction with natural ongoing sublimation and changes in circulation in the Indian Ocean rim probably unrelated to direct global warming but possibly rather more related to “brown cloud” aerosol pollution.
    The magnitude of the effects from the notorious “Asian Brown Cloud” is stunning and has been the focus of some excellent climatologists like V. Ramanathan who themselves believe in Mann’s work. I wouldn’t be so sanguine, however.

  4. I note he doesn’t attack Ross McKitrick because he can’t tie him to the oil industry or call him a blogger.

  5. Funny, Mann says McIntyre makes ad hominem attacks against him and the team, then goes on to make ad hom attacks on McIntyre. And he’s not an amateur statistician, which is what he’s calling into question, Mann’s use of statistics.
    What a joke. As a bald man I feel insulted by this idiot.

  6. In 1st video he suggests that skeptics might not believe in the Greenhouse effect.
    He says, “…so if you have a skeptical Uncle who tells you he doesn’t believe in the greenhouse effect you can tell him, well how does he explain the fact that the earth is not a solid frozen object.”
    Has anyone ever said they don’t believe in the Greenhouse effect?

  7. Water vapor is only “a very potent greenhouse gas”. Could have been a bit more demonstrative there. “High cloud negative feedback is very uncertain…have to make assumptions…”
    His warming numbers for a doubling of CO2 from the 1880 level of 280PPM:
    Doubled Co2 = +1.25C in about 4 decades.
    Water vapor feedback = +2.5C
    Ice albedo (melting) = + .6C
    High Cloud = -1.85C (but very uncertain)
    Total = +2.5C “..but we now think it is closer to 3… dangerous impacts”

  8. Q and A part 2 – my impression: An amazing distortion of the facts (if not actual fabrication & evasion), seems he’s getting quite good at this now 🙁 .
    First quote “… I think that I’ve demonstrated that when we put all of the natural factors into the models, and we don’t include CO2, you cannot reproduce the warming that has been seen. When you put the CO2 increases in the models, you do reproduce the warming that has been seen. So basically it is only the increase in CO2 that can explain the observation record. …”
    (The obvious response would be, when the incomplete/faulty models have been tweaked & tweaked to show observed warming using an exaggerated CO2 response, well, *of course* leaving CO2 out will stop them showing the observed warming! The modellers couldn’t possibly admit that they don’t know what is really causing the warming, not least since that isn’t good for funding.)
    Second quote, answering a question that mentions McIntyre & McKitrick: “… Now as for the idea that, the gentleman referred to a fossil-fuel industry funded amateur who has a website that basically vilifies all the scientists in my field, often by names in a very ad-hominen manner. The idea that this individual has somehow discredited the hockey stick that I showed you, was rejected by the National Academy of Sciences, was rejected last year by the IPCC – which in fact not only confirmed the conclusion that we had drawn ten years ago, based on far fewer data & more elementary methods, but in fact in the most recent IPCC report the conclusion is now drawn that the recent warming is not anomalous in just the past 1000 years, it is probably at least the last 1300 years, and there is some evidence even longer. So no, I don’t think there is by any stretch if the imagination our work has been discredited in legitimate scientific circles, perhaps on some fringe web sites in the bloggosphere people might think it has been.”
    (well, I leave this up to you guys to respond to, but the entire quote boggles my mind on many levels.)

  9. Part B: I’m sure Steve McIntyre will like cartoon of an “angry lobbyist” breaking of a dozen hockey sticks.

  10. The tale of the hockey stick …. again … but the model is consistent …stock market melted
    Dee Norris: .. I do not know USA laws … to exercise as father …
    I wonder. Eloise, to witness such an event?

  11. I actually read his new paper. I was suprised to see his graphs. It’s clear that the proxies with first manipulation do not match the CRU temperature data since 1850. In fact there was a -0.15 to +0.15 temperature change since 1850 to present (ie: no change). He then used the EIV formula to change the data point at present from -0.15 to +0.40 (check the graphs). He also noted that many proxies, not just tree rings, showed the divergence problem. This would falsify Briffa’s suggestion that ozone changes are the cause for divergence. But I really couldn’t believe that the National Academy of Science let him use 66% to 90% as his confidence level for statisical significance. This is burried in the paper and there is no mention of it in either the abstract or the summary. In other words, even after questionable manipulation of the data, his conclusions did NOT reach the level of statisical signifificance (95%) expected for scientific research.

  12. It would be interesting to see the GCMs run with the CO2 at 280 PPM… I have a feeling there would be major tweaking before publication however…

  13. from Wiki’s page on Ross McKitrick.
    A panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) endorsed, with a few reservations, the MBH paper. One of the panel’s reservations was that “…a statistical method used in the 1999 study was not the best and that some uncertainties in the work ‘have been underestimated,’ and it particularly challenged the authors’ conclusion that the decade of the 1990s was probably the warmest in a millennium.” However, they also said that “‘an array of evidence’ supported the main thrust of the paper”, leading to even more confusion on the situation.[4]
    A subsequent investigation, undertaken at the request of Republican Senator Joe Barton and headed by prominent statistics professor and NAS member Edward Wegman of George Mason University [5] supported the statistical criticisms by McKitrick and McIntyre, saying “It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the paper. We found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling.”[6]

  14. He ends with War, Famine, Pestilence, and Death and he’s so calm and relaxed about it. Very believable if you were just driving by

  15. A new branch of “science”has emerged called anecdotal science, where observation and speculation supersede factual evidence, and the various theories are verified by computer models constructed to produce an output that corresponds with the “scientific” observation and specultion and resulting anecdote.

  16. I missed the memo–when did “believe in” become an important part of science.
    Outside of Kansas, I mean.

  17. Thank you Gary Boden.
    This is the only way I’m likely to see Dr. Mann in his natural niche. The video and audio quality are quite acceptable for me.

  18. The contrast of Mann’s response (to the McIntyre question) to the words of the Wegman report on the Hockey Stick shows the extent of either Mann’s delusion or his conscious decision to lie his way out of his predicament.

  19. I just finished a post which uses the same PCA methods Mann uses to make hockey sticks. Quite a bit less math this time, but the result is amazing.
    I have been studying his math and learning for the last two months. It is no coincidence that every method he uses does the same thing, find patterns where none exist.
    Only one difference from his work to mine though is that I looked for all kinds of patterns. I actually found a better correlation to a negative temperature slope in his own data than his Mann08 paper had for positive slopes.
    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/will-the-real-hockey-stick-please-stand-up/

  20. I missed the memo–when did “believe in” become an important part of science.
    Outside of Kansas, I mean

    And Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi…

  21. For further enlightenment, following are peer reviewed publications by the fossil-fuel funded (sic) amateur blogger who must not be named.
    See: ClimateAudit.org
    Hockey Stick Studies
    Stephen McIntyre & Ross McKitrick, CORRECTIONS TO THE MANN et. al. (1998) PROXY DATA BASE AND NORTHERN HEMISPHERIC AVERAGE TEMPERATURE SERIES ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT VOLUME 14 á NUMBER 6 á 2003
    http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf
    Stephen McIntyre & Ross McKitrick,Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L03710, doi:10.1029/2004GL021750, 2005
    Stephen McIntyre & Ross McKitrick THE M&M CRITIQUE OF THE MBH98 NORTHERN HEMISPHERE CLIMATE INDEX: UPDATE AND IMPLICATIONS Energy & Environment • Vol. 16, No. 1, 2005
    Stephen McIntyre & Ross McKitrick Presentation to the National Academy of Sciences Expert Panel, “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 1,000-2,000 Years.” March 2, 2006, Washington DC
    AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION Edward J. Wegman, George Mason University, David W. Scott, Rice University, and Yasmin H. Said, The Johns Hopkins University.
    “In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling. . . . We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.. . . Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.”
    McIntyre is systematically sifting through Mann et al.’s 2008 publication for substance. e.g., see: The “Full” Network Steve McIntyre on October 6th, 2008
    McIntyre also addresses Ammann e.g., Well, well. Look what the cat dragged in. Steve McIntyre on August 6th, 2008

  22. I wish I could show the plot.
    The total Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) – 107 Year Graph
    http://www.forecast-chart.com/historical-dow-industrial.html
    is highly correlated with the rise of temperature.
    It is clear that temperature is driving the DOW, becaus the rise of the El Nino happens after 2000.
    Seems to me we have a very good proxy for temperature here. Mann should take note and desert tree rings. Even the recent stasis is there, and the cold periods in the 40s and 70s.
    🙂 🙂 ;).
    Well Maybe the Dow drives the temperatures since the 1929 peak only appear in 1930 or so in the temperatures. [laughing out loud]

  23. “…as for the crooked pseudo-scientists who invented the hockey stick, supported it, and continue to parade it in the mendacious documents of theIPCC, no journalist would dare to ask any of them the questions that would expose their self-seeking corruption for what it is. These evil pseudo-scientists, through the falsity of their statistical manipulations, have already killed far more people through starvation than ‘global warming will ever kill. They should now be indicted and should stand trial alongside Radovan Karadzic for nothing less than high crimes against humanity: for, in their callous disregard for the fatal consequences of their corrupt falsification of science, they are no less guilty of genocide than he.”
    The Right Honourable 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. who is apparently keen not to be thought of as a ‘potty peer’.

  24. Watching Michael Mann speak, it seems as though he would rather be anywhere else than having to justify some of his reasoning. When the questions get close to where he is Really uncomfortable, the stooge with the microphone offers cover. Did people pay to see/listen to this man Mann?
    Waste of money/time/effort – even I with scant knowledge [NLAMN] could pick holes in Mr Mann’s replies.
    They should have had one of those silent movie shepherds crooks to whisk him offstage!

  25. For further enlightenment, following are peer reviewed publications by the coal funded (sic) blogger who must not be named from his blog: ClimateAudit.org
    Hockey Stick Studies
    Stephen McIntyre & Ross McKitrick, CORRECTIONS TO THE MANN et. al. (1998) PROXY DATA BASE AND NORTHERN HEMISPHERIC AVERAGE TEMPERATURE SERIES ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT VOLUME 14 á NUMBER 6 á 2003
    http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf
    Stephen McIntyre & Ross McKitrick,Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L03710, doi:10.1029/2004GL021750, 2005
    Stephen McIntyre & Ross McKitrick THE M&M CRITIQUE OF THE MBH98 NORTHERN HEMISPHERE CLIMATE INDEX: UPDATE AND IMPLICATIONS Energy & Environment • Vol. 16, No. 1, 2005
    Stephen McIntyre & Ross McKitrick Presentation to the National Academy of Sciences Expert Panel, “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 1,000-2,000 Years.” March 2, 2006, Washington DC
    AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION Edward J. Wegman, George Mason University, David W. Scott, Rice University, and Yasmin H. Said, The Johns Hopkins University.
    “In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and
    the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling. . . . We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.. . . Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.”
    McIntyre is systematically sifting through Mann et al.’s 2008 publication for substance. e.g., see: The “Full” Network Steve McIntyre on October 6th, 2008

  26. Well, we all know who is going to be taking over when Hansen retires.
    Al Gore, as the coming Climate Czar, will be sure to apppoint Mann as successor.
    My question is: How are they going to manage hiding growing sea ice should cooling continue?
    They’re gonna have to take Stalinist control over all weather and climate records. I can see it right now:
    Warning – Annual Sea Ice Data!
    Government Property!
    Top Secret!!
    Classified!!
    No Trespassing!! Keep Out!
    Authorized Personnel Only!
    Violators face $100,000 fine and 15 years of prison.
    Interstingly, people who show facts and data to dispute AGW are termed fringe bloggers and amateurs. That ought to scare anyone.

  27. Clearly this is been taken over by radical fringe zealots.
    I think it’s high time that leading skeptics step up the pressure by demanding that either these zealots appear in public debate, or they shut up.

  28. Radical fringe zealots; (thanks Pierre) Having just noticed Mann, Schmidt, and Hanson are all balding could there be a correlation between, that, the recent solar maxima, plate tectonics, and the abuse of science?
    Sudden climate change due to a hole in the polar ozone?

  29. Pete. “High Cloud = -1.85C (but very uncertain)”
    Good he have altered the previous position here, but still water vapor is by (in my opinion fraudulent) Mann is regarded as a positive feedback, which it’s not due to the results from Aqua.

  30. Hey, leave Mississip outta this, Jef.
    Robert E. Lee, his ownself, couldn’t sell that AGW stuff down here.

  31. anna v
    There’s also a correlation between sun spots and US unemployment
    http://virakkraft.com/USemp.jpg
    People tend to get very angry a couple of years after SN start increasing, arabs in particular.
    Iran-Iraq war 1980, Gulf war 1990, 9/11 2001. Even the Yom Kippur war can be explained by the unexpected SN rise in 1972. There are two possiblities, people do not cope with a more active sun or they need high GCR to keep calm.

  32. Hi Anthony
    reference the EU banning incandescent bulbs from 2010 could you run this topic to discover whether others have found that the long life bulbs lose output after 3 or 4 months and have to be replaced to save eyestrain? We are on our third bulb this year, and guess what? – we replaced with a 100w incandescent! What a load of crap to save 30 million tons of plant food.

  33. Re CFLs. The Australian government has a policy of restricting the sale of conventional light globes starting this year.
    The first (and last) CFL I purchased fell out of the fitting about a day after I put it in. I had difficulty putting it in because it seemed to be a slightly different size bayonet to the usual sort that I have never had problems with.
    Not wanting to expose myself and family to mercury, I priced the cost of LED lights to replace all the lights in my house. The cost of $AU60,000 doesn’t include the cost of modifying/replacing fittings.

  34. Do we understand the full manufacturing and disposal processes/impacts of the new bulbs? Do they still have mercury? Are there other obscure materials that might have raw material and/or disposal environmental impacts? What about any impacts on human functioning like occurred with some people with the old fluorescents that flashed on/off at 60 cycles per second?
    I’d love to see an objective life cycle cost and human and environmental impact analysis of incandescent vs. fluorescent vs. other high tech bulbs to understand the true impact.
    I don’t necessarily think that the new bulbs aren’t better, but given recent history on other topics, I suspect that the magnitude of any benefit is greatly exaggerated. As a result, we will likely not be be making an optimal decision, because emotion, preconceived notions, and zealotrous interests will dominant are collective decision making. Humans are given the gift of reason and what do we do with it?

  35. BTW. I think Mann said something to the effect that up to 2 degrees warming we could deal with but beyond that we’d be in trouble.
    Here’s my conspiracy correlation theory of the day:
    The Team already has a good estimate for the negative cloud feedback and they also have some preliminary estimates on Svensmarks cosmic ray cloud formation experiments. They have run the models with these negative feedbacks and the warming is about 1C with a doubling of CO2. They will then be ready the day before Svensmark announcing his findings to reveal their latest model runs.
    They will also readjust the CO2 numbers by saying the Carbon cap & trade programs and voluntary citizen actions will reduce the expected CO2 doubling to perhaps only maxing out at the actual measured 1820 and 1940s CO2 level of about 440PPM. By then carbon cap and trade taxation will be in full swing so they will have met their objectives of throttling modern civilization and making money at the same time.
    They’ll figure the cap and trade will last until the next major election cycles and they’ll be able to retire in comfort by then and possibly even be prepared to short any public cap and trade companies from their beech front retreats. Gore will retire from his UK carbon trading company but not before opening a US branch to take advantage of the carbon trading tax credits that the US Senate added to the Wall Street bailout bill. The company will then go public and the Team will all short the stock for a potential retirement bonanza.
    Mann’s 2 degree # is just greasing the skids for the pre-Svensmark “Catastrophic Anthropogenic CO2 induced Global Warming is solved look at the latest models” press conference.

  36. Hey, leave Mississip outta this, Jef.
    Robert E. Lee, his ownself, couldn’t sell that AGW stuff down here.

    I think it was a different kind of belief…

  37. reference the EU banning incandescent bulbs from 2010 could you run this topic to discover whether others have found that the long life bulbs lose output after 3 or 4 months and have to be replaced to save eyestrain? We are on our third bulb this year, and guess what? – we replaced with a 100w incandescent! What a load of crap to save 30 million tons of plant food.

    That hasn’t been my experience with them. I’ve been using the same bulbs around my computer desk for over 2 years, no noticeable reduction in output that I can see. Maybe you’re buying off brands?

  38. @Anna V.
    WRT “Dow Jones Industrial” – Definently a proxy – the logic goes like this…
    1. Rising use of fossil fuels (increasing CO2) leads to greater prosperity…
    2. Increasing prosperity leads to DOW increasing…
    3. DOW Increasing correlated with rising temps as measured by J Hansen.
    4. Rising temps leads to catastrophic consequences (as avowed by J Hansen, Al Gore, et al)…
    5. Need to get DOW lower to avoid consequences…
    6. Reduce CO2 to reduce prosperity and reduce DOW…
    Ahhh… Must attack the economy to avoid catastrophy. Now I get it.
    All this because “Correlation = Causation”. (ps 2 + 2 = 5)

  39. Given the company I’m keeping on this site…
    I’m proud to be a fringe blogger and amateur!
    Go Blogs and amateurs! The professionals have sold out!

  40. Jeff (09:17:50) You know, I kind of feel sorry for them. They have a fragile and untenable paradigm to defend which appears doomed. How about the latest from Livermore about the tropospheric temperatures? Is it just more data manipulation and inappropriate statistics?
    =========================================

  41. Readers of this item will be interested to know that Mann will have a session at the next EGU General Assembly in 2009 (see http://meetings.copernicus.org/egu2009
    Here are the details
    CL10 Climate of the last millennium: reconstructions, analyses and explanation of regional and seasonal changes
    Convener: Mann, M.
    This subject has received considerable attention over the last 10-15 years. The purpose of this session is to bring together paleoclimatologists working on higher-resolution proxy information and climate modellers simulating the period. Emphasis will be given to presentations of the regional and seasonal detail (particularly for Europe) in both reconstructions (single and multi-proxy) and climate model output. The importance of a reliable knowledge of forcing histories (both global and regional aspects) within the modelling framework will also be addressed.
    Main Scientific Organiser and Convenor Mann, M. Dept. of Meteorology Penn State University Walker Building 16802 University Park, PA United States of America. E-mail: mann@meteo.psu.edu; mann@psu.edu
    Deputy Organizer(s)/ Co-Convener(s) Jones, P. Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Watton Road NR4 7TJ Norwich United Kingdom Tel.: +44 1603 592090 Fax: +44 1603 507784 E-mail: p.jones@uea.ac.uk and Jouzel, J. France E-mail: jouzel@lsce.saclay.cea.fr
    I suppose a key part of the session will be about how much Mann and ‘the team’ has learnt from Steve McIntyre and colleagues and the continuing debate on Climate Audit.

  42. I think it would be good if Anthony started a thread for discussion on the compact fluorescent bulbs – sorry to suggest more work! When we bought our previous house back in 1987 there was a Philips Compact in one of the lights, I suspect it was made in Holland. It was still going when we sold the house in 2007, 20 years on. Admittedly it was in a room where it didn’t get everyday use, but 20 years is still pretty good. A couple of years back I started to replace other lights in the house with the newer CF fittings but had all sorts of trouble with them, a number just snapped off at the glass/plastic interface at the base. Others just gave up the ghost. These fittings are no being made in their billions in China and I don’t think the technology or quality has really advanced that much, if anything they’ve gone backwards. I think its a bit of a racket to get people to buy expensive bulbs that I’m not convinced will give people much more extended life over incandescent globes which is supposedly one of their biggest plus points. I think the quality is very poor these days. End of rant.
    I’m with Pete and Pompous Git on this.

  43. EGU groupie (19:43:52) It seems pretty obvious from the changed postings that the Piltdown Mann has done that he plagiarizes Steve McIntyre’s work without attribution. This is supposed to be a big No-No in academia.
    ========================================

  44. Neil,
    I am a pragmatic environmentalist (I even used to donate to NRDC) and what amazes about environmental extremists is that they bought so quickly into the “energy saving benefit is greater than the environmental and human health risk” cost/benefit/risk trade off for fluorescent bulbs. Actually, I have a sneaking suspicion that they didn’t even think about such a trade off, and this may be a good illustration of how rational thought does not apply. Environmentalism is a religion.
    I just did a quick google search on “fluorescent MSDS” and low and behold, phosphor dust, mercury vapor, safe handling for broken bulbs and procedures for disposal as a hazardous material. One advised that in large quantities the concerns were greater. What happens now when no individual disposes of in large quantities, but collectively, the land fills and any municipal incinerators start getting many small ‘deposits’ that end up turning into the need for an Environmental Street bailout.
    Also, I’m not saying that fluorescent bulbs are not a reasonable trade off, and, yes, some of the new ones are getting better but I’d like to see an objective analysis done to support their use. In a similar manner, I think it would be interesting to develop the carbon cap and trade (tax) need with an objective cost/benefit/risk assessment.

  45. Neil,
    My experience mirrors yours. The 12-year-old CFL in our kitchen has been glowing away reliably despite frequent on / off switching and thousands of hours of use. All the rest of our bulbs are newer ones, installed in the last year, many of which are flood-style, and thus very expensive. Their failure rate seems extraordinary, compared to the older bulb, or even to incandescents. In the last year, one of our CFLs broke during installation, and three others burnt out (one, in my daughter’s bedroom, went with a visible puff of spoke).
    I’ve started marking the ceramic base of all new bulbs with install dates and place of purchase. And of course, we keep receipts.
    I agree this is quite OT for this thread. Still, it’s a terrible thing to have to keep one’s righteous indignation all pent up.

  46. The scary part is the applause Mann received from the audience.Are students getting educated or merely degreed? Then again maybe most of the audience is made up of true believers anyway.I am glad someone questioned him.
    Most definitely the skeptics must debate these alarmists, but it seems that the alarmists are the ones avoiding the debate.
    Me thinks global warming alarmism is taking on the characteristics of a psuedoscience, with the high priest calling for decertification of credentials of the skeptics, the bringing of lawsuits and treason charges, and okaying of vandalism and civil or uncivil disobedience to “protect the planet”
    In the words of John Paul Jones, “I have yet to begun to fight’ as the motto to be adopted by the skeptics.

  47. Gary said: “his conclusions did NOT reach the level of statisical signifificance (95%) expected for scientific research”.
    Professor John Brignell at Numberwatch doesn’t think 95% is rigorous enough and explains why:
    Statistical significance:
    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/significance.htm
    It is difficult to generalise, but on the whole P<0.01 would normally be considered significant and P<0.001 highly significant.
    The provenance of the P<0.05 criterion goes back to the great pioneer of significance testing, R A Fisher, who is deemed to have given it his imprimatur. He did not in fact do this and late in his life stated that he had just used this level in his calculations as a “mathematical convenience”. Furthermore, he also stated that “without randomisation there is no significance”.
    Many leading scientists and mathematicians today believe that the emphasis on significance testing is grossly overdone. P<0.05 had become an end in itself and the determinant of a successful outcome to an experiment, much to the detriment of the fundamental objective of science, which is to understand.”

  48. This pushback by Mann, to continue to pretend there was no Medieval warming period, and that his so-called hockey stick is credible is just part and parcel with the echo-chamber AGW creates.
    The promoters of the apocalypse now are smoothing out the differences between the troposphere temps and their models, to creat the impression that their models have accuracy.
    As mentioned up thread, we are seeing an entire science getting higjacked by apocalyptic prophecy.

  49. How about the latest from Livermore about the tropospheric temperatures? Is it just more data manipulation and inappropriate statistics?
    Seems not. A team of 17 researchers from 12 institutions have produced a study that is, among other things, a comprehensive rebuttal of the “data manipulation and inappropriate statistics” of Douglass, Singer, Christy et al. Apparently this was
    ‘based on use of older radiosonde and satellite datasets, and on two methodological errors: the neglect of observational trend uncertainties introduced by interannual climate variability, and application of an inappropriate statistical consistency test.’
    Apparently the Climate ‘Auditors’ missed that one….
    REPLY: Nope nobody missed it, but we know not to trust anything with Gavin Schmidt’s name on it. As you’ll note, the author list is the same crowd of usual suspects.
    For example, Gavin won’t post anything I have (and many others) with links back to this website, or to Climate Audit. He doesn’t play fair, he’s not a gentleman, and his regular censoring actions excluding other ideas are not trustworthy of a scientist, IMHO.
    BTW your first link does not work, it is temporary.

  50. John (14:14:19) I suspect Steve is hard at work on this. Your simple assertion that the data was not manipulated nor statistics applied inappropriately is not convincing. I don’t buy their explanation for reworking the data and am not competent to evaluate their statistics, but someone is. Furthermore, this study just partly explained the discrepancy.
    Also, the globe is cooling, for how long, even kim doesn’t know. The horse this study wants to ride is out of the barn already.
    ==========================================

  51. John (14:14:19) Also, on May 1st of this year, Steve posted a communication from Douglass defending his statistics that this recent paper criticizes and extensive discussion followed.
    The ‘amateurs’ at climate audit are already licking their chops, see the recent ‘moving team’ thread.
    ==============================

  52. John (14:14:19) and others. In particular, see Cliff’s comment #499 on the 5/1/08 Douglass thread at climateaudit.org
    =====================================

  53. Dennis A,
    I have in my recent post demonstrated a high statistical significance to Mann’s own temperature proxies and a negative slope. In fact higher than his own correlation to ground measured temperature. (maybe he needs better thermometers)
    I am not a statistician but the smoothing of proxy data ‘dramatically’ changes the significance criterion through auto correlation. There are probably a bunch of readers with more experience that could expound on that point.
    The p level is entirely arbitrary and its meaning often leads to incorrect conclusions. I believe it also is used as a convenient way to make a false claim with the auto correlation difficult to quantify and disprove. It sounds nitpicky on Climate Audit when the posters discuss the difference but it goes right to the heart of the matter at times.

  54. In the second link from John Philip “data manipulation and inappropriate statistics” which states:
    “”The bottom line is that we obtained results strikingly different from those of Douglass et al. The “robust statistical test” that they used to compare models and observations had at least one serious flaw – its failure to account for any uncertainty in the “signal component” of observed temperature trends (see QUESTION 7). This flaw led them to reach incorrect conclusions. We showed this by applying their test to randomly generated data with the same statistical properties as the observed temperature data, but without any underlying “signal trend”. In this “synthetic data” case, we knew that significant differences in temperature trends could occur by chance only, and thus would happen infrequently. When we applied the Douglass et al. test, however, we found that even randomly generated data showed statistically significant trend differences much more frequently than we would expect on the basis of chance alone.””
    Well SMcI has shown this for MBH9X and yet Climate science still considers these works of Mann to be great science, and MM worthy of your snide remark. Obviously, the problem is that Douglass et al are not part of the team. Different teams … different rules. Perhaps, you, John Philip, can help with this, or even explain this since you posted it. And please note that Wegman agreed with the criticisms directed at MBH.

  55. FYI P 0.05, (for example that P<0.1), then one would say that the investigator is using a “rubber ruler” for his measurement of uncertainty.

  56. Kim,
    Puzzled. Of the global mean temperature datasets produced by various agencies UAH shows the lowest rate of warming. However even the linear trends in this data for 120, 240 and 360 months are +0.11, +0.18 and +0.13C / decade respectively (in line with IPCC projections). So on what evidence do you conclude that the globe is cooling?
    JP

  57. Thanks, Anthony, here’s the permalink: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121433727/abstract
    Apart from NASA, the organisations who employ these ‘usual suspects’ are:
    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Hadley Centre,
    the University of Vienna, the NOAA, The CRU at University of East Anglia,
    RSS and Yale.
    I guess there’s going to be a lot of egg on a lot of faces when Steve McIntyre publishes his riposte in the International Journal of Climatology!

  58. John Philip (16:15:56) Nobody much doubts that the earth warmed for the last quarter of the last century. It is this century that the temperature flattened out and has now started dropping. I maintain that the warming of the last part of the last century was from the PDO in its warming phase and now that the PDO has flipped, we’ll cool for another 20-30 years. If the sun is going into a Grand or Lesser Minimum, we may cool for 50-100 years. Whence: We are cooling; for how long, even kim doesn’t know.
    In my opinion, the natural warming of the last quarter of the last century co-incided with the rise in CO2. That the warming has been blamed on CO2 is simply the grandest example ever of the Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc logical fallacy ever. Note that temperature is dropping while the CO2 keeps rising. Watt’s Up With That?
    =======================================

  59. John (16:15:56) Also, see lucia’s Blackboard at rankexploits.com for disconfirmation of the IPCC’s projections. The temperature plot is no longer in line with IPCC projections, in fact, it is not even close.
    ==========================================

  60. John (16:15:56) Also, the Arctic is freezing back up. Maximum melt was two summer’s ago. Last summer ended with 10% greater ice extent than the year before and ice extent is rising rapidly, right now. I don’t really expect a freeze-up this year as dramatic as last year’s winter because of van Loon’s prediction of a mild winter, but with the resurgence of the La Nina next year, I don’t expect next year’s melt to even reach this year’s let alone last year’s.
    Whence, the Arctic is freezing back up, because the globe is cooling. For how long, even kim doesn’t know.
    ====================================

  61. Professor Wegman ripped this duckhead apart only a couple of years ago. Us australians emit lots of carbon dioxide making stuff like steel and aluminium. If this fool ever holidays downunder he better not mention what he does. We do not like our boys out of work.

Comments are closed.