This is a simple IQ test anyone should be able to complete easily. Here are four images, which one of the images has elements that are not upside down? You have 5 seconds. Go.
Answer below.
Chances are, if you are not Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State University, you’d answer: “It’s a trick question, all of them are upside down”.
And you’d be right.
If you are Dr. Michael Mann, and continue to insist that data in the image (from Mann et al 2008 ) in the lower right is not upside down, please contact me about some real estate in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you at a bargain price.
As WUWT and Climate Audit readers know, Mann made some blatantly obvious mistakes in his use of proxy data in Mann et al 2008, where he claims to be able to make a present day “hockey stick” of climate without the use of Bristlecone Pines that he used in his flawed 1998 study which produced the original Hockey Stick. Mann inverted data, upside down if you will, notably the Tiljander sediment as pointed out by Steve McIntyre.
Mann didn’t just use one Tiljander series upside down; he used all four of them upside down, a point illustrated in the graphic below from a Japanese language article that rather appealed to me.
This isn’t an opinion. McIntyre personally verified this data inversion with the researcher, Tiljander, who collected the original proxy data. Yet Mann still denies it, probably because using the data right side up doesn’t produce the desired results.
Here is a figure from Tiljander et al showing the density graphic, rotated so that up corresponds to warm periods.
Figure 1. Excerpt from Tiljander et al, rotated from vertical in original graphic to show interpreted warm periods as up.
Here is the corresponding Mann data inverted from the Mann orientation:
Even if Mike Mann doesn’t, the Japanese know this:
Mann didn’t just use one Tiljander series upside down; he used all four of them upside down, a point illustrated in the graphic below from a Japanese language article that rather appealed to me.
Figure 3. Excerpt from Itoh graphic identifying upside down Tiljander proxies.
In a more mundane version, the figures below (from CA in fall 2008) show the Xray density series shown above in the upside down Mann orientation together with another upside down Tiljander series.
Figure 2. Two of 4 versions used in Mann et al 2008
The huge HS blade is, as noted above, attributed by Tiljander to “intensive cultivation in the late 20th century… peat ditching and forest clearance … the rebuilding of the bridge.”
The SI to Mann et al 2008 conceded that there were problems with the recent portion of the Tiljander proxies (without mentioning that they were using them upside down from the interpretation of Tiljander and Finnish paleolimnologists), but argued that they could still “get ” a Stick without the Tiljander sediments. However, as I observed at the time, this case required the Graybill bristlecone chronology (where they failed to mention or cite Ababneh’s inability to replicate Graybill’s Sheep Mt results, even though Malcolm Hughes, a member of Ababneh’s thesis panel was a coauthor of Mann et al 2008). Thus their “robustness” analysis used either upside down Tiljander sediments or Graybill bristlecones.
Even though there is no doubt whatever that Mann used the Tiljander proxies upside down, in their reply to our comment, Mann et al flat out denied that they had used them upside down. Mann:
The claim that ‘‘upside down’’ data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.
These comments are either unresponsive to the observation that the Tiljander sediments were used upside down or untrue. Multivariate methods are indeed insensitive to the sign of the predictors. However, if there is a spurious correlation between temperature and sediment from bridge building and cultivation, then Mannomatic methods will seize on this spurious relationship and interpret the Tiljander sediments upside down, as we observed. The fact that they can “get” a Stick using Graybill bristlecones is well known, but even the NAS panel said that bristlecones should be “avoided” in temperature reconstructions – and that was before Ababneh’s bombshell about Sheep Mt bristlecones. The claim that upside down data was used may indeed be “bizarre”, but it is true.
This wasn’t the only proxy used upside down in Mann et al 2008. In our discussion of Trouet et al 2009 in the spring, Andy Baker commented at CA and it turned out that Mann had used one of Baker’s series upside down – as discussed here.
Mann’s failure to concede that they had used the Tiljander proxies upside down resulted in Kaufman et al 2009 also using them upside down. Kaufman said that he was unaware of our comment on this point, but was sufficiently attuned to the controversy that he truncated the data at 1800. As a result, the big HS blade isn’t used, but the Little Ice Age and MWP are flipped over, a point made at CA here Kaufman and Upside Down Mann. Two other Finnish paleolimnology series also appear to have been used upside down by Kaufman.
Atte Korhola, a prominent Finnish paleolimnologist, familiar with the Tiljander and other sediments, recently commented on the upside down use of Finnish proxy data, as follows (Jean S’s translation) (Google translation here):
data collected from Finland in the past by my own colleagues has even been turned upside down such that the warm periods become cold and vice versa.
And yet at realclimate, Mann and others not only deny the undeniable, but accuse anyone saying otherwise of being “dishonest”.
Chris Dudley in comment #651 says:
Over at Dot Earth, McIntyre is taking another shot at Mann et al. 2008. community.nytimes.com/comments/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/climate-auditor-challenged-to-do-climate-science/?permid=302#comment302
He seems to still be worried about inverted data despite Mann et al. publishing a formal reply to this. At this point bizarre is not the word any more.
A few posts later #665, JM says:
He seems to still be worried about inverted data despite Mann et al. publishing a formal reply to this. At this point bizarre is not the word any more.
The word we’re all groping for is “dishonest.” I’m sure everyone is as shocked as I am.
At #673, Benjamin asked:
Could someone point me to where this “inverted data” issue is addressed by Mann or someone else who knows? I’ve so far been unable to debunk McIntyre’s claims that there was an error there. Thanks!
To which, Mann referred to the PNAS Reply referred to above:
[Response: The original commenter appears to be referring to: Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Reply to McIntyre and McKitrick: Proxy-based temperature reconstructions are robust, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 106, E11, 2009. – mike]
Yeah right-o buddy, robusto crappo.
In other words, Mann’s study is falsified, yet he’s not Mann enough to admit it.
Here’s an interesting use of upside down graphs followed by a consensus insistence that the orientation of the data is correct:
Caleb –
Nice excuse, Caleb, now show your work.
I think that I have been “ROMMed
evanmjones (17:45:12) :
“We must also entertain the notion, however unlikely, that we are just plain wrong. ”
We are certainly changing the climate. Everything has an effect. The question is by how much and what should we do about it. If we are warming it up a bit, that may not be a bad thing. Another LIA would not help anyone. Unfortunately, alarmists, by definition, need a crisis they can solve and save the world. That’s the real problem. Is the solution worse than the problem? Answering that could take time, more than just ramming a ‘budget resolution’ through Congress.
Or, like the Maldives cabinet, we could don SCUBA gear and meet underwater.
[REPLY – Yes, quite. ~ Evan]
I thought of Mann yesterday when the news reported record early snowfall for State College, PA. I guess he is still there. Another example of the Gore effect, teleported or whatever it is they use for far-fetched correlations. You’d think a first rate university,—- well, let’s not go there.
Don S.: Definitely not madam.
Yes, I know. I wrote a guest post on that very subject:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/08/who-decides/
Nonetheless, one must entertain the notion because falsifiability is an indispensable keystone of science. If one does not entertain the notion one may be wrong, whatever one is doing isn’t science.
evanmjones (17:17:41) :
I doubt it was intentional.
A few years ago I would have assumed it was unintentional. But after experiencing several timesthe way the RealCimate “scientists” manipulate their blog by selectively deleting posts, I firmly believe they have no integrity whatsoever. It’s simple street rules, never admit you were wrong, even when caught in the act.
[REPLY – Well, not assume. Say rather, we must “presume”. Besides, Mann’s subsequent denials hoist him. And regardless of how the opposition behaves, I don’t think we can win this one via street rules. ~ Evan]
Caleb, Mann said:
“Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds.”
I’m not sure, but it sounds like Mann is saying that he accepts the Tiljander sediment in the reconstruction without regard to the sign of the relationship (as though he has no expectation of whether higher temperatures will lead to higher or lower sediment density). McIntyre’s statement that the sediment data was used ‘upside-down’ infers that we would normally expect higher sediment density for higher temperatures (someone please correct me if I’m wrong).
My interpretation is that he admits to what Anthony has indicated “However, if there is a spurious correlation between temperature and sediment from bridge building and cultivation, then Mannomatic methods will seize on this spurious relationship and interpret the Tiljander sediments upside down, as we observed.”
So does Mann not attempt to justify his use of proxies in reconstructions on any physical grounds? Obviously he doesn’t, or he would care about the sign of the predictors. Or in his words he would employ “one-sided tests”. And when they admit that there were “problems with the recent portion of the Tiljander proxies” (where a HS blade has occurred due to non-climatic factors) do they provide any explanation for why they used the data anyway?
I have been, to my mortification, unaware of the “Japanese article”. Could anyone identify the source? (I was unable to find it on the McIntyre page.)
Thanx.
LoL…. ah, those chimps crack me up everytime. They just fit right in with the dendroclimatologists and their work.
Mann helped Al Gore win the Nobel Prize with these lies. I say Gore must give back the million dollars that came with the prize. Or is there no justice after all?
[In reply to your probably-to-be-deleted post (currently in spam queue). I did not delete you, I put you in spam for later review. Please be reasonable. ~ Evan]
Just remember folks….be reasonable…..Or God will punish you…[snip].
[Reply – Or you will be snipped. Or deleted. And I’m the guy who hardly ever deletes anyone. (At any rate, that post seems to have been approved, regardless.) At the risk of repeating myself, please be reasonable. ~ Evan]
I love how some folks will make an escalating series of ridiculous and slanderous comments, then beak off about censorship when their garbage is snipped or deleted.
Twits.
Nice article BTW.
Caleb (17:27:59) :
Back in high school I was pretty good at coming up with excuses for undone homework, and also for incorrect answers. However I wish I had Mann’s skill. How I would have loved to see the look on my Geometry teacher’s face when he told me a graph was upside down, and I answered, “Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors.
Made my day!
Thanks for that
Mike Blackadder,
The problem with Mann is he correct when he says the statistical algorithm he used does not care if the signs are reversed, however, steve’s point is statistical algorithm also does not care about the physical meaning of the proxies and that it makes no sense to a proxy that goes up with temperatures and treat it as if it was a proxy that goes down with temperatures.
[snip – racial epithets – final warning sent via email]
Caleb (17:27:59) :
How does one actually get the name :Caleb???
To pick a knit…
That portion of the test question graph corresponding to the MWP does not appear to be inverted. Is it just the red portion of the plot that is inverted?
How deep does this apparent data manipulation go?
Down is up.
Up is down.
Mann flip flops.
Like a clown.
Mann dishonest? Hmmmm. Mann’s “research” fraudulent? A little closer to the mark. Lucy Skywalker (16:49;13) sees it the way I see it. “Top Climate Scientist Caught Out Lying Through his Teeth About Key IPCC Science” – isn’t that about it?
I hope he and his followers are prosecuted for fraud.
I like an upside down “Laugh In” line. “Sock it to ’em, Anthony.”
[REPLY – I would hate to see anyone prosecuted, except in the court of public opinion. Besides, that sword cuts both ways. ~ Evan]
I love how some folks will make an escalating series of ridiculous and slanderous comments, then beak off about censorship when their garbage is snipped or deleted
I have a plan. Suppose we have a collection drive to gather up as many copies of Mr. Mann’s work that have made it into print as we can in the next few weeks. Then we run the collected material through a paper cutter to make nice neat squares and ship it all to Copenhagen where it can be placed in receptacles in all the restroom stalls in the conference facility where the UN will be gathering for their Rape and Pillage of the Western World Climate Conference, to replace all that fluffy three ply that’s destroying the climate. It’d be a perfect kill two birds with one stone opportunity. The gathered dignitaries would be able to demonstrate their dedication to recycling and Mr. Mann’s work would finally be able to fulfill the one function for which it always been most perfectly suited.
This certainly explains why they hold their data and methods so close. When it comes to science, when one hides their data, it can raise suspicion. But the subject of climate change is not your typical scientific food fight. In this case people are being asked to sacrifice real money in the causing of “fighting” global warming. We are being asked to do with less, change our lifestyle, pay more for the basics of life. Californians are even being asked to give up their big screen TV’s all in the name of a cause that is based on mistake after mistake after mistake.
When someone tells you “the science is settled” that should cause alarm bells to ring. If it was all that “settled”, one wouldn’t need to sell it as “settled”.
But this is outright robbery. Average people are being harmed by this and the people lowest on the economy ladder are harmed the most. Urban poor don’t have a bus to take and they can’t afford a new car every time the government changes the standards. They might have to drive 60 miles to a doctor or 40 miles to a grocery store. It is cruel to burden these people with such a hoax. Everyone has been afraid of using the “fraud” word but when all of these “mistakes” are taken in sum, what else could it possibly be? You have the same “scientists” reviewing each others work. Time after time their “research” has been shown to be nothing more than an arrival at a predetermined outcome.
You hear cries of Antarctic warming and learn that the very study that supposedly documents that shows cooling since 1980. Weasel words, careful use of semantics to say things in a way that are true but misleading become business as usual. It is just shameful and so very cynical at a very basic human level. The people who can least afford it would be impacted most by “climate change” legislation. How is an elderly retired couple expected to pay to heat their home when they are on a fixed income and energy costs triple, not due to market conditions but due to artificially inflated costs due to government regulation.
It is the largest scam ever perpetrated on the population of the world.
Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors.
Well, you have to admit he is a man whose values are absolute.
I don’t know what all the fuss is about, but the essay by John Reid that ‘gtip’ cites is really quite good, and I hope gets wider circulation. Send it to all your friends, and to public officials, like the egregious Senator Lindsay Graham, for instance (don’t bother with Sen. Kerry—he’s a hopeless, vain nitwit).
/Mr Lynn
Caleb:
“Multivariate regression methods [asume temperature can be expressed in the form t=m1.x1+m2.x2+…where x1,x2… are variables and m1,m2… are (constant) coefficients which are estimated in the regression] are insensitive to the sign [see below]of predictors [=variables which are retained and used to predict values of T which were not directly measured]. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests [95% of observations either less than or greater than a particular value; two sided, between an upper and lower limit] only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds [such as a tree ring is always wider with higher T, never lower]. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use. [in climate science, when errors are pointed out, they”don’t matter”]”
[sign: An increase in a variable, say x1, could indicate a positive increase in T; in this case the coefficient m1 would be positive. But it is also possible for a variable, say x2, to indicate an increase in T when the variable decreases (eg istope ratios which can be expressed as the inverse); in this case m2 would be negative, which would emerge automatically from the regression. In the Mann paper a negative m2 was included when there were “physical grounds” for assuming it was positive – and grounds for excluding it as an artifact]