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:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
While it is difficult for me to evaluate the claims and counterclaims pertaining to misuse of statistical analysis in the AGW debates, this quotation makes it perfectly obvious that the ‘model makers’ the IPCC relies on have no real interest in science or the scientific method.
This alarmist clique of ‘climate scientists’ gives every appearance of a priesthood consulting arcane oracles in massive temples, then issuing forth with pronouncements and prophecies for the masses.
/Mr Lynn
More Manndrivel. This guy has no scientific integrity. If the data doesn’t fit the theory, bend it into a hockey stick.
I haven’t read all the replies. It was suggested that sites and blogs such as this are no longer necessary since the Mann graph has been blown to smithereens by, of all things, the scientific method, and the reality of how the data sets were handled or, in some cases, ignored entirely. I would beg to differ. Sometimes, you find yourself continuing to show pics of the Earth from satellites as a mundane proof to people who still believe the Earth is flat, if I may use such a metaphor. Sites such as this must continue to expound upon the principles of science and logic, not only to keep a religion from becoming the voice of government, but to always get science right. This means that we could also be wrong and anyone is welcome and invited to present actual evidence to prove it.
That has yet to happen. Almost every single time I have debated or seen a debate, an AGW supporter resorts to rhetoric and hyperbole and a list of might, if, possibly. Regardless of whatever physical documented evidence to the contrary. Sometimes, they simply resort to ad hominem attacks. Anything that leads away from the actual science of debate and toward a clash of personality. Or a clash of motives. For example, to suggest that a person who does not believe in the CO2 AGW does not care about the environment and the planet. But so many have invested their emotions, religious feeling, political leanings, and in the case of Gore, personal fortune in the “need” to combat CO2 AGW, that it takes on the face and force of a religious movement, non-falsifiable and purposefully blinded from science. Even Gore himself will not listen to science and observable fact, such as the questioning with the film producer of “Not Evil, Just Wrong.” Gore asked him if he thought polar bears were endangered. Using the latest observed data (polar bear population is approaching 25,000. That is an historical high, due to governments protecting them on endangered species lists), it was pointed out that they are not endangered if their numbers are, indeed, above the natural average without man’s influence. When he asked again for Gore to answer the initial question, the mic was turned off and the filmmaker was physical manhandled out of the meeting. That’s not science, that’s thugs and goons protecting their mafioso.
This site and others like it are bastions of free speech and free thinking and the scientific pursuit of knowledge, whereever it may lead us and we are blessed to have it.
To evanmjones (19:59:42) [REPLY – I would hate to see anyone prosecuted, except in the court of public opinion. Besides, that sword cuts both ways. ~ Evan]
Sorry to disagree. Let that sword of prosecuting frauds cut in all directions; aim it at all parties and at all ideologies. It is a necessary element to clear the air for freedom. All researchers, all scientists, make mistakes. However, when they continue in their mistake when every falsehood of their data, methods, and research conclusions has been publicly aired over and over again, they deserved to be removed their positions (academic, government, NGO, private corp) and barred from ever engaging in any scientific research again. I am also for fines and jail time — but from a society of laws.
And I believe that the court of public opinion is as essential as justice — again, necessary, but not sufficient. WUWT is foremost in the court of public opinion for integrity in the scientific method, for which I am very grateful.
quote: His explanation seems to resolve to “we flipped it over because it matched the other data better that way.” That doesn’t sound like science, that sounds like someone explaining evolution by claiming God put the fossils there 6,000 years ago when He created the Earth. unquote
If one accepts the teleconnection hypothesis — that is, a global warming signal will express itself in heat here, rain there, drought at the other place, cooling elsewhere — then it makes sense to see every hockeystick as a confirmation of AGW. If the data matches the global warming signal then it’s good data and can be inverted if need be. Look, goes the argument, the varves change their density from 1910 onwards and global temps go up from 1910. Therefore varve density is a confirmation of global warming. It matters not what the man who collected the data thinks, he doesn’t know about teleconnection. All data with a hockeystick confirms the AGW case.
Is it science? Yes, if astrology is a science. And yes, if my name is Marie of Roumania.
JF
The science is sullied.
Caleb (17:27:59) :
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.
What about the Phil Jones defense :-
“I have 25 minutes or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
Blackadder, Raven, Wondering- you are on the money but stopping short of fully exposing what we can learn here.
In his “peer reviewed” response, Mann is saying (translated into simple English) that if one set of data is mirrored across the x axis of a graph by a different set of data (with y axis scale properly adjusted) and is a close match, then it’s okay to invert the one and superimpose it on the other to reinforce its conclusion. It is “correlation,” whether or not we understand the mechanism.
Mann is not denying that he did this; he is, without admitting it, trying to justify having done exactly that. Evan, you do a great job here, but in this case, we’re not looking at an “unintentional error.” What he has done was knowing and deliberate. And he has as much as admitted it.
Evan,
Just so you know, I feel your pain. There’s always one smart guy who can’t stand being moderated for ANY reason and thinks that all manner of whining, complaining, parsing, explaining, etc. somehow helps his cause.
I usually just ignore their posts for a week and they understand that I don’t care about the excuses, I just want them to not post improper stuff.
I have one primary rule in my TOS–Do NOT annoy the moderators. 😉
So, with that. Thank you for your work here. You’re a valuable asset to a valuable asset. I and thousands of others appreciate it.
Mark
Philip Mulholland (00:07:55) :
………….Please see page 5/6 in the following pdf file:-
Thank you so much. I now understand this was part of a supplementary material which Prof. Itoh used at a on-the-web discussion with Japanese AGWers last year.
Mark: Thanks on behalf of myself and the other moderators.
We try to allow for as full a discussion as we can. We never delete a post merely because we disagree with it. (And Anthony, of course, can’t be beat. We consider it an honor and a privilege to moderate for him.)
Different words, much the same position as far as I can see. (Section 8.1.2)
Thanks for the info.
the low right is not upside down. I’ll call you as for real estate. lol!
evanmjones (20:38:51) :
We try to allow for as full a discussion as we can. We never delete a post merely because we disagree with it. (And Anthony, of course, can’t be beat. We consider it an honor and a privilege to moderate for him.)
I know. Anthony’s openness is why this site rises head and shoulders above most climate sites. It’s also why it’s so educational. In case nobody figured it out, it’s the challenge and defense of research that helps to make it clear to laymen.
You guys really help keep that exchange civil, productive, and reasonably on point. I speak from a decade of experience herding these cats: You’re doing it just right.
Mark
OKE E DOKE (21:08:57) :
Caleb,
(snip)
“it’s crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide”
I thought I was the only one who remembered that rasberry. From MAD magazine, nineteen fifty what?
I am disappointed at the snarky remarks on this thread.
Mann et. al. produced a report which claimed a previously unrecognized side-effect of energy use in the modern era. This effect is named anthropogenic global warming. The report served as the basis for the draft treaty to be agreed upon in Copenhagen in December.
The report was based on a model; the algorithmic methods used in the model were not released to the scientific community. The model used climactic data; the data used were (allegedly) modified for use in the model; the data used in the model were not released to the scientific community. Thus the hypothesis was never independently verified for data.
A very long time ago, it was 1955, I read a library book about the history of science. That book claimed that modern science was based on the concept that science made predictions, and that the validity of the hypothesis was based upon the subsequent observed accuracy of the predictions. Thus one is able to design a molecule or build a structure for an intended purpose, and the subsequent data will demonstrate whether or not the molecule or structure performs the intended task.
An hypothesis which makes a prediction which is false is thus termed invalid, and a new hypothesis must be formed. Such invalidation has led to the defeat of many theories: spontaneous generation of life, phlogiston, Lamarckian biology (just to name a few).
Galileo sought to overturn the conclusion of Aristotle about the path of an object through the air by invalidating his conclusions, not trumping his reasoning. [Just an example.]
Enough already about sediments. Enough about oxygen 18 concentration. Does the documented history of the past 10 years verify the hypothesis? Has the documented increased carbon dioxide concentration in the stratosphere produced measurable increased heat retention?
Well, no, actually.
Do the laboratory measurements of absorption spectra by carbon dioxide, compared with laboratory measurements of absorption spectra of water vapor and other stratospheric gases, validate the AGW hypothesis?
Well, no, actually, they do not.
Have Mann’s conclusions ever been independently verified?
Well, no, they have not.
If an hypothesis is not falsifiable, then it belongs to the realm of belief (or perhaps religion or theology). But the said hypothesis is not science, and should have no application in public policy.
L
Yes, that is apparently what he is saying.
However our reason for claiming xray density data is a temperature proxy at all means that these particular data sets show cooling not warming. That is what I mean by him ignoring the physical reality. When he inverts in this manner the LIA becomes warm the MWP cold etc. Mann ignores this and the theory of how the xray density data reflects temperature using it as if the entire explanation of why it’s a proxy is totally wrong.
Either he has it wrong or it isn’t a proxy.
Actually, I think this is a more serious problem that the tree-ring usage
– here Mann is actually quite clear in saying that in his opinion is doesn’t matter that the data he uses actually indicates the exact opposite of the point he is trying to make
– and it doesn’t matter that he (or his algorithms) have to invert the data in order to make the agree with his a priori assumptions.
So, whereas, with the tree-ring data he is merely selecting the data on the basis of whether or not they agree with his a priori assumptions (itself, an fairly unscientic approach to science!), here he is actually changing the data (inverting it) so that it agrees.
This kind of treatment of data is so obviously so unscientific that I’m sure even layman politicians should be able to follow the unsoundness of his methods……..
Mathman, your point is very good, the predictions have failed.
And yet I disagree that it is “snarky” to point out that Mann is a fraud, when the evidence is clearly there. Galileo never questioned Aristotle’s motives becauese there was never any evidence to suggest such a thing. That was a case where two honest scientists may disagree, and the predictions will show which model was right.
Mann is more akin to the Soviet scientist Lysenko – he has produced a deliberate fraud for political consumption, and he deserves to be laughed out of the scientific world in exactly the way that Lysenko has been. What’s more, all of his so-called “peer reviewers” have been complicit in the fraud with Mann.
Their behavior has been so abominable and so dishonest that nothing any of them ever produce in the future should *Ever* be taken seriously again, and that needs to be communicated to the world as often as possible.
They need to be exposed and disgraced before honest science can ever regain the reputation it once had, a reputation that Mann, et al are in the process of destroying through their intentional and willfull fraud.
“They need to be exposed and disgraced before honest science can ever regain the reputation it once had, a reputation that Mann, et al are in the process of destroying through their intentional and willfull fraud.”
Absolutely. They should be excised like dead, gangrenous flesh. Surely even the warmists can see that they are now a liability, a lightning rod for half of all skeptic attacks. Warmists have often said how the hockey stick isn’t central to the AGW, hypothesis. Well then, let them step up to the plate and deal with the mess once and for all, so we can all move forward with the science.
They all have elements that are not upside-down.
RTFR – particularly Figure S7.
REPLY: Sure thing Josh
George M (06:19:56) : “I thought I was the only one who remembered that rasberry. From MAD magazine, nineteen fifty what?”
Wikipedia attributes the phrase (pre-MAD) to author Margery Allingham:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magersfontein_Lugg
RE:
?????
There’s a brief counter to this post at More Grumbine Science ( http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/10/sound-and-fury-at-wuwt.html ) . I happen to agree with it, but I’d be interested in anyone’s reaction over here at WUWT.
-Ian