When the IPCC 'disappeared' the Medieval Warm Period

Which is more important? MWP or funding?

Frank Lansner: “I found approximately 54 datasets (almost 100% peer reviewed results)”
Thank you for the article, Frank, but surely you know that peer review is a meaningless process in climate science. I even hate to call this sham a science anymore. To me, it is totally discredited – all of it.

“Disappeared” is soviet-era speak. “Speak” is Orwellian speak. Lot’s of non-ebonic cultural references in that headline.

It seems to have taken some time for it to sink in with the warmist community of how important is was to minimise earlier non-human climate fluctuations. Use of the word ‘unprecedented’ in relation to warming at the end of the 20th century, particularly with reference to the 1998 event was no doubt closely followed by this downgrading of the MWP and LIA.
It may be that this was a group think response to early sceptic responses to the ‘unprecedented’ late 20C warming, i.e. pointing out that it was certainly not unprecented. Very much an ‘Oh yes it was, so there!’ sort of response.
We have seen similar more rapid responses to recent warmist problems: Cold winters, lots of snow, non-melting glaciers, extra Antarctic ice, few hurricanes. The forthcoming AGW stuff will show how unimportant such evidence really is in the face of the dire threat…blah, blah, blah.
A good example perhaps of rewriting the peer reviewed literature!

Maybe we can “disappear” the IPCC! What a great thought!
BTW, I actually like the title of this thread. It shows originality and absolutely nails the process used by the IPCC–in this case, “disappear” is their operatve word.
And I agree completely with Frank Lansner when he says “I even hate to call this sham a science anymore. To me, it is totally discredited – all of it.”
The more I study “climate science” and listen to revealing comments by folks like Phil Jones, the more my head spins.

For our ‘English’ teachers among us. Lighten up!
The ‘disappeared’ reference has deeper meaning that your ‘deep thoughts’ allow you to perceive. Alas, dimbulbs rarely get the ‘point.’
As Bob Hope put it: Allah has chosen to dim your lights.

Politicians,
“The only conclusion you can draw from this, is that AGW is indeed a fraud.”
It is indeed a fraud, but some of your figures are a bit suspect.
You write “Firstly we must ask, is it possible for the latent heat of one substance at 0.0385% of the entire atmosphere, or even several substances at no more than 1%, to be responsible for the assumed estimated atmospheric temperature of 33º C.”
The “assumed” atmospheric temperature as a global average is generally taken to be about 15C not 33C. Are you referring to the estimated GHG warming which has been assumed to be around 33C? It should be remembered that 90% of GHG warming comes from water vapour not from CO2.
Your other remark, that latent heat of CO2 being responsible for the warming is incomprehensible to me. Latent heat is the heat involved when a substance changes to a different state of matter. The GHG effect is supposed to be due to absorbtion of infra red radiation and has nothing to do with latent heat.

Just a thought: I suppose tree-ring proxies were selected because Mann et al understand that the best hockey sticks are still made of wood…?
🙂

The late John L. Daly’s blog contains a very good history of the disappearance of the Medieval Warm Period, and includes as figure 1. the graph showing the MWP and the Little Ice Age that appeared on page 202 of the 1990 assessment.
J T Houghton, G J Jenkins, J J Ephraums, Eds,, “Climate Change; The IPCC Scientific Assessment”. 1990 . Cambridge University Press, p.202
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

Original approach, good work, surprising result … or not so much.
And a good headline. Yes, they tried hard to ‘disappear’ it.
Almost worked, but not anymore. Tough times ahead for them.

Mann, the science rat, has been cornered. Now comes his counter-attack.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704187204575101461287544470.html

The headline may be non-standard english, but you can’t blame that one on so-called “ebonics”. It’s seems more like criminal (mobster) derived jargon, which in a way is quite appropriate considering that AGW is the ultimate protection racket.

Given that the Medieval Warm Period was probably warmer than now, is repeatedly mentioned in art and literature from the period and was, to the best of my knowledge, responsible for the spread of vineyards as far north as York (not generally considered to bethe warmest city in Christendom) how precisely did we/the IPCC/the press/Al Gore, etc let them get away with hiding it?

For what it’s worth, I like the title. If the grammatical incorrectness connotes a lack of education, then that’s analogous to the IPCC, where most authors are not actually climate scientists.

“R. Craigen (10:18:22) :
The most salient feature of the spaghetti graph of 54 datasets is the wild variety of time series available as ’scientific’ proxies. The immediate consequence is inescapable: by selecting which proxies to use, it is possible to tell practically any story one likes about the late Holocene temperatures.”
This is true.
However… 🙂 In my case I made the main article on Watts last year. And obviously I did not select data series with some kind of criteria on the year the data was published. In that sence these 54 datasets are really random (also) when considering publishing year. And therefore the huge difference in trends before and after 2001 appears significant and real. Otherwise I would never send to Anthony.
My wish is, that this would be investigated further. Why?
If my findings are true, this is a huge blow to the IPCC.
The thing is, IPCC should be NEUTRAL.
But if IPCC has promoted some specific viewpoint in 2001 on this essential matter, how could they get out of this one? How can IPCC “know” better than the consensus?
All this this talk about “consensus” and then IPCC acted against the consensus? Not good!
So i hope you super scientist on WATTS will take this lead and take it further.

RockyRoad (10:00:28) :
Maybe we can “disappear” the IPCC! What a great thought
“He who asks God and asks for a little is a fool”…so, be more ambitious, disappear the UN!

This post needs some proof reading, there is some rather tortured English.

OT but AccuWeather’s Bastardi predicts an increase in hurricanes hitting the US in 2010: http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2010/03/10/hurricanes/

Where have all. The warmings gone Long time passing Where have all the warmings gone Long long ago Where have all the warmings gone Gone to hockeysticks every one When will they ever learn When will they ever learn. New verse to old song?

I continue to be incredulous that there is a controversy over the MWP. As a student, long ago, I took a course in Scandinavian literature and the first semester was devoted to the medieval Icelandic writings. Not just the sagas cited below, but especially “Njal’s saga” which describes conditions in Iceland a couple of hundred years after the era of exploration, written by Snorri Sturleson, and a compelling drama in itself.
Among the required readings were the saga of “Eric the Red,” finder of Greenland (voyaging from Iceland), and “Leif the Lucky,” his son, who set out from Greenland and explored the coast of North America. Keep in mind these folks were crossing the usually stormy North Atlantic in open boats of 40-70 feet in length. Try doing this today, even in Summer!
Leif’s report on North America included, among many other things, references to the grapes (Vinland) and hostile Amerinds, hostile enough that settlement attempts came to nought. There is archaeological evidence in the form of excavated Viking sites to confirm this attempt at settlement.
It’s important to know that in 1000CE, Iceland was (and perhaps still is) the most literate society on Earth. Do warmists actually believe that Eric and Leif were making these stories up? Apparently they do, or else chose to ignore the clear facts of the matter. Talk about inconvenient truths!
The rest of the Icelandic literature of the period portrays an Iceland far more benign than the present. How could those medieval Icelanders have anticipated the present need of skeptics for evidence of the MWP?
There is no need of “proxies” to elucidate the climate of a thousand years ago when there is a substantial writen record to confirm it. Nor is the written record confined to Icelandic literature.
Nor is there any need for skeptics to ‘prove’ that the MWP wasn’t a strictly Northern Hemisphere phenonomen; it is rather a task for the warmists to prove that it was; unfortunately for them, there is no comparable literature available from the southern hemisphere at the time, lacking as it did any society capable of written records.
That said, it has long been clear that the MWP is critical for a popular resolution of the current argument:
If the MWP was real, then certainly the climate was warmer then than now and, while the present situation may be warm, it is hardly outside the bounds of natural climate variability. If the MWP is a chimera, then we should take warmist alarmism seriously. If the MWP was real, no one can argue that its occurence had anything whatever to do with atmospheric C02. Game, set, match.
But, “we don’t need no stinkin’ proxies” where we have the written records of people of the time who had no reason to misrepresent the truth.
It continues to amaze me that folks, who should know better, ignore the historical record and rely instead upon purveyors of the cause “du jour” to form their opinions. Speaking for myself, I’m prepared to let the resolution of the warmist theory to stand or fall on the reality of the MWP. L

”
Jay (11:18:33) :
“If the conclusions of “climate gate” are even remotely true, then this would explain that the IPCC controlled the future results.”
This is a joke post right?
By the by – the 1990-2001 plot is of data for a small bit of Europe, not the Northern Hemisphere. Hence the MWP looking less of a feature in later plots – because the evidence for the whole Northern Hemisphere is that the MWP was rather less of a feature than it was in a small bit of Europe.
”
jay, as i wrote in the above article, the first thing i did was to check out differnces NH/SH in the data. it looks like this:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/lanser_holocene_figure61.png
A very little difference between NH and SH trend in these exact datasets, so this is not the reason.

Obviously this was planned and coordinated. Impossible to convince me that this is a coincidence. They clearly had to know that they could have some control over the literature that would come out after 2001. One of the main problems with the hockey stick report was the shaft showing over 1000 years of perfectly stable climate, followed by a rapid rise in temps, which of course is not accurate, but the flawed, manipulated temp data spliced onto the end. The proxy data from recent times is missing because it doesn’t match the actual temp data – the divergence problem.
But hey, it provided “a neat, tidy package”!

Last line of this thread start reminds me of a chilling (pun intended) parallel;
i.e.: Where it sez:
”. . . . the IPCC controlled the future results.”
Reminds me of an (in)famous quote by one of history’s most ruthless dictators, ”Uncle Joe” Stalin; where he said:
”It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes.”
Thanks to the efforts of a growing coalition that insists on hard science based on real data instead of financially-motivated political correctness, the IPCC will I hope and trust never again be left alone to ”count the votes” on AGW in secret.
Long live ruthessly objective science; and continued thanks to WUWT and other skeptical bloggers who are leading the charge.
SIDEBAR: From the hit counter, looks like it won’t be too long b4 WUWT hits another major milestone: 40M hits. Keep counting. . . .

Hmm.. looking at the time series together, I wonder if “The Team” were taking time series and summing them to get their “preferred” flattened results.
I am sure if you were selective enough you could achieve almost any graph you desired.

Frank Lansner (11:50:09) :

Another example – actually not included in the above datasets:
From 1997, more than 6000 boreholes supports the MWP very similar to my findings and the original pre 2001 IPCC viewpoint:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/huang1997.jpg
Later they “changed their minds” and with only around 500 boreholes came in line with the IPCC.
They obviously didn’t break the world into 5 degree grids and properly average each grid while filling in missing data with data derived from other boreholes within the proper distance, while adjusting for the heating effects of the local cooking fires.

“L”
Checkout the “Greenland, Medieval warm period” here:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/g.php
They found wood remnants from the MWP 1000 km NORTH of Angmasalik!
Truly amazing. And such a heat with such a long duration is supposed not to have affected the Southern hemisphere. The thing is, the SH should have been VERY cold in the medieval ages if not the global average back then should be higher than today. Such a MEDIEVAL COLD PERIOD is extremely NOT supported by evidence!!
Its the SH MCP That is a JOKE as “jay” would say 🙂

Noticed this new development from Breitbart: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9EBUTQG0&show_article=1 “World’s top scientists to review climate panel…”

Speaking of the Maunder Minimum….according to Spaceweather.com,
“The Earth-facing side of the sun is blank–no sunspots. Image credit: SOHO/MDI”
I’m guessing that Mr. Sun (Ms. Sun??) is slipping back into a grand minimum.

Jay — By the by – the 1990-2001 plot is of data for a small bit of Europe, not the Northern Hemisphere. Hence the MWP looking less of a feature in later plots – because the evidence for the whole Northern Hemisphere is that the MWP was rather less of a feature than it was in a small bit of Europe.
You’re out of touch and simply regurgitating RC’s 2007 lying rubbish. Do some homework.

Lucy Skywalker (10:53:19) :
“….I seem to remember Dr Deming was pushed out of his job last year.”
You are not quite correct at least as far as I could find. Dr Deming and OU have been engaged in a running battle including him being relieved of all teaching classes etc. but I could not find anything where he has actually been let go.
Boren Tries to KICK Dr. David Deming out of OU 10/28/2008 http://okiecampaigns.blogspot.com/2008/10/boren-try-to-kick-dr-david-deming-out.html
http://publiusforum.blogtownhall.com/2008/10
/29/u_of_ok_decertifies_teacher_over_his_global_warming_skepticism_2.thtml

I think the title is apt. I immediately thought of the usage of “disappeared” when referring to many people in Guatemala during the armed conflict when the national police kidnapped, incarcerated, and killed many thousands of citizens, who were called the “desaparecidos.”

All borehole studies are equal, but some borehole studies are more equal than others.

richard verney (10:00:16) :
“the IPCC have had a revisionary approach to history”.
——————
Yes, indeed, all part of the psychological warfare. That’s why they employ people like Connelly.
That, along with (deliberate) dumbing down of the population in general, and using the threat of economic meltdown as the financial terrorists bankrupt nations, is how they will get their agenda through.
They bide their time. It is incremental. This to them is not a short term project (although the schedule has been very hectic recently).
I think Winston – the hero of 1984 – was employed by the Ministry of Truth, re-writing news stories…. Orwell was way ahead of his time and well placed to have insights into what was going on.

cloud10 (10:46:06) :
This posting on an alternative proxy using shells is interesting. I am not sure if you have that. The graphing is useful.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/3/9/a-new-type-of-proxy.html

Thanks for bringing this up. I just followed up on the story. If true, I think this is quite an incredible scientific breakthrough in paleo-climate reconstructions. It is so big that it has already made this post about the Medieval Warm Period dated and irrelevant.
The first graph of temperature reconstructions from the shells suggests the Roman Warm Period was probably warmer than the MWP as well as the recent period. Quite astonishing! If this technique can be further developed and improved upon, it will revolutionise paleo-climatology. No doubt we’ll hear more about it in the future.

JonesII (12:05:05) :
Yes, JoneZ, I agree with you, this is just one more “iron in the fire” so to speak, but a very important “iron in the fire”.
Additional “irons in the fire”:
The Law of the Sea treaty was another attempt at global governance with royalties (from minerals mined from the international seabed, think hydrocarbons and other minerals) paid to the U. N. (read tax).
The idea of a global financial transaction tax is another mechanism for global governance.
And, there are more items.
Fox News — February 25, 2010 — money quote from news report: “The new Rio summit will end, according to U.N. documents obtained by Fox News, with a ‘focused political document’ presumably laying out the framework and international commitments to a new Green World Order.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587426,00.html
Think I’m exaggerating?
Not in the slightest.
There are global (and American) elites that have no use for American sovereignty except as a vehicle for signing away power (via treaties) to the U. N. and its masters.

L (11:28:02) :
“I continue to be incredulous that there is a controversy over the MWP…..”
It certainly doesn’t help when you sagas are then backed up with the physical evidence of Norse farmsteads uncovered by retreating glaciers too! Darn I can find the website and I have to leave…

The MWP reconstruction in the IPCC AR2 was produced by HH Lamb for England, mainly from documentary evidence. Not withstanding the large areas of pink in every schoolboy’s atlas, England covers a rather small proportion of the earths surface. To claim this curve to represent the whole earth would be a gross extrapolation. Correctly, the AR2 expresses uncertainly as to whether the pattern in the MWP was global in extent. Indeed, they had some evidence of cooling in other regions. China I believe – the report is in my office, not my head.
This was the state of the art when the AR2 was written: it was an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
When the AR3 came to be written, several reconstructions puporting to represent the northern hemisphere existed. Regardless of how reviled these reconstructions are amongst readers here, it would have been bizarre for the IPCC to have continued to pretend that England could represent the world.
Did the MWP exist? Certainly in the N. Atlantic region, perhaps associated with a strenghtening on the AMO. The evidence for a globally warm MWP is less clear, but I have seen some interesting unpublised model data that suggests it is plausible, given what we know about climate forcings over the last millennia.

I don’t believe it’s meaningful to try to get a trend from the wildly diverging 54 datasets in the spaghetti graph. Why not group the similar datasets together (by eye will do) and see if there is a common reason for each group – e.g. location in the world, type of dataset i.e. tree ring etc), the organisation who got the data.
This is the main problem with attempting to arrive at a “global temperature” – there is no such thing. It would be meaningful to show the temperatures in a few dozen regions in the world.
Please can everybody stop averaging wildly different things together.
The average person has one breast and one testicle!

“Richard Telford (13:30:43) :
..
Did the MWP exist? Certainly in the N. Atlantic region, perhaps associated with a strenghtening on the AMO. The evidence for a globally warm MWP is less clear, but I have seen some interesting unpublised model data that suggests it is plausible, given what we know about climate forcings over the last millennia.”
Even in Europe, tree graphs used by IPCC shows hardly any MWP. So its no surprice that they dont show much of a MWP anywhere else.
Here the Alps:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/lanser_holocene_figure9.png
And here we see the MWP reaching as far as the South pole:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/lanser_holocene_figure7.png
(black graph has samples every 2-3 years, highest quality, but i have never seen it use by the IPCC – only the blue, Vostok).
I believe that anyone that suggests that for instance SH had a cold MWP or the like should proove this before using it as a fact.

Veronica (England) (12:28:59) :
“I can’t fathom out what this shows… your graph looks like a plateful of colourful spaghetti to me. As many lines above the recent data as below… where’s the trend?”
I can’t figure it out either, although the spaghetti is making me hungry.

A CRU email regarding the MWP is mentioned above as an alternate title. Here it is courtesy of Mann:
Contain the putative MWP.
Email from Michael Mann to Phil Jones and others, Jun 4, 2003, (Subject: “Prospective Eos Piece?” [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=319&filename=1054736277.txt]).
“it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet
have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back”

@Alexander Vissers (15:33:42) :
“By the way, really funny the way the IPCC reacted to the criticism to the impact paragraph: We may have been wrong about the impact and really we do not know if there is a real threat but we are certainly right about humans causing warming. If there is no threat then why bother?
Just to conclude that there is a lot to be learned and discovered still, both on how the climate works and most certainly on how international institutions work.”
– – – – – – – –
$$$$$$$!
According to Christopher Monckton, one of the early draft resolutions for COP-15 (Copenhagen) was that the UN would collect an annual “tribute” of 2% of GDP from each signing industrialized nation. From the USA alone, this would be approximately $285 billion per year (based on nominal GDP), which is approximately $930 per person per year for every man, woman and child living in the country. It would be “Oil for Food” all over again.
http://www.protectionist.net/2009/12/21/monckton-says-cop15-could-set-up-the-mechanism-for-a-world-government/

The unofficial Theme Song of WUWT…

JonesII (12:05:05) :
“… I insist: That global government is already working through all the binding agreements signed in the past by all governments ….. Let’s name them and describe them, one by one, and see how they work in your community, in your neighborhood.”
REPLY:
It would take years.
For example Clinton and Al Gore:
The World Trade Agreement http://www.publiceyeonscience.ch/images/the_wto_and_the_politics_of_gmo.doc
The President’s Council on Sustainablitiy -headed by Al Gore, divides the USA into 10 regions governed by NGOs. Federal funds go to these regions and bypass state governments thereby cutting out elected officials from the governing process.
Check and see if your town, city or county now has a “Land Use Plan” This is written by the NGOs, not voted on yet it determines what you are allowed to do on your private property. The UN name for this is Agenda 21.
“the Wildlands Project” legislation we in the USA squeaked out of by the skin of our teeth just before the vote. It was to set aside over one half of the USA as “core wilderness” were humans would be forbidden to go. Much of the rest of the area would only allow highly regulated activity leaving only small areas were the Us population would be herded into. http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/articles2/wildlands_project_and_un_convent.htm

Kitefreak (12:46:49) :
“…Yes, indeed, all part of the psychological warfare. That’s why they employ people like Connelly.
That, along with (deliberate) dumbing down of the population in general, and using the threat of economic meltdown as the financial terrorists bankrupt nations, is how they will get their agenda through.
They bide their time. It is incremental. This to them is not a short term project (although the schedule has been very hectic recently).”
I have the feeling Obama was supposed to usher in “The CHANGE” there was a heck of a lot of pre-written legislation they tried to rush through congress at the beginning of 2009. Luckly a lot of it has stalled and the American public is showing signs of waking-up.
I understand a lot of those behind the scenes are getting old and want to see their vision of “Global Governance” in place before they die. I think they may have jumped the gun a bit.
In Sept. 14, 1994 David Rockefeller, speaking at the UN Business Council:
“This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long – We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”

To all English majors:
‘”They’re going to disappear him,” she said.”
“”It doesn’t make sense. It isn’t even good grammar. What the hell does it mean when they disappear somebody?””
These are some lines from Chapter 34 of Joseph Heller’s “Catch-22”, published in 1955.
A truly great piece of literature in the English language. If you don’t know your English language, its usage, and history; don’t knock other’s usage.

lithophysa1 (18:27:36) re: Catch-22
Oh! Oh! I’ve read that book!!!!! Damned Army jeep. How many missions have you flown? And did you carry eggs with you?

Interesting figures about the past climate of the northern hemisphere. The data is from a ice core at Greenland see:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2475.html
The figures are further down on:
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553
I guess there were warmer periods in the past. At least in the northern parts.

OT, but since Lucy Skywalker mentioned this:
Pro David Deming at the University of Oklahoma-“I seem to remember Dr Deming was pushed out of his job last year.”
David Deming was removed from the College of Geosciences in 2004, sued the University of Oklahoma, then settled out of court and was granted transferral to the College of Arts and Sciences. SEE wikipedia for a summary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Deming
Sources differ as to the problem: was it a vendetta against academic free speech?-or something else?
Wikipedia: “A major impetus to Deming’s transfer was evidently the dissatisfaction of Robert L. Stephenson, an OU alumnus and major donor. On November 4, 2003, an attorney representing Stephenson wrote to University of Oklahoma provost Nancy Mergler, complaining that Deming was “pursuing academic and personal interests outside of and not supportive of the School’s mission.”[56] The letter warned that if Mr. Stephenson’s concerns were not addressed, “his efforts and donations on behalf of the School will not continue.”[56]
“In a February 27, 2004 article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Karen S. Humes, a former OU professor now at the University of Idaho, was quoted as stating that Deming’s transfer was part of an administrative pattern in the College of Geosciences. Humes claimed, ‘The administration in that college was quite willing to subvert normal procedures to make sure their agenda was followed.'”
Perhaps a lot of both?

Jay, read:
”
Christopher Hanley (01:49:07) :
“….The MWP reconstruction in the IPCC AR2 was produced by HH Lamb for England, mainly from documentary evidence….” Richard Telford (13:30:43)
Anyone who has bothered to read Lamb’s ‘Climate, History and the Modern World’ (1982) will be aware that Lamb’s reconstruction used data from a variety of sources, from many areas of the globe.
”
I have heard of the origin etc of the original IPCC graph, and never before have i heard anyone say that it was only based on UK data – can you document this, please?
On top of this, my article shows difference in trend globally when you compare 1976-2000 data with 2001-2009 data.
To this you write:
”
The plots in figure 2. are for individual proxy data sets, not temperature reconstructions for geographical areas (this is important because the plots in fig 1. are weighted to avoid bias that would result from data sources being unevenly distributed – geographically speaking)
They make different looking graphs because they are plots of different things.
Simples.
”
Honestly i dont get your point. The origin and type of data group 1976-2000 is obviously similar to the data group 2001-2009. Both groups are data from single locations pretty well spread out over the globe. Only difference is the publishing date . But you seem to have this intuision (?) that if you just weighted data, averaged etc, then the data would suddenly change dramatically? Even though almost no datasets 1976-2000 shows what you want to see, they can be “averaged”.. and then.. ? And of course change in the IPCC direction? Have you any idea what so ever how extremely unlikely this is?
but please document your UK-claim, i would like to see that, ok?
And then heres over 5000 boreholes by Huang 1997 showin the exact same result i got for 1976-2000:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/huang1997.jpg
Due to wrong averaging?

Frank Lansner
For those here who don’t know, Hubert Lamb was the first director of CRU. He used material from all over the world and in my opinion the sheer depth and scale of his writing has never been surpassed. He talked very little of CO2 believing that natural influences were at work and realising the lessons that history teaches us.
tonyb

G.L. Alston (14:17:17) :
Telford — Did the MWP exist? Certainly in the N. Atlantic region, perhaps associated with a strenghtening on the AMO.
Can any of you guys do some homework? Google “Idso” for a start.

2 issues with your short post.
1. If the Northern Hemisphere was so “warm”, why did it not affect the average global Temperature (was the southern hemisphere so cold?). Hat tip – Frank Lansner
2. If the discovery opinion is correct, why did the vikings farm permafrost up to the 14th century (according to Church Records, which are still accurate to this day)?

Juanslayton.
I was actually more interested in climatologist David Morrison’s science here, rather than Mark’s rehash.
But while on that note, to say it is “cooling” of late is a little bit misleading regardless of who says it, or to claim that a hellish heat wave has “come to and end.” Only in the sense that the hottest decade in human history has merely LEVELED OFF. That’s about it.
It does NOT mean AGW has come to a grinding, screeching halt. It means there’s a temporary reprieve, at most, to what promises to be a disaster decades from now if things are not changed.
As Morrison points out, there is a 15-20 year lag of CO2 belches to heating, so we’re not out of the woods on this by a long shot.

I fail to understand what a handful of trees in Northern Russia tell us about ~global~ climate. At best, they can trace climate changes in Northern Russia. WUWT posts complain about the drop in thermometres from 7000 to 1000 compromising the global temperature record; but Mann, et.al. expect us to accept that 40 Russian trees can provide an accurate ~global~ temperature record? The question isn’t just how could IPCC ignore scientific consensus: it should be “Why did any scientist believe that a handful of proxies could accurately portray historical ~global~ temperatures?”
Even with thousands of thermometres, there seems to have been a lot of data “infill” and adjustment going on. How much infill and adjustment is required to get a reasonably reliable global temperature record from a handful of bore hole, ocean sediment and tree ring readings? Until a study comes out that contains thousands of reliable proxies sampled from around the entire globe, I will remain sceptical of any so-called historical temperature record.

Osborn.
I’ll be sure to forward that brilliant input to the real climatologists, like Dr. Morrison. I’m sure that’ll blow him out of his office.
Nice handy quips, boy. That’ll SHOW his tail up!
Thanks so much.

..and as New Scientist has pointed out, we don’t need the input of satellites or even much of the data we have now to confirm what the human eye can readily see and track. The shifting of numerous animal migration patterns adjusting to warmer temperatures, the opening now the the legendary northwest passage, the dying off of a number of amphibian species sensitive to temperature, the appearance of cold-sensitive birds in regions never seen before or recorded by Native Americans, including hummingbirds now moving into Siberia. The budding of trees earlier than anything recorded all across the temperate zones. Winter is not even technically over and my yard is green and the flower bulbs have come up earlier than ever. (March is generally not safe planting time even in Atlanta, historically, but IS now.)
The list of changes that even the alleged “MWP” did not give us in North America would go on for 50 blackboards.

R. Craigen (10:19:19) :
Just a thought: I suppose tree-ring proxies were selected because Mann et al understand that the best hockey sticks are still made of wood…?
Rather… because the best woodies are shaped like hockey sticks…
T-Bone

Dr. David Deming’s Hearing Statement to the US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works sheds some light on part of the process by which the MWP was “disappeared”.
http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543

Zoon (10:15:04) :
Winter is not even technically over and my yard is green and the flower bulbs have come up earlier than ever. (March is generally not safe planting time even in Atlanta, historically, but IS now.)
I just took a little jaunt to Accuweather. com. According to their info, in the 47 days since 31 Jan, Atlanta has had a daily high that exceeded the historical average 9 times, 4 of which were +1deg. The highest positive departure was 11 degrees which occurred twice. There were negative departures of 11degrees or more ten times with a max of 22 degrees.
You seem to think this kind of weather is a sure sign of an impending apocalypse. It doesn’t strike me that way.

Frank Lansner (06:52:09) :
“So for todays temperatures to be alarmin we need evidense that the SH was VERY cold in the MWP. A SH MCP.
So dont accept cold MWP before we see solid proof for very cold MCP in the SH.”
Hmmm. Didnt think of that!
Good logic, me thinks.

juanslayton (21:08:06) :
Zoon:
“The attacks had become increasingly vile as the past decade, the hottest in human history, came to an end. ”
-Mark Boslough
I hope Mark’s physics is better than his history.
Remember, just to be sure:
Mark was saying the DECADE came to an end–Not the heat. And of course, the very vile and unprofessional nature of the attacks over the minutia of men doing their jobs at CRU, and the whole hoopla over “missing data” that myseriously can easily be found elsewhere, and other nefarious allegations of men on marionette strings, et al.
In all probability, the next decades will end up being hotter than the last.

“Frank Lansner (06:52:09) :
[…]
So for todays temperatures to be alarmin we need evidense that the SH was VERY cold in the MWP. A SH MCP.
So dont accept cold MWP before we see solid proof for very cold MCP in the SH.”
That’s a very good argument, Frank! It completely destroys the “Local MWP” conjecture!

Frank,
I am rather surprised to see your (a bit naive) points from our earlier debates on the Danisch Climate Debate site:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/hide-the-decline-hvad-er-det-reelt-man-daekker-over-d12-e1473-s40.php
being written up as a post here without any further thoughts or references. You appear to think that the IPCC is a body which meets to reach a consensus on a common viewpoint by voting (and not by summarising the research carried out hitherto, as is the case), and you basically ignore every single peer-reviewed paper on multiproxy reconstruction published since MBH98/99.
I honestly think that all your questions can be answered by simply looking at this wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Description_of_the_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_in_IPCC_reports
The reason why the IPCC conclusions have changed since 1990 is quite simply that back then, no global multiproxy reconstructions with data from before about 1400 existed – all we had was a few local proxy sets and historical anecdotes primarily from Northern Europe (Norse settlements in Greenland, Medieval Englisch wineyards, ice fairs on the Thames river, Sweden marching over the Baltic sea Ice conquering Scania, Halland and Blekinge from Denmark etc.).
By this, you can conjecture a rough pattern as represented by Lambs 1966 graph: Hot up till about 1400, cold till about 1800 and warming since then. This is your “IPCC 1990-2001” graph, and this is a purely schematic curve – i.e. such data do not allow any kind of quantification. You certainly cannot use Lamb´s graph to claim that the MWP was likely 0,5C warmer than today – and that was definitely not what the IPCC did back in 1990. You should be more careful than jumping to conclusions from schematic graphs.
Here is what my above source has to say about the IPCC 1990-2001 graph:
“A schematic (non-quantitative) curve was used to represent temperature variations over the last 1000 years in chapter 7. The vertical temperature scale was labelled as “Temperature change (°C)” but no numerical labels were given; it could be taken to imply that temperature variations of the MWP and LIA were each of the order of 0.5 °C from the temperature around 1900. The section specifically states recent climate changes were in a range of probably less than 2 °C. The 1990 report noted that it was not clear whether all the fluctuations indicated were truly global (p 202). The graph had no clear source (it resembles figure A9(d) from the 1975 U.S. National Academy of Sciences report, which is sourced to Lamb, 1966), and disappeared from the 1992 supplementary report”.
Now in 2010, with the work of Mann, Smith, Moberg, Briffa, Wahl, Rutherford, von Storch etc. with multiproxy reconstructions in the last 10 years, we know that the MWP and LIA were real phenomena, but nowhere nearly as large as depicted by the old schematic graphs. Consequently, the IPCC has followed suit and incorporated these new results in their reports. Again, IPCC has no independent “will” or mandate to write up other scientific conclusions than those backed by scientific papers.
So, to directly answer your questions in the light of our present knowledge:
1) “Was the pre-2001 MWP viewpoint simply “wrong”?
Well, yes. There certainly was no global MWP 0,5C warmer than today.
2) “- When IPCC launched their new viewpoint on MWP in 2001, was this new viewpoint in fact the consensus in 2001- Or did the IPCC actually claim to know better than the consensus in 2001?”?
The IPCC TAR included all three multiproxy reconstructions available in 2001 (Mann et al. (1999), Jones et al. (1998) and Briffa (2000))- and none of these showed anything remotely like the old schematic 1990 graph.
3) “- What is the consensus on the MWP today”?
It is widely recognised that there was a MWP which was most likely global (though data are stille sparse from the Southern Hemisphere) – also by Michael Mann himself. However, it is equally clear from all reconstuctions that it, in all likelihood, was well below today´s temperatures.
4) “- And finally, did the results after IPCC change of viewpoint in 2001 have changed, how can this be explained”?
English is not my first language either, but I am not sure if that would have helped me understand this question anyway. What exactly are you trying to say?
All IPCC changes has been due to new scientific findings/results having surfaced, if that is what you mean……

CBH: Nice to see you read Watts up with that. Then theres hope for you too 🙂
In this context, why not quote Steve McIntyres memorandum for the British Parliament :
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3202.htm
“Summary
1. Reconstructions of temperature over the past 1000 years have been an highly visible part of IPCC presentations to the public. CRU has been extremely influential in IPCC reconstructions through: coauthorship, the use of CRU chronologies, peer review and IPCC participation. To my knowledge, there are no 1000-year reconstructions which are truly “independent” of CRU influence. In my opinion, CRU has manipulated and/or withheld data with an effect on the research record. The manipulation includes (but is not limited to) arbitrary adjustment (“bodging”), cherry picking and deletion of adverse data.
”
Ahhh, this explains how trends pre 2001 from arounf the world appears siginificant different from post 2001 🙂
***********
Me: 1) “Was the pre-2001 MWP viewpoint simply “wrong”?
CBH: Well, yes. There certainly was no global MWP 0,5C warmer than today.
[Oh, is that so? I must have the 54 datasets wrong then, sorry]
ME: 2) “- When IPCC launched their new viewpoint on MWP in 2001, was this new viewpoint in fact the consensus in 2001- Or did the IPCC actually claim to know better than the consensus in 2001?”?
CBH: The IPCC TAR included all three multiproxy reconstructions available in 2001 (Mann et al. (1999), Jones et al. (1998) and Briffa (2000))- and none of these showed anything remotely like the old schematic 1990 graph.
[Oh.. One-tree-Briffa and bristlecone-Mann´s sad work is the only available data in 2001? CBH, Please read the article before commenting]
3) “- What is the consensus on the MWP today”?
It is widely recognised that there was a MWP which was most likely global (though data are stille sparse from the Southern Hemisphere) – also by Michael Mann himself. However, it is equally clear from all reconstuctions that it, in all likelihood, was well below today´s temperatures.
[Oh, again, is that so? So your argument is that I got it all wrong? And I should take that as an “argument”?]
Me: 4) “- And finally, IF the results after IPCC change of viewpoint in 2001 have changed, how can this be explained”?
CBH: All IPCC changes has been due to new scientific findings/results having surfaced, if that is what you mean……
[did this explain why trends of results changed after IPCC changed viewpoint in 2001? Did you read the article?]

Caleb,
oh yes, lest you forget: With every major scientific hoax – the gravity theory, Faraday´s ions, the Archaeopteryx, the moon landing and of course the great Fourier/Tyndall/Arrhenius greenhouse commie plot – you can be sure that I have pretty much swallowed hook, line and sinker. I am this gullible soul who cannot help it.
And of course, it requires a truly gullible soul to accept the conclusions of the bogus whitewashes completely acquitting Mann of the charges of fraud associated with the Hockey Stick research twice (first by the NRC and now by the specially appointed Pennsylvania State University committee) – any clear-headed independent thinker like you intuitively understands that this merely reveals how the conspiracy is even larger than previously believed. There may be no formal evidence for the participation of Moberg, Rutherford, Wahl, Ammann and von Storch yet, but I am sure that it is just a matter of time. And certainly, they must be considered guilty by proxy.
Frankly, there is not much hope for me. I hope that you and your fellow belligerent champions of liberty will show mercy upon me (and other naive victims who failed to see through the sinister forces in time) and fight for our freedom, too, when the UN launches its final attack to impose Christopher Monckton´s eloqeuntly coined “World Communist Government on the World”.

Well, Frank,
[Oh, again, is that so? So your argument is that I got it all wrong? And I should take that as an “argument”?]
Yes, it is actually so. You have, indeed, got it all wrong – but your failure to address the points I raised or grasp the basic facts while still being able to maintain a cocksure attitude leaves little hope that anything will ever convince you or move you an inch.
Do you realise that the IPCC 1990-2001 graph is a purely schematic one from which no quantitative conclusions can be drawn? You do not seem to.
You appear to think that the IPCC pre-2001 graph is based on the “1976-2000 proxies” you list? This is not the case. It has no clear source, but is likely Lamb´s 1966 graph (as pointed out by other commenters). How on earth can a 1966 graph be based on some “1976-2000” proxies? And can you enlighten me as to what you mean by this term?
Again, there were no multiproxy analyses before 1997-98, and the IPCC thus had no quantitative estimates of the size of the MWP or the LIA, accordingly. And again, the IPCC do not have a “point of view” independant of the scientific findings.
With respect to your “results” from the 54 datasets, then allow me to ask you a few questions which any reviewer would ask you:
– are any of your 54 proxy sets from a global multiproxy analysis from before 1997/98?
– What measures have you taken to calibrate your proxy series against real temperatures?
– What kind of multivariate method have you used to create your “common factor”, i.e. the trend?
– what have you done to validate your findings (what is the RE/CE-score), and are they statistically significant?
– it normally takes a lot of effort to put different proxies on the same scale and taking noise into account. What are the error bars on your reconstructions?
– your curve shows an increase of at most 0,1C since about 1900. Logically, this implies that all temperature measurements since then are wrong, including the satellites and the SST. How can you make such a claim based on reconstructions? What makes them more reliable than thermometers?
– And yet, you, quite peculiarly, use the single year 1000 as a baseline. Thus, you imply that all reconstructions got the temperature exactly right for this specific year. What on earth is your basis for such an assumption? You appear to reject all the measured temperatures in the last 100+ years, but you have absolute confidence in the reconstructed temperature from 1000 years ago?
– could you provide an entire literature list on the 54 proxies and your justification for selecting precisely those? “Max. 15% tree proxies” appear to be a number pulled directly from the sleeve.
– and just as a curiosity: Your curve shows no decline from 1940-75. Are you trying to “hide the decline”? 😉
I will post this on the Danisch site, too, but I have very little hope that anything will make you realise your misunderstandings.
P.S.: For other sensible readers: Frank is well known in the climate debating community in Denmark. He is a nice guy, no doubt about that, and he clearly believes what he says. However, he is a classical example of an eager amateur who thinks he can refute pretty much all atmospheric physics since Fourier without getting some basics straight. Here is a couple of other outlandish claims from Frank:
– Arrhenius would not have formulated his AGW theory if he had known about the adiabatic lapse rate and the dependence of temperature upon pressure
– The atmospheric CO2 rise is mostly due to outgassing from the sea
– There is an UHI effect of 2,5C
– Tree proxies are more reliable than measured temperatures from 1940 and onwards
– Philip Jones´ phrase “hide the decline” is an attempt to hide the decline in measured temperatures 1940-75.
He has actually managed to establish a whole homepage by the name “hidethedecline.eu” without understanding what the divergence problem is or that Jones´ “hide the decline” refers to this problem (that tree proxies and temperatures diverge from each other from 1960 and onwards).
I guess that most knowledgeable people on this blog will understand what Frank´s problem is.

“A reader”
– This is extremely interesting – hmm, is there anyway you can share these pages from Lambs book with us?
K.R. Frank

Frank,
1) Lambs analysis does not match yours. Again: The IPCC graph is purely schematic – this means that you can draw only qualitative and not quantitative conclusions from it.
2) Your analysis is sorely wanting, as I tried to illustrate with my questions. You must have learned some basics about statistics while taking your engineering degree; yet you fail to address the most basic documentation/validation/data selection issues. If you cannot even answer which methods you used or if there is any statistical significance in your results, then your cannot draw any quantitative conclusions from your analysis either. Your analysis would fail any undergraduate exam as you present it here, and it would most certainly be laughed at by any serious journal with a peer reviewing system.
3) Can you point me to any peer reviewed source having analysed your “1976-2000 series” which has found a global pattern as the one you present? I very much doubt that.
And could you, just for at start, point me to the relevant literature for the 54 datasets, so I have a chance to check your selection and analysis with those of the authors you rely upon? I am quite sure that their statistical analysis is much more rigorous (or just existing at all) and is likely to give a quite different picture.
4) Huang´s boreholes do not support your analysis at all. May I hazard a guess that you have obtained your confused interpretation (and maybe your data selection, too?) from this page:
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/
?
See, Pollack and Huang have since retracted their 1997 findings because their deep boreholes showed odd results, such as a LGM of only 1,5C colder than present. They now say that you can count on boreholes only for about the last 500 years, thus making it impossible to make inferences about the MWP, let alone that it be much warmer than present.
Connolley explains it here:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/the_borehole_mystery.php
If one reads German, then Georg Hoffmann has the best description of the problem that I know of here:
http://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/2009/12/das-warme-mittelalterliche-optimum-teil-i-bohrlocher-in-pollockhuangsheng-grl-97.php

CBH: “3) Can you point me to any peer reviewed source having analysed your “1976-2000 series” which has found a global pattern as the one you present? I very much doubt that.”
Dear CBh, in the first lines of the article i link to where the data can be found.
Again, please read the article before commenting.
There are as I remember 15-20 peeeeeeeer reviwed studies i use pre 2001!
Max 25% of these shows a MWP colder than today. And one of the few who shows MWP colder than today is the Vostok series. But this series has around 10 times fewer data points than the other series “South Pole” from Antarctic. So if you want me to go in details, its the Vostok series that would be dismissed and the MWP even stronger in my illustration. And in general there is no way i can massage these data with almost only warm MWP – as you wish – to find anything but a warm MWP.
What you need to come up with is MANY MANY peeeeeer reviewed studies pres 2001 showing COLD MWP!
Its YOU who must proove your case, and Im wating, Send it on klimadebat.dk as it seems you cannot post here.
HUANG: Huang made study of 5000 boreholes 1997 showing warm MWP. Then recently AFTER 2001 he then came up with 600 boreholes showing something else. So HUANG is CONFIRMING that results changed after 2001.
Obviously he says that the 600 is much better quality etc. He has to. So by pure coincidence – again – there was 5000 wrong series and all the errors in 1997 by Huang just happens to produce a homogenuos MWP trend that resembles my 1976-2000 series and the IPCC pre-2001 viewpoint.
And you still havent explained howcome trends can shift after year 2000.
If you wish to carry on, do so in klimmate debate.dk

“HUANG: Huang made study of 5000 boreholes 1997 showing warm MWP. Then recently AFTER 2001 he then came up with 600 boreholes showing something else. So HUANG is CONFIRMING that results changed after 2001”.
Sorry, but you have quite simply completely misunderstood this. Try reading your sources for a start.
First of all, Pollack and Huang revised their work already in 1998:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~shaopeng/science98.pdf
– and in 2000:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~shaopeng/annurev00.pdf
That would be before 2001, right? 😉
And no, they did not come up with 600 new holes showing something else – actually, their later work only went back 500 years, thus telling us nothing about the Medieval times at all. Rather, in their later work they focused on holes up to about 400 m in depth, because they were of better quality (i.e. gave a better resolution). And actually, their 1997 paper contained no information at all about the temperatures of the 20th century because they excluded the upper 100 m from analysis altogether!
Huang and Pollack published a paper in 2008 explaining the difference between their 1997 and their 1998/2000 work:
http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~shaopeng/2008GL034187.pdf
Indeed, they quite clearly state
“the results of HPS97 [their 1997 paper as quoted by you, CBH] cannot be used for comparing MWP warmth to the 20th century”.
Their 2008 paper combines their 1997 low resolution and the 2000 high resolution work to look at the last 20.000 years, and guess what they find? -: A nice warm MWP, a nice cold LIA, and a nice modern warming about 0,5C warmer than the MWP. (Look at their Fig. 2.)
So you see, there are a couple of grave anachronistic holes in your nice little conspiracy theory. And you are using their 1997 results exactly in the way which the authors themselves have explicitly denounced. Do you begin to understand why I am not impressed? 🙂

Correction to my comment above. The quotes from the Lamb book are from Vol. 2.

– Another thing, CBH.
IF its true what you say, that Huangs huge change in results from warm MWP to cold MWP came just before 2001, i dont think it changes my point much. The stiff dividing point i used “2001”, is not perfect. Manns work was dicussed in the climate gate emails before 2001, so what matters is, that results goes from contradicting IPCC to more often agree with IPCC.
This goes for Huang too, even though it took place earlier than 2001 – assuming that you are correct.
How do you feel about the Mann 2008 where xray-trends where turned upside down? how do you feel about the Finnish scientist incl. Korhola, that cannot recognice Manns postulated “warming” from their kottajärvi data? I can tell you that they are stunned how Mann can twist their data.

And Frank, with respect to “going after Mann like after you”:
I am actually holding you to exactly the same standard as Mann and the coworkers. You clearly fail to understand what I am saying.
“CBH: Ahhh… I just took a simple mean of data, but i should have done like Mann? This I understand, heres how Mann comes from a simple mean to his “processed” data……”
No. What you should do is
a) choose an appropriate multivariate method
b) make sure that your data are calibrated and put on a common scale.
c) make appropriate tests to filter signal from noise
d) conduct a test of some kind to validate your reconstruction like e.g. RE (reduction of error) scores
e) calculate some error bars or at least some other kind of confidence intervals to tell us something about how certain we can be of your findings.
These are the objective criteria any neutral observer should demand from anybody trying to make a case about past temperatures. Mann, Jones, Osborn, Briffa, Moberg, von Storch etc. have all met this. If you can point me to anything about the proxy record in the recent IPCC reports which fail to meet these standards, I shall be happy to denounce it.
You do not need to carry a)-e) out exactly like Mann did in 1998. E.g., there are several types of PCA (principal component analysis) or other multivariate methods you could use, and you are free to choose a different reference period than 1901-1980. But you do need to meet the a)-e), the most basic requirements of statistical analysis of proxy reconstructions. Craig Loehle failed on a), d) and e) in his original attempt. Actually, the first schematic IPCC 1990 graph also failed here. And you, so far, fail miserably on all five counts. This is why nobody knowledgeable in the field would take the IPCC 1990 graph, Loehle or you seriously today.
– How are we to know whether anything in your “work” is significant? Please do some calculations. Come on, Frank – you do know that the issue of statistical significance is quite important, right? Without this, we have no way of knowing whether any of your results are due to pure chance. It is not enough that they appear visually impressive to you, sorry.
– You yourself have often gone on and on about the uncertainty in the modern directly measured temperature record. But here, you are suddenly absolutely sure that your 54 proxies got everything completely right for the specific year 1000? Do you honestly fail to see the blatant inconsistency?
– What is the basis for your 54 proxy selection? Most other multiproxy reconstructions contain 4-500 proxies and openly admit to still be missing coverage on the Southern Hemisphere and that this may affect the results – and they often bend over backwards to test different methods or datasets. Yet you, Frank Lansner, who by your own admission are employed as a “semi-amateur rock musician”, are so cocksure that you do not need any documentation when issuing “guarantees of a 100%” (is that correct English?) that everything is absolutely fine with your selection and that your prep school arithmetics completely void of any statistics is much better than statistically validated work of professionals published in Nature and Proceedings of the National Academy of Science? Do you honestly believe that any neutral observer would not find you less than convincing?
If you repeat your analysis while taking appropriate care of the above points. then I will begin taking you seriously. I hope you can see that I demand nothing more, nothing less from you than I do from Mann, Briffa or anyone else.

Smokey,
all you you do is simply repeating the classical claims and accusations which have already been debunked on multiple occasions in the sources given here – the NRC report, Rutherford et al., Wahl & Ammann and recently the PSU inquiry. Here is another nice summary for you:
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/fakeddata.html
The data and metodology of MBH98/99 has been freely available for quite a few years:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6995/suppinfo/nature02478.html
– and so far, nobody has succeeded in supporting any of your claims scientifically. But since you are so confident that they must be true, then why do not you go there and knock yourself away with the data + the methods? Surely, there is a high profile Nature or Science publication waiting for you if you are able to demonstrate what McIntyre, NRC and the entire scientific proxy community has hitherto failed in demonstrating.
To be sure, I am under no illusions that any factual documentation, evidence or judicial findings is likely to change your mind about Mann, just like the inquisitioners of Dreyfus remained unconvinced by any evidence to his innocence even after his exoneration. However, I do have the the vain hope that this page might harbour a true sceptic or two who would be interested in the facts. Surely you know the proper terminological label for the kind of scepticism which cannot be dissipated by whatever evidence or documentation?
@Mr.. Watts,
I see it now (17/03, 12:53:23). Apparently, it just took a while for it to surface. I jut did not see it with the usual note “awaiting moderation” upon submission, so I thought that it had become lost. Do not be bothered.

CBH:
I asked you here and before, quite simple:
”
Can you explain why Mann overfokus on Bristlecones, one area of the NH and then claims results to be NH?
Can you explain why hia computerprogram was made to output hockey stick almost never mind what real data was used as input?
Can you explain why Briffa claims that Sibieria too had a temperature hockey stick just from a few individual trees?
”
I still havent got your explanation. And it puzzles me because you believe you have the best sources of information etc. So use them and come back with an explanation.
If you cant, then stop using Mann, Briffa and those who rely on Mann and Briffa as valid data sources. If you continue without actually being able to defend their methods, to me it seems like you have agenda rather than a wish to seek truth.