The scientist behind the controversial ‘hockey stick’ graph has said it was ‘somewhat misplaced’ to make his work an ‘icon of the climate change debate’.
From the Telegraph, By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Professor Michael Mann plotted a graph in the late 1990s that showed global temperatures for the last 1,000 years. It showed a sharp rise in temperature over the last 100 years as man made carbon emissions also increased, creating the shape of a hockey stick.
The graph was used by Al Gore in his film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ and was cited by the United Nations body the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as evidence of the link between fossil fuel use and global warming.
But the graph was questioned by sceptics who pointed out that is it impossible to know for certain the global temperature going back beyond modern times because there were no accurate readings.
The issue became a central argument in the climate change debate and was dragged into the ‘climategate’ scandal, as the sceptics accused Prof Mann and his supporters of exaggerating the extent of global warming.
However, speaking to the BBC recently, Prof Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University, said he had always made clear there were “uncertainties” in his work.
“I always thought it was somewhat misplaced to make it a central icon of the climate change debate,” he said.
…
Professor John Christy, an atmospheric scientist from the University of Huntsville in Alabama, said just a quarter of the current warming is caused by man made emissions. He said that 10 to 30 per cent of scientists agree with him and are fairly sceptical about the extent of man made global warming.
==========
full story here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
CMT, this one is dumber.
Mann is full of it. If there are ‘uncertainties’, where are the error bars? The Y-axis would have to be increased by orders of magnitude to show them, and then one couldn’t see a hockey-stick. Anyone who uses a small fraction of their data to skew the weight of their entire ‘study’ isn’t doing science, it is fraud.
What happened to the full investigation Penn State was supposed to conduct? Did they ever release their findings and determinations?
It’s the old you need flood insurance even though you live 500 ft above flood plain argument.
My B.S. meter is pegged on 11…
Funny how Mann forgot to mention the uncertainties when his work was made the poster child of global warming. Funny how he forgot to mention that he felt that it was “misplaced” to make his graph an “icon.” Perhaps being feted by the media and IPCC must have clouded his judgement.
How disingenuous can one person be?
M. Mann had months & months & months to amend the IPCC claims related to his H/S graph, yet did he? He probably enjoyed his role as a VIP rider on the AGW gravy train too much, m’thinks.
Louise Gray is a warmist hack & Watson’s remarks about householders and fire insurance reveal him to be clueless IMO. Fire insurance does not cost a householder anything like the cost of electricity in the UK. I pay the equivalent of $160 per month for it. My buildings & contents insurance is $520 per annum.
Then I still have to pay for natural gas from Russia or Norway& the country only has 13 days of reserves at any one time. Thirteen years of socialism have reduced the UK to penury & G. Brown has a $3 million pension. Summat’s wrong.
AAHH….. “an inconvenient uncertainty” …sounds more accurate
So, now Prof Mann is backpedalling …
He didn’t seem too worried when receiving all those public accolades for so many years. How the tide has turned.
I see from the article that Prof Christy holds the more modest position of mankind’s contribution to warming as being in the 10% to 30% range. Reminds me of reading on Steve Milloy’s site, Junk Science, how mankind’s contribution was around 25% of climate warming. Can’t get people too excited about warming caused by mankind that’s only a small fraction of a fraction of a degree of total warming over a century.
“I always thought it was somewhat misplaced to make it a central icon of the climate change debate,” he said.
Yeah, of course you did, Mann. That is just so clear in your emails. NOT.
Hmmm. He always thought it… but never said it.
Well, why would he? It is not as though it would have been appropriate, or ethical for him to clarify his position.
Yes, I remember all the comments Mann made to the media saying there is too much emphasis on his hockey stick.
Hide the decline. He won’t admit he pressed down the temps in the 40’s and the medieval period?
Does this mean we can look forward to seeing full publication of the residuals? Place your bets.
“However, speaking to the BBC recently, Prof Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University, said he had always made clear there were “uncertainties” in his work.”
No uncertainties at all; it’s settled. His work is crap.
reading the actual article, the insurance comparison is hilarious….would people buy fire insurance if it costs 3 times more than the house?
I’m so disgusted with Penn State. This bozo hasn’t produced a single paper of merit since he’s been there and their own reputation has taken such a terrible hit with him as a ‘Professor’ that it too is nearly worthless. Could someone please give me the new age definition of ‘Professor’ again – I never bought any of Fat Albert’s perverted ‘How To Make a Bundle’ books on climate change, integrity, and recreational massage therapy. What does the Profit of Doom say about ‘Professors’?
Is it possible these days for a judge to change the state where you were born?
What a disingenuous piece of crap. He never said a word or lifted a finger to dissuade anyone from making it the icon, and did all he could to place it in that position.
Prof Bob Watson, a UK Government adviser: “What risks are we willing to take? The average homeowner probably has fire insurance. They don’t expect a fire in their home…”
I pay for homeowner’s insurance (including fire coverage) because my mortgage company requires it. I chose freely to do business with the mortgage company, knowing their requirements. The mortgage company is not willing to take the risk. Would I? Don’t know, since I have no choice atm.
Interesting strategy by Mr. Mann: first producing publications, achieving notoriety, obtaining funding, getting tenured professor position, and the last is the admission that there is large uncertainty in his science. If it would be done in honest way with stating first that the uncertainty is so high that all this is just his opinion rather than the scientific result then, it would be no funding, no tenure, no five figure salary. Well… this is true Mike’s Nature Trick.
Interesting that Dr. Mann never made any similar statement prior to Climategate.
“…Ten years on from the study that provoked all the ire, Michael Mann’s conclusion is that far from being broken, “the hockey stick is alive and well”. …
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7592575.stm
Oh, how the story changes with the ‘climate’….
What can I say… There are more Miracles in Science than in Nature !!!
Look at the graph.
http://www.toriljohannessen.no/bilder/Words_and_years_Miracles.jpg
So the hockey stick is orphan now. So for global paleo record we should switch to Loehle 2007, and for longer time span the Greenland drill record is not bad as well.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/loehle_fig2.JPG
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.gif