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
“We have to get rid of the
Medieval Warm PeriodHockey Stick.”If you plot Mr Mann’s protestations of innocence against the chance of the discovery of his guilt you get a hockey stick.
Taking that analogy a bit further – would you take out a fire insurance policy if the premiums would cost far more than the value of your house, and that the payout would only be about 5% of your house value?
Aside from the alleged hockey stick fraud Michael Mann is currently under investigation for plain old common fraud.
“said it was ‘somewhat misplaced’ to make his work an ‘icon of the climate change debate’.”
“said he had always made clear there were “uncertainties” in his work.”
This is so funny, and pathetic at the same time……
……he’s trying to act like he’s been so busy and so removed from it all,
he didn’t have time to keep up…….
that he didn’t even hardly know what was going on………
pathetic little mann……….if he had not been shown up, and was right, he would still
be crowing and claiming all the credit for himself………
REPLY: The Hockey Stick graph is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Actually the BBC programme was very carefully nuanced. Basically Jeremy Vine asked four questions. Was the world warming? Was CO2 a greenhouse gas? Had CO2 been increasing? Was man contributing to climate change?
Even a convinced sceptic might be able to answer those questions in the affirmative although some of the questions probably merit a “don’t know”. What the programme was careful not to ask was – if you believe that man is contributing to climate change, is man-made CO2 contributing to climate change and/or are some other human activities such as urbanisation, intensive agriculture, deforestation equally or more responsible.
“uncertainties”
M. Mann started out by stating pretty confidently that the Medieval Warm Period [pdf] was a localised phenomenon then began to have a change of heart in November 2009 after Climategate erupted. He seems to be having a re-think as the Cuccinelli investigation presses down on his illusion.
Maybe someone is actively trying to get on the Black-List?
Next winther will most likely be even worse than the last one.
Then CAGW will most likely slowly disappear as an idea among most voters, and the political mood might turn. Something else will be scary instead. MSM will follow.
Then someone in power might ask; Hmmmm lots of money spendt, and nothing to show for it……?? Who’s fault is that? Nice to be on the Blacklist then.
It will be a WhiteList.
Does he still intend to sue the Minnesotans for Global Warming?
Today, Mann says he always indicated the “uncertainties” in his published works. I just hope he wrote the words “uncertainties” in his grant applications and in his prize (some with money) acceptance speeches. Now what was the most recent $1.8 million for malaria and mosquitoes?
Correction:
“wrote the word “uncertainties””
It is good that BBC has shown, if only by the title “Whats Up With the Weather”, that they are aware of the considerable amount of genuine debate on the Web and elsewhere. However, it was the usual carefully constructed appearance of fairness, underplayed with staged agreement to the AGW cause which came across most strongly.
I was interested to see the comments by Tim Yeo, government spokesman on climate change, who is also my Member of Parliament (MP). Thanks to the his apparently unshakeable belief in AGW and the equally strong line in taxation and CC laws that go with it, it is now time for me to put pen to paper and take this up with him personally.
Yes, I am going to ask him to justify his views and also to state whether there are any MP’s who do not take the whole AGW line, as I want reassurance that at least some of our MP’s are do not rely solely on the officially endorsed IPCC stance.
—
It was on Panorama about 7 years ago that I heared about James Hansen talking about how he was being ‘gagged’ by NASA re AGW and about global dimming and how methane calthrates could eventually rise to the surface with a vision of the oceans igniting in flames – I kid you not.
Jordan says:
———-
He should have asked himself where the electricity came from to power his electric car. :o( Maybe windmills, maybe fossil fuels.
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
Hearing Statements
Date: 12/06/2006
Statement of Dr. David Deming
University of Oklahoma, College of Earth and Energy, Climate Change and the Media
http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543
Did you know Michael Mann is a Nobel Prize winner? I did not.
http://cdn3.libsyn.com/pennfuture/Dr_Michael_Mann_PennFutureConf.mp4?nvb=20100630002115&nva=20100701003115&t=0bc941d737b4b3290d295
The Origin of the Species:
From: FOI2009/FOIA/documents/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro
—
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj
—
This will create a hockey stick from almost anything, and surpress the MWP at the same time.
Someone wrote these three lines of code into the climate model. They are a fabication that attaches a lie to the output. It was intentional deception.
Jimbo says:
Is putting the word in the ***title*** of his second major (and most cited) paper on the subject good enough for you? http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=5242602239254232391&hl=en&as_sdt=20000000000
So poor ol Mckyntire has spent the last 10 years sweating his guts out for nothing now, ol Mann is admitting it after all .. what a waste!
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.
Oh, yeah, sure. That’s why he’s defended the reprehensibly indefensible: His collusion and conspiracy to produce an entirely fabricated misrepresentation of historical weather data, which was used time and again to foist upon the world a KNOWINGLY FALSE history of climate.
Need we recall ‘Mike’s nature trick?’ Yeah: The CONVENIENT LIE.
The ONLY thing I need to know about Mr. Mann is that he’s willfully dishonest to the point of personal dishonor, and refuses to admit of it.
He should do the rest of humanity a favor: Drop out of sight and remain forevermore in obscurity.
“”Joel Shore says:
June 29, 2010 at 5:52 pm \
Is putting the word in the ***title*** of his second major (and most cited) paper on the subject good enough for you?””
Absolutely not, don’t make me blow lunch.
Mann goes on to claim that the 1990’s were the hottest, while admiting the “uncertainties” of past temperatures.
He might as well claim to be able to pick lotto tickets…………….
“Uncertainties”!!!!!!
Is he actually telling me that I have spent an enormous amount of time learning about modeling, coding and r values etc to enable me to keep up with the debate but now its “Well okay, sorry about that but I am not very good at it myself”……..
Must pop over to C.A. and catch S.M.’s slant on it!
Color me unimpressed. This lousy creep, after getting caught, wants to back-peddle? Wear it, creep. May your name, Michael Mann, become as famous as Mr. Ponzi’s.
He’s shocked, shocked to discover that people took his work seriously. The BBC, with their impeccable objectivity on this issue, is equally shocked.
Funny. His hockey stick appears to be the only reason he was elevated to his recent throne.
Mann’s path to the IPCC : http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5700
Did a Secret Climate Deal Launch the Hockey Stick Fakery? by John O’Sullivan