Gosh, what does one do to become a “professional climate change denier”? Does Penn State offer that course? Heh.
He does look happy though. Plus, he has an interesting choice of wall art, I thought sure he’d frame his famous graph. Maybe he has a special room for that. Despite this “exoneration” that according to Sir Muir, didn’t examine the science, his hockey stick still doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
It’s dead. Jeff Id does a great review of what Muir missed, simple, basic, things that anyone who can read can see for themselves.
Here’s the link to the video interview, about 10 minutes long, if you can stand to watch that long.
About 6:45 into the interview Mann blames the current (east coast) heat wave on manmade warming. Of course we all know (because we are repeatedly beaten over the head with the phrase like we’re stupid or something) that “weather is not climate”. Me thinks it’s more about asphalt.
‘Scuse me while I go look for an antiemetic. (mmpf!)
h/t to WUWT reader Loodt Pretorius
Update: From WUWT comments (Philip Foster) we have this.
If anyone is moved to write to Sir Muir Russell, here is his office address:
Sir Muir Russell
Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland
38-39 Drumsheugh Gardens
Edinburgh
EH3 7SW
Scotland
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
An interesting CNN video on “Life After Climategate” that includes more smarm from Mann, a hint of balance from CNN and a cool quote, “And to the point of scientists being more open, one thing stressed in this week’s report is the influence of blogs, and the way its transformed how science is done, with lots of challengers and critics. And like it or not, this report states, to challenge its existence would be foolish.”
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/07/10/pkg.snow.climategate.report.cnn?iref=allsearch
“tell us: student or faculty? -A”
Neither. I am a staff person – I run a small office on campus. I do not know what this has to do with anything, however.
Brad, you and I are approximately the same age and I too have been knocked about a bit. I am sure you can multitask with the best of them but this has not saved you from defaulting to the ad hom attack. You are perhaps not as well armed (or as streetwise) as you think.
And the point about Lindzen is that he is the perennial poster-child for the skeptic-camp – no matter what the situation, trot out Dr. Lindzen as proof that the climate scientists are wrong. He did not work for the CRU so he really has no part in the investigation which was to establish if data was fabricated – yet, once again, Dr. Lindzen is thrust forward as if he is the magic charm used against all climate evil.
The point is, folks, even if we allow that climate science has become a personal campaign for some (even if we allow it) and politicized for others (which it undoubtedly has) the good people here are just as politicizing and polarizing as anywhere.
Mr. Watts, above you posted some links which you wanted me to respond to. I’m not sure what you wanted me to do. You have cross-posted a couple of blogs about the Yamal tree ring construction controversy.
I suppose I could respond with a cross-posting of my own which also talks about the controversy.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/
REPLY: or…you could just read them. But I think you won’t get the salient points, you seem quite averse to other views. -A
I did read them, Mr. Watts. I believe the Real Climate blog answers a great many of their charges. And it’s not “other views” I am worried about – it is misinformation, which I believe is your concern too. Have you read the Real Climate post? It would seem to factually invalidate McIntyre’s critique. Specifically, Real Climate charges:
“McIntyre has based his ‘critique’ on a test conducted by randomly adding in one set of data from another location in Yamal that he found on the internet. ”
Is this true?
In all honesty, sir, are YOU open or averse to other views?
REPLY: Yes, you get to post here don’t you? McIntyre simply used the entire Yamal dataset (gathered by Schweingruber, not Briffa or Mann) , not just the 10 trees Briffa chose post facto. The results speak for themselves. I’m gobsmacked that you can’t see this. -A
“you get to post here don’t you?”
Fair enough.
But here we have a problem of belief, Mr. Watts.
According to Real Climate:
“The target de jour [of the skeptic camp] is a particular compilation of trees (called a chronology in dendro-climatology) that was first put together by two Russians, Hantemirov and Shiyatov, in the late 1990s (and published in 2002). This multi-millennial chronology from Yamal (in northwestern Siberia) was painstakingly collected from hundreds of sub-fossil trees buried in sediment in the river deltas. They used a subset of the 224 trees they found to be long enough and sensitive enough (based on the interannual variability) supplemented by 17 living tree cores to create a “Yamal” climate record.
“A preliminary set of this data had also been used by Keith Briffa in 2000 (pdf) (processed using a different algorithm than used by H&S for consistency with two other northern high latitude series), to create another “Yamal” record that was designed to improve the representation of long-term climate variability.”
And, according the Real Climate, McIntyre only used 12 trees (not the entire data set as you are gobsmaked to point out) apparently gathered by Schweingruber (Mann and Briffa did not gather the data themselves, obviously).
And the Real Climate post points out that the Yamal tree ring reconstruction is only one small fraction of the data collected and that it does not appear to alter the overall hockey stick conclusion.
I guess my question, Mr. Watts, would probably be better phrased as: Are you open to other science that might counter your views?
REPLY:No, we have a problem of facts. You have it backwards. I’ll post a graph later. RC is not about truth, its about CYA. Try posting a comment there like the one you have done here, but in reverse. snipping/deletion is the MO for inconvenient questions. And, RC is funded by a green communications company, with an agenda. Research Fenton communications.
Yes, I used to believe Dr. Hansen (I even did a nationwide tree planting project to offset CO2 because of his 1988 speech before congress) Dr. Mann and Dr. Briffa, I don’t believe them anymore because they have oversold their positions, and because of the data issues I’ve seen. CRU’s refusal to even share data for example. And, like McIntyre, I have the courage to speak out and put my full name to my findings. I don’t really care much if I convince you or not, since your position isn’t at risk due to anonymity. But, if you want to argue on the terms I face every day, come forward. – A
Very good, Mr. Watts, but as always one is forced to choose who one believes – I suppose we could actually locate the Briffa study and see how many trees he actually uses and then do the same for McIntyre – that would answer everything, yes? I believe I will do that. May take a little time, but it should be interesting.
In the meantime, I look around your blog to find a great many denigrating cartoons, graphics and plain old pejorative commentary – so for someone such as myself, it looks like an extended campaign simply to smear the scientists and anyone who disagrees with the skeptics (ironic that), something I believe Mann charged in his video. So why, or perhaps how, should I believe the “facts” you post here? (That’s obviously a rhetorical question) You do, respectfully, appear to be an extremely one-sided, highly contrarian source who attracts mostly people who already agree with you, and you do not show both sides of the argument (as witnessed above) – something I believe you charge the climate scientists with being and doing.
Well must be off – I’m sure we shall talk again.
Jules,
Anthony is correct, and RealClimate is outright lying when it says “McIntyre only used 12 trees.”
If you are so credulous as to believe a blog run by serial liar Michael Mann, you will probably believe anything.
What really happened — and you won’t see this on RC — is that Keith Briffa used a set of trees that he carefully selected to show a hockey stick. In fact, if you replaced only one single tree, YAD061, with a normal tree, the entire hockey stick shape vanishes.
Here is a paper, only a couple of pages long, explaining what Briffa and his clique did. It’s an easy read.
You simply can not believe RealClimate. The truth is not in them. This entire situation is well documented in The Hockey Stick Illusion. It shows exactly how McIntyre and McKittrick reverse engineered Mann’s algorithm, with the help of a Fortran directory he discovered, labeled “censored,” which Mann had missed while cleansing the internet of other similar files. It turns out that it was, in fact, Michael Mann himself who cherry-picked a limited number of trees to use, instead of using the entire series — which would have erased the hockey stick.
The proof of McIntyre’s claim can be very easily tested. All Mann has to do is open the books, like any other scientist would do. But after more than a decade he still refuses to show other scientists the methods he used to arrived at his conclusions.
If Mann were an honest scientist, he would show other scientists his data and methodologies. But he is not honest, and so he must keep hiding them to avoid being proved a charlatan guilty of scientific misconduct.
If you want to find out who is lying, you should demand that Michael Mann must disclose his data and methods. These are not nuclear defense secrets being hidden. This is the weather. Old weather at that.
Surely you must understand that the one who hides the information based on bogus reasons is the #1 suspect when someone is lying. The truth can be arrived at by simply ‘opening the books.’ The fact that Mann hides everything should tell you all you need to know about what’s going on here, and who is telling the truth.
Mike, I agree. In fact you could make that statement stronger and say that it would be hard to find any climate researcher in the history of climatology who denies this. Since the 19th century the debate has always been about what the human effect is (warm/cool, wet/dry), how strong it is (+ive feedback), and whether the measured effect it is local (UHI?) or global. This and the whole interview is a lesson is spin.
Ah’ and isn’t it is marvellous to witness the man talk live! There appears to be no twings of conscience, no feeling to make consessions or to back down just a ltttle (like: we need to communicate better etc). His resilience (compare: Phil Jones) makes him extremely important re-guard lieutenant in an offensive now in retreat. There must be thousands of funding programs linked to the AGW scare still to run their course over the next 3 years or so. The spin around these inquiries will buy time for the wise to steer the attention away from carbon-emissions and back to broader issues of sustainable resource use, pollution and other environmental damage issues.
Smokey says:
July 9, 2010 at 2:24 pm :
//Jules….Since you’re now talking about the CRU, Dr Kelly was on the MR committee, and he wrote:
I take real exception to having simulation runs described as experiments (without at least the qualification of ‘computer’ experiments). It does a disservice to centuries of real experimentation and allows simulations output to be considered as real data….
The Muir Russell committee completely disregarded Kelly’s input.//
Jules, the very first time I visited GISS’s unofficial[?] proxy blog, Real Climate, it was probably GISS’s own Gavin Schmidt who immediately performed a computer run he called an “experiment” in order to produce what he apparently thought were experimental results, in order to “test” an hypothesis. And I immediately groaned, because it appeared that either he was so irreducibly ignorant that he didn’t know that what he was doing was not an “experiment” according to the Scientific Method, and therefore could not instantaneously test anything relating to real world climate or weather events; or else he did know that his word use and practice was wrong, but was nevertheless going to dogmatically persist in using this now unscientific terminology anyway, specifically in order to try to fool the unknowledgeable into thinking that computer runs are truely Scientific Method “experiments”.
So which one is the Muir Committee’s excuse for not admitting this sort of deception or mistake, and thus for even furthering the same scientific malpractice?
Winston Smith,
My opinion on ACGW and the ignorance of the believers of the dogmatic zealousness of religious nutjobs that are on the side of ACGW was formed long before I ever heard of one Mr. Anthony Watts.
Shall I mention any one of a number of ACGW sites? Like for instance Science Skeptics or Real Climate where they were all slapping each other on the back and doing the happy happy joy joy dance over the white wash of Mann’s atrocious attacks on science and honesty and academic integrity.
Your logic is sadly lacking, we all agree with Mr. Watts so therefore he has us brainwashed and we’re little Anthony’s running around like we have no mind of our own. Like we could not possibly all be nauseated by Mann while listening to his load of garbage.
To use your logic…. numerous bears go poop in the woods…. I go poop in the woods when I go backpacking so therefore I am a bear and not only that, the leader of the bears and I have them all brainwashed.
Jules, once again you show your ignorance.
Have you ever seen any of the warmist sites? Ad Homonyms and insults flung right to left our way.
One of us goes to realclimate.com and we can’t even leave a comment let alone expect respect… At least here even one such as yourself who thrives on ignorance is welcome.
Who is really the darkside?
Ahh Jules is an office worker at school. Which one I wonder Penn State or University of Virginia.
I wonder if Jules has ever actually done any studying for his or her self.
I would think probably not since all Jules does is slap a few honest poeple around with red herrings and ad homonyms and promote the glory and whit of Michael Mann.
Do they pay you to be a distractor? If they do they should really get their money back because quite frankly you are pathetic.
Brad , all I am saying is that alot of comments on this site could be interchanged with warmists site , your all trying to out do each other in say how much you hate Mann IE ; your “nauseated by Mann” comment .
” Like we could not possibly all be nauseated by Mann while listening to his load of garbage.” is imposing your view of the world on other and assuming becuase you and many others here dont agree with Mann everyone else must too , your bear logic ? . I read the comments and was expecting some ranting idealogue and all I saw was a cool calm civilise response to questions put to him he didnt name anyone or call them “overcooked prawns” .
I just dont see many objective views here sorry . all i d like is facts not spin and at the moment the comments here are 20% facts 80% spin
Dave
Winston Smith says:
“…alot of comments on this site could be interchanged with warmists site [sic], your [sic] all trying to out do each other in say [sic] how much you hate Mann IE ; your ‘nauseated by Mann’ comment.”
C’mon, Winston, get with the program. This site allows contrary views like yours. But the alarmist blogs all seem to delete any opposing opinions. You need to get on them and tell them to stop their censorship of different points of view…
…unless you approve of their censorship.
Do you?