Scientist’s rebuttal of Michael Mann’s “denier”and other unsavory labels in his book

By Craig Loehle, Ph.D.

Since I am mentioned in Mann’s book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines and not kindly, it seems necessary to set the record straight. I do not take credit for any angry posts that follow.

Mann begins discussion of my work on page 187 (see bottom of this post) with the title “The Hockey Fight Continues” where my work is categorized as another assault from the denialosphere, with me being part of the “Hydra” that is hatefully out to get Mann. Simply because I published a paper that does a reconstruction and expressed a view that tree rings might have issues (which the Climategate emails show was a hidden view of many in the field) I was engaging in a “fight” against Mann? Really? I think it is because they didn’t like my results, which is rather post-modernist, no? So, I am lumped in with politically motivated and evil “deniers” and “denialists”. I find these terms and the entire context for discussing my work offensive. I am not a “denialist” and my recent paper (Loehle, C. and N. Scafetta. 2011. Climate Change Attribution Using Empirical Decomposition of Historical Time Series. Open Atmospheric Science Journal 5:74-86) attributes about 40% of recent warming to human activity – estimating that this equates to a no-feedback atmosphere.

What I would deny is that tree rings are good thermometers, but this is a scientific view based on my knowledge of trees, not a political view.

I point this out in the paper Mann criticizes and also in (Loehle, C. 2009. A Mathematical Analysis of the Divergence Problem in Dendroclimatology. Climatic Change 94:233-245), which interestingly was published while Steve Schneider was ed in chief. As a final note on my work on this problem, I showed in (Loehle, C. 2005. Estimating Climatic Timeseries from Multi-Site Data Afflicted with Dating Error. Mathematical Geology 37:127-140) that combining time series with measurement error or especially dating error will flatten out peaks like the MWP and troughs like the LIA. This means that comparing the MWP peak temperature, which is likely smeared (damped) to recent annual temperatures will show recent temps warmer simply due to data resolution (the warmest years are not averaged out in the recent data). It is an apples and oranges comparison.

I am not part of a conspiracy and am not directed by anyone. I have never received money from fossil fuel interests, as Mann states is true of all sceptics. On the contrary, I work for the US wood products industry (which has no official position on climate change and does not tell me what to say or think). This industry is the largest single renewable fuels user because it uses wood waste to generate steam and power at paper mills. It is also the largest recycler (of paper), plants millions of trees every year, and manages millions of acres of forest land to ensure protection of wildlife. Only a fraction of my work concerns climate change.

My disagreements with the use of tree rings (by anyone, not just Mann) have nothing to do with a conspiracy, are not organized or directed by anyone, and are not personal. I just think tree rings (especially strip bark) are not valid more than about 100 years back in time no matter how fancy the statistics used.

In general also I would like to defend the implicit charge that I am unqualified to enter the arena with Mann and dispute him. I studied forestry and ecological modeling, so I know a few things about trees and models. More than many of the dendro people. I have published 138 peer-review papers in ecology, forestry, statistics, control theory, topology, landscape ecology, evolutionary theory, animal behavior, hydrology, and psychology. I have a bunch of papers where I model forest growth and other dynamic biological systems. 28 of my papers are on climate or ecosystem responses to climate change. I have studied and modeled photosynthesis and tree growth processes.

Mann notes that I got the dates wrong on a few series in my original paper (Loehle, C. 2007. A 2000 Year Global Temperature Reconstruction based on Non-Treering Proxy Data. Energy & Environment 18:1049-1058). Some of the first papers I found use the year 2000AD as 0, and count BP back from there. Others used calendar dates. Most used 1950 as 0 year but did not necessarily say so in the archives, they just start with 0 in the data file with no explanation. Mann’s assertion that everyone dates from 1950 as year 0 for BP is simply not true. So during the period when I gradually pulled the data together, I got some of this mixed up. Unfortunate. Wish I had Steve McIntyre’s memory. On the other hand, I got the corrected version in print in record time (thanks to E&E being very understanding). This benefitted from Hu’s input (Loehle, C. and Hu McCulloch. 2008. Correction to: A 2000 Year Global Temperature Reconstruction based on Non-Treering Proxy Data. Energy & Environment 19:93-100). Mann mentions the correction but does not discuss it. This is what he should have discussed since it is in the record. I would point out that Mann has never publicly admitted or corrected any mistake. As an ironic aside, it was Gavin who found my dating errors and notified me and was helpful in resolving them. I thanked Gavin for his help in print.

Mann complains that I could not make a comparison of recent with the MWP with “such a paucity of records” in footnote 44—referring to recent decades particularly. When I was pulling data together for my paper, many authors did not respond to requests for their data, and one refused. Many interesting papers had not archived their data. So I was able to find 18 data sets that seemed least problematic. This is more than the 11 low frequency series in Moberg et al. 2005 in Nature, which IPCC uses and the Team were coauthors on (9 of which I used). The oxygen isotope record that Mann objects to was used in Moberg. But Mann exaggerates how much data he himself uses. When you look at the weighting of series by Mann’s methods, the effective number of series in early centuries is often only a few or even 1. It doesn’t matter how much data is in the hopper if a couple of series have all the weight. SM has documented this exhaustively at CA. Furthermore, the point of the paper was not a claim that I had correctly reconstructed climate history, but rather that non-tree ring data does not agree with tree ring data. I think the paper showed this but Mann completely missed this point.

Mann focuses on the MWP vs recent temperature differential in my paper and says the important part is the post-1950 (post mid-century) trend. But he could only get his strong recent warming uptick in his papers by reflecting and smoothing past the end of the data. This has been parsed extensively at CA and I explicitly avoided smoothing past the end of the data for obvious reasons.

Mann repeats that his work is valid because it has been “independently replicated”. A cluster of papers with overlapping authors and heavily overlapping data is not any sort of independent test. Furthermore, it is widely known that Mann’s results depend strongly on a few key proxies like stripbark pines,which are damaged trees and should not be used. When a few proxies are heavily weighted, it does not matter much what the other data are.

So much material! Mann also says

By contrast with the hockey stick studies-and every other peer reviewed scientific article on the subject-Loehle claimed that medieval warm period temperatures were warmer than “20th century values.”

Now this is a curious comment because Mann seems unaware of a very large literature. Just counting published studies that enable quantitative estimates to be made, Craig Idso at http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/quantitative.php published the following summary of about 100 studies:

clip_image001

So here we have a statement by Mann that NO literature exists suggesting a warmer MWP when in fact there are scores of them. I think Mann only views Team publications as being valid, but we are not required to share his view. So his claim that “every other…article” refutes my work is simply false. Whether you like how Idso did his analysis or not, there IS literature out there on this question. The famous Soon and Baliunas paper was also about this very question, and Mann surely remembers them? Oh, yes, and we remember the reaction to S&B.

Mann states that E&E is not peer reviewed. This is untrue and the editor of E&E has publicly refuted this charge repeatedly. My paper was peer reviewed in the same manner as every other journal I ever submitted to, except that the reviewers were able to keep their political biases under control.

Mann says I should have done “statistical validation emphasized in all serious paleoclimate reconstruction studies”. In the studies he mentions, an elaborate calibration is used that leads to a need for “validation” but I was using simple averaging of studies which independently estimated a temperature model for each data set. There was nothing to “validate” but Mann may not understand that point.

Mann objects to some records not being sufficiently time-resolved and that I “improperly” filled in, but Moberg did the identical infilling that I did (linear interpolation) for the same reasons, as have others, including Mann himself. I explicitly stated in my paper that the time resolution limitations meant that decadal details could not be resolved wth my results. There is no sense in which this is “invalid” it just means that fine temporal scales will be screened out. Some of the data used in any case represent a time window rather than a particular year. If the goal is to use non-tree ring proxies, there are none that are annual, so Mann’s requirement can’t be met.

Mann ends by praising me for a more rigorous approach than many contrarians, but this is an insulting comparison because he is essentially saying that for a shill I did a better than usual job. Furthermore, I don’t accept that my work “didn’t stand up to the scrutiny” because it was never, to my knowledge, addressed in subsequent literature. Of 32 citations in Scholar Google, 5 are in other languages and only one, that of Swanson, attempts to criticize my paper (a criticism to which I replied adequately, I believe) Just because the “Team” didn’t like it in private does not mean it did not stand up to scrutiny (remembering the Team admonition that only published peer-reviewed work counts). I repeat that I do not believe that my reconstruction is “right”, only that it shows that non-tree ring records give a different result than tree ring records. There are many problems with the various proxies, including dating error, calibration issues, data continuity, data time resolution, measurement error, local geology changes over time, etc, but the problems are in many cases more subject to resolution than for tree rings which face, I believe, insurmountable problems (e.g., see the new paper Brienen, RJW, E Gloor, & PA Zuidema. 2012. Detecting evidence for CO2 fertilization from tree ring studies: The potential for sampling biases. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 26 GB1025).

The last sentence is a dig at those who criticize from blogs and don’t make their own reconstructions (guess who he means!). While I am sure SM can defend himself, I would note that someone who points out that a perpetual motion machine is impossible is not obliged to build one, nor is any critic obliged to engage in an activity that they view as ill-conceived or incorrect. Mann exhibits a misunderstanding of the nature of science. If something is wrong it is wrong.

In summary, Mann’s setup for discussing my work is borderline libel, as it implies many things about me that are false and detrimental to my reputation. It is unacceptable to portray those who disagree with you scientifically as evil and politically motivated. Science is full to the brim with disagreements about everything, from which treatment is best for coronary blockage to whether frequentist or Bayesian methods are best. By Mann’s logic, we should all be using slanderous language to refer to anyone who disagrees with us. I don’t think so. There are also multiple objectively false statements in the section discussing my work.

Mann’s section on Loehle starting page 187:

The Hockey Fight Continues

 

The gaze of the Hydra remained largely focused, however, on the denialists’ bete noir, the hockey stick. Despite the fact that the NAS, the IPCC, and more than a dozen independent peer reviewed scientific studies had now not only reaffirmed the key conclusions of our work, but in fact extended them further back in time, the denialosphere was still fond of claiming that the hockey stick had been “totally discredited” or “broken.” Most of the attacks represented some version of the myth that the hockey stick was a statistical artifact, combined with a studied neglect of the numerous confirmatory independent studies. Some of the attacks were new, however.

In late 2007, the home journal of climate change denial, Energy and Environment, published a paper by Craig Loehle that purported to present a new two-thousand-year reconstruction of global temperature.39 By contrast with the hockey stick studies-and every other peer reviewed scientific article on the subject-Loehle claimed that medieval warm period temperatures were warmer than “20th century values.” Had the paper somehow identified key new sources of information or a more appropriate methodology to overrule the findings of all other recent studies?

The paper, in fact, suffered from serious problems that would presumably have been identified had it been submitted to a peer reviewed scientific journal and reviewed by individuals with the relevant paleoclimatological expertise.4o Loehle was evidently unaware of the dating convention in paleoclimatology that in “BP” (nominally, “before present”), “present” actually refers to the standard reference year ofA.D. 1950. By assuming that “BP” instead meant “relative to A.D. 2000,” Loehle erroneously shifted many of his records forward by fifty years, in essence portraying the warmth of the records in the mid-twentieth century as if it pertained to the end of the twentieth century. This error thus had the effect of erasing all of late-twentieth-century warming. Most paleoclimate reconstructions, including the original hockey stick, show peak peak medieval warmth to be comparable to that of the early and mid-twentieth century. It is only the late twentieth century that stands out as anomalous.

Among other problems, many of the sediment records Loehle used in his analysis had chronologies that were determined by just a few radiocarbon dates distributed over the past two thousand years. The dating in these records is consequently uncertain by as much as four hundred years or so, precluding their use in reconstructing centennial

timescale temperature variations.41 There were several records that Loehle wrongly assumed to reflect temperature but instead reflected some other quantity,42 and he inappropriately averaged records that had different temporal resolutions. Loehle did issue a correction that appears to have dealt with some of the most glaring problems, but the fundamental problem remained that his estimates were insufficient to allow for a meaningful comparison of past and present global temperatures.44 Yet even so, had he performed the critical step of statistical validation emphasized in all serious paleoclimate reconstruction studies, and had he published the work in an actual scientific peer reviewed journal, the paleoclimate community might not have so readily dismissed it.

Loehle’s approach was laudable by comparison with that of many of the contrarians. He did attempt to make a positive contribution, putting his own reconstruction out there to be scrutinized and criticized. While the reconstruction didn’t stand up to the scrutiny (and the venue for its publication was dubious), he made an attempt to contribute to the scientific discourse in a meaningful and constructive manner. This can be contrasted with many others who are more than happy to take potshots at peer reviewed studies from their blogs but are unwilling to produce a reconstruction themselves, or even to provide evidence that genuinely contradicts the current scientific consensus that recent warmth is anomalous.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
theduke

This has always been Mann’s glaring weakness: the inability to distinguish between scientific debate and ideological war. The reason for that is simple: he’s more an ideological warrior than a genuine scientist. And always has been.

John from CA

Dr. Loehle,
Did Mann send you a copy of his book or at least the chapter where he refers to you for comment prior to publishing?
The ridiculous attack on your work is unwarranted.

S Basinger

You should sue him.

jeanparisot

Did Mann make any comments to the papers in question during or after the review and publication process?

John Bonfield

That is the crux of the whole matter – It is not a scientific debate at all, just people lining up on one side or another of the political fence. I have no idea if “Global warming” is man-made or natural. I doubt anyone else does, and i doubt anyone ever will. Not because it is difficult science (it is) but because it is and forever will be science that is buried in an avalanche of horse pucky.

Ceri Phipps

Mann is not a scientist, he’s a politician. And not a very good one.

RockyRoad

The fact that you “deny” Mann is the most perfect scientist to walk the earth and worship his every pronouncement is your only problem, Dr. Loehle. So I wouldn’t worry about it too much–Mann goes after everybody that disagrees with him even in the slightest, and that’s beginning to be just about everybody.
But I enjoyed your expose` of Mann’s nastiness–the more he’s outted, the less influence he has.

BradProp1

Debating a scientific opinion is good science. I am continually amazed at how the “warmist” side equates that to a personal attack, but they always personally attack the author of the oposing view without debating the science. And they feel that’s ok. If they can’t defend their view with some facts; then they have [obviously] lost the debate before it even started. And then they wonder why people like me are now part of the growing numbers of “sceptics”. A little intelligence can go a long way.
Sorry Dr. Mann, but your unprofessional attitude towards debate tells me you know you can’t win, so you just avoid it just like all the rest of your companions. You’re a sad soul…

Robin Hewitt

A “climate science” rebuttal requires lots on name calling and finger pointing. Reason and logic have little place in the new scientific method which aims purely at the mainstream media.
“Mann exhibits a misunderstanding of the nature of science”, is simply not enough.

robinedwards36

What a tremendous response to Mann’s “critique”. Well done Craig, and I can imagine just how angry you must be to be talked down to by an obviously and opinionated, and often ignorant, person whose claim to fame rests on the most dubious of paper that I have seen.
I hope that he will get the message and learn a lesson that should remove a source of mis-information and bias that has bedevilled climate science for over ten years.
Well written again!
Robin

My compliments Craig for thorough work well done.
It is refreshing to hear from a true scientist who upholds the scientific method rather than those using illogical rhetorical accusations and who undermine the foundations of science.

cui bono

Thanks Craig (and Anthony). We must wonder how many others with thinner skins have been put off criticising Mann and the Hockey Stick because of his litigious, bullying and intemperate nature and the power that he and his colleagues seem to wield in climate science.
It is baffling – or instructive – that not one person in the CAGW camp (as opposed to lukewarmers) have come out and publically slammed Mann and his work. There were doubts expressed by many in the Climategate mails, but no-one has said “really shoddy piece of work – we should forget it and move on”.
Until that happens Mann will remain the #1 recruiting sargeant for the sceptics, who are bound to wonder whether the Team are hiding much more than ‘the decline’, and trying to divert attention from it by accusing everyone with the slightest doubts of being a corporate stooge.
People should always remember – alarmists get dollars; sceptics only get quatloos.

Mann lives in a very simple world; you either agree with him or are against him, and it makes no difference if it’s over a scientific point. If, in his opinion, you’re against him, it follows therefore that you’re a denialist in the employment of Big Oil.
Pointman

Otter

I await ( real / serious / intelligent ) questions for Dr. Loehle from monty, r.gates, mattb, j brookes, and host of others…
And I retire in 13 years. Which will happen first?

robert barclay

All this talk about temperatures gives me a headache. Can somebody please ask these blokes what allowance they make for SURFACE TENSION when they are calculating where heat goes and what it does. As far as I can make out, heating water from above is not as straight forward as we might think. So the simple question is “do you allow for surface tension when making climate calculations”.

BarryW

theduke
Mann found that it was much more profitable both monetarily and ego wise to be an ideological warrior than a mediocre scientist.

Doug UK

I think you are being too kind by far theduke.
I believe Mann to be a bear of relatively little brain but a very large ego.
In fact i would suggest his true scientific ability is in direct but inverse proportion to the size of his ego given the whining and whinging and personal attacks we see from him whenever his work comes under the usual scientific scrutiny.

Steve C

“When I was pulling data together for my paper, many authors did not respond to requests for their data, and one refused. Many interesting papers had not archived their data.”

Perhaps there should be a convention on this, something like a paragraph late in the paper to the effect that (say): “The authors of the following papers (list) were contacted with a view to assessing the data used in these papers, which seem relevant to our enquiry. Unfortunately, no data were available, an absence which in our view casts some doubt on the claims of those papers.”
Name and shame. If Dr. X can’t (or won’t) show us the observations which (he says) back up his claims, what reason have we, or anyone, to believe a word he says?
As for the Mann, contumely is the word you want. There’s a lot of it about, sadly.

Mr Green Genes

Michael Mann: “How much lying/libel/deceit will Telegraph allow before “Patron Saint of Charlatans” Chris Booker canned?”
Pot, meet kettle.

Frank Cook

Since you quoted “Mann’s section on Loehle ” verbatim, I am wondering whether you will now be accused (by the usual suspects) of plagiarism.
(rhetorical question only)

beesaman

Mann does seem to have difficulty in deciding whether he, himself, is a scientist or a propogandist.
But as I’ve noticed in academia, power and knowledge tend to become confused. With those in positions of power and influence somehow being seen as more intelligent than those without, when very often the opposite is true. Really intelligent academics search for knowledge and understanding, whereas their academically average managers tend to chase power and position. Eventually, this problem in academia will need to be addressed as too many cliques of these power mad but only average academics are skewing the direction of research and funding. Something, in my view, which is not to the benefit of the rest of society.
An example of this is the millions wasted on AGW climate change research which would have been better spent on environmental research such as sustainable agriculture in Africa.

Don B

The Team has no effective answer to your points, except in their own minds.
Craig, as an aside, since you are in the forestry business, do you know that the Harney County Hospital in Burns, Oregon is heated by burning wood pellets? That would be a useful disposition of Mann’s tree rings. 🙂

Mann is like all those dazzled by the limelight, in that he wishes to remain so. His ego was pumped to the max by being the darling of the IPCC, and I’m not so sure he understood what all the fuss was about. He found himself being fawned over, and began simply to believe his own hype. When the focus began to drift away from him, he grabbed for more. With everyone fawning over him, he lost sight of the mission: science. Now threatened by criticism, he does what any politician will do, scathe and smear. But his method is out of synch with reality, and it shows. He cannot distinguish between friend and foe. And he comes across as a spoiled adolescent whose toys and candy have been confiscated and replaced with the admonition to take responsibility for his weaknesses. His refusal to do so and the public display of sneering, smug indignation are nothing short of astounding. He has derailed, and while still enjoying some support from gleicking factions around town, he must know that the jig is up, and so damn the torpedoes. The calm, deliberate scientist which may have once resided in his psychology, is no longer with us.

If Mann were really confident that his views are correct and backed by “good” science then he wouldn’t find it necessary to spend so much time defending them. “Methinks he doth protest too much!”

Monty

Hi Craig
Just for the record, in my understanding BP is always used to refer to ‘before 1950’ as it refers to radiocarbon dates. I would take issue with the Soon and Baliunas paper. As you are aware, they used any climatic departure (changes in temperature, precipitation) over 50 years within a very broad time period, and if they found it at a site (which they invariably did), they would then view this as a signal for the LIA or the MWP (MCE). This seems to me to be a very poor methodology which would normally invalidate this study. Also we shouldn’t really talk about the LIA at all since, globally, periods of LIAs (plural) have occurred hundreds of years apart almost in the same region. The idea of a globally coherent LIA and MCE is not really credible…..which is why the Mann hockey shaft is flattish.
Of course, if the MCE or LIA WERE global then this would imply higher (rather than lower) sensitivity which wouldn’t help the skeptic cause at all!

geo

“. . .combining time series with measurement error or especially dating error will flatten out peaks like the MWP and troughs like the LIA. This means that comparing the MWP peak temperature, which is likely smeared (damped) to recent annual temperatures will show recent temps warmer simply due to data resolution (the warmest years are not averaged out in the recent data). It is an apples and oranges comparison. ”
Yes, exactly!

It is unacceptable to portray those who disagree with you scientifically as evil and politically motivated. Science is full to the brim with disagreements about everything, from which treatment is best for coronary blockage to whether frequentist or Bayesian methods are best. By Mann’s logic, we should all be using slanderous language to refer to anyone who disagrees with us. I don’t think so.

About time a published scientist pointed this out, loud and clear. Disagreements can be passionate and heated but Mann’s form of slander intends to bury science itself.

Jeff Norman

Oh yah, I’d forgotten that Mann had written a book…

If Mann was really confident that his views were correct he wouldn’t spend most of his time designating those who disagree with him. “Methinks he doth protest too much!”

“denigrating “- bloody computers!!

temp

Whats the old quote “I determine who is a denier” Mann
Tough luck Craig Loehle but don’t worry I’m sure your banishment and cell will be as equal as every others deniers…

Doug in Seattle

I’m not sure why Mann thinks and acts the way he does, but it is clear that he believes he has won some great battle.
Its all rather sad, isn’t it?

Eric Adler

I think that the graph of temperature differences between the present and MWP prepared by Idso is likely to be misleading. Mann’s and Loehle’s papers were estimates of global or northern hemispherical average temperatures. Idso’s graph takes studies that are at different specific locations and does a scatter plot of results, with no attempt to do a valid Northern Hemisphere or global average. Only one of the studies looked at a Northern Hemisphere average temperature, a paper by Moberg. There were about 36 studies which looked at Europe which was the most heavily represented region, but is much smaller than North America or Asia.
I don’t think this is a valid comparison to the papers that estimated Northern Hemisphere or global temperatures in a systematic fashion, probably using many of the same individual proxies that were plotted on Idso’s chart.

Ah, the outrage, what fun.
> http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/quantitative.php
I looked at the figure, but it doesn’t provide sources that I can see. On the face of it, it looks implausible: are there really 5 sources claiming the MWP was ?globally? > 3 oC warmer than “peak Current Warm Period temperatures”? Although as far as I can see they don’t define “peak Current Warm Period temperatures” either. Perhaps you can enlighten us?

Mann’s behavior strongly reminds me of some of the behaviors typically exhibited by people with Borderline and Narcissistic personality disorders:
1) He exaggerates his accomplishments
2) He is convinced that people who disagree with him are out to get him
3) He is convinced that people who aren’t 100% in agreement with him are enemies.
4) He bullies people who look like they are going to act in ways that challenges his world view.

SteveSadlov

Treemometers vs treedrometers. Quite a hot button for Mann, man.

Jim Clarke

“In late 2007, the home journal of climate change denial, Energy and Environment, published a paper by Craig Loehle…”
I love the irony in Mann’s words. Mann’s reconstruction basically denied climate change until the 20th century. Loehle’s paper revealed much more climate change over the last 1,000 years than Mann’s, yet Mann accuses Energy and Environment, and Loehle of being the climate change deniers.
In psychological terms, this is called transference; when one transfers there own issues to others to confuse the issue and draw attention away from their pathology. It is a hallmark of many personality disorders.

rogerkni

“A nasty piece of work,” as they used to say.
Someone should include a link to this thread in their reviews of, and/or comments on, Mann’s book on Amazon.

Dr. Loehle:
Excellent rebuttal! Civil discourse, good english and excellent understandable sentences. Point by point destruction of some zealots fanatic tell fables book. Excellent references and thoughtful analysis of previous work. As all good scientific work, your intellectual science thought is built upon previous science and knowledge; correcting or expanding where you have insights.
A rather stark comparison to some of the ill bred trolls in other threads recently.
Thank you!

BritInMontreal

Having looked at his photograph, would you buy a used car from this man(n)?

pokerguy

“Borderline libel.”
I wish you’d sue the man. There’s no better way to get the truth out.

Ethically Civil

One wonders, given the numerous first person refutations of Dr. Mann’s account whether it gives him a moment of pause to consider his own perceptions.
Ocham’s Razor question for Dr. Mann. What’s more likely, that a certain person, regarded as thin skinned by his *friends* has taken umbrage at those who disagree with him and allowed his emotion to color his perception, *or* that every single person who disagrees with him is either lying in some coordinated way, or share collectively the same delusion? (sadly, I’m afraid their are some that would give the paranoid’s answer to that question)
For the rest of us — “falsus in uno, falsus in ominbus” criteria has clearly been met to simply disregard Dr. Mann en toto, and deeply question the judgement (or honestly) of anyone who agrees with or defends him.

j molloy

Dr Loehle you appear to be an unbiased scientist . Mann acts likea spoiled brat . nuff said

Dear Dr. Craig,
Please excuse my schadenfreude. I am an evil post-modernist denialist from the denialosphere. I fail to see ANY global warming over the last 15 years, and therefore laugh at your “40% of recent warming due to human activity.” Forty precent of zero is zero. Your attribution is spurious. Your science sucks.
But what really amuses me is how offended you are by Mann’s characterization of you, a person of stature in the alarmosphere, with someone like me, one of the baser Hydra heads. Oh to be painted with that brush! How indelicate!
Your frat bonged you. Your pals heaved you into the gutter with the likes of me. The shame of it! Not to mention the threat of funding troubles! Who wants to pay the big bucks for your studies now?
I hear you. You are not one of Hydra heads. Hello Al Gore, please don’t kick Dr. Craig off the gravy train.
Humph. Get a life, dude.
PS to Don B — There’s a difference between tree ring research and the forestry business. Don’t confuse dilettante dalliers with the folks who make the economy work.

igsy

Craig, there’s a good review by someone called shortbloke538 on Amazon. You get plenty of airtime in the more recent review comments. shortbloke538 seems to understand what you were trying to do. Go to http://www.amazon.com/The-Hockey-Stick-Climate-Wars/dp/023115254X and click on “See all 136xx customer reviews. You’ll find shortbloke538’s review there (called “I didn’t throw it out of the window …. but it came close”). I particularly like this line in response to a Mann supporter: “If you can dismantle Loehle’s paper, then it should be trivial for you to do the same to Mann’s Hockey Stick due to its significantly greater number of fatal problems.” Not that your paper had any fatal problems, of course 🙂

timg56

Craig,
If you ever get back to the PNW, I’d like to invite you out to see students doing science in the forest. I’ve worked with 3rd and 4th grade students who are better at science than Dr Mann.
Anthony,
How would I get my contact information or that of the educational non-profit I work with to Dr Loehle?

Fred from Canuckistan

The Publisher had best start pulling the book off the shelves or they get caught up in an legals.
I hope a copy of this officially sent to them – I am sure they know about from Mikey!

Stacey

When I was a kid I was taught a simple lesson when someone bullies you stand up to them as most bullies are cowards. Mann is an intellectual bully and intellectual coward.
I think Sir you have just stood up to an intellectual bully?

Forward this piece on to the Univ. of Virgina Dean of Arts and Sciences, Meredeth Woo.
Does the UVA really want to hire someone, in a chaired professorship no less, who frequently resorts to “borderline libel” and arguably crosses the line repeatedly?

Louise

” I am continually amazed at how the “warmist” side equates that to a personal attack, but they always personally attack the author of the oposing view without debating the science”
From another thread on this site
“Please, Mr. Mann provide us with some more laughter, it seems all you are good for. Your skill in science is non-existent.
What a pathetic, narcissistic little man”
“Aaargghh!! What happened to his head!!”
“Bless its pointy little head.”
“Mann’s pointy head fits the dunce cap well…”
Hmmm, yes it’s really amazing how only the warmist side resorts to personal attack.