Steve McIntyre is back blogging and writes (links mine):
I had also spent some time considering a response to Mann’s book. It amazes me that a reputable scientific community would take this sort of diatribe seriously. Mann’s world is populated by demons and bogey-men. People like Anthony Watts, Jeff Id, Lucia, Andrew Montford and myself are believed to be instruments of a massive fossil fuel disinformation campaign and our readers are said to be “ground troops” of disinformation. The book is an extended ad hominem attack, culminating in salivation in the trumped up plagiarism campaign against Wegman, arising out of copying of trivial “boilerplate” by students (not Wegman himself). Wegman’s name appears nearly 200 times in the book (more, I think, than anyone else’s).
Virtually nothing in its discussion of our criticism can be taken at face value. Mann begins his account by re-cycling his original outright lie that we had asked him for an “excel spreadsheet”. Mann’s lies on this point had been a controversy back in November 2003. The incident was revived by the Penn State Investigation Committee, which had (anomalously on this point) asked Mann about an actual incident. Instead of “forgetting”, as any prudent person would have done, Mann brazenly repeated his earlier lie to the Penn State Investigation Committee. Needless to say, the “Investigation” Committee didn’t actually investigate the lie by crosschecking evidence, but accepted Mann’s testimony as ending the matter. In the book, instead of leaving well enough alone, Mann once again re-iterated the lie.
Steve’s full essay is here.
One only has to read Mann’s latest whine over at Climate Progress to know that Steve McIntyre is spot on.
Related articles
- Jolis Reviews Mann (climateaudit.org)
- Mann of the people (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Ambler’s rebuttal to Mann in the Wall Street Journal (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Booker mentions Mann – Mann has a Twitter tantrum (wattsupwiththat.com)
1. MBH98 was demonstrated to be the result of computer code that produced a hockey stick graph from virtually ANY climate data.
Oh dear. No such thing has been demonstrated. The algorithm does produce hockey sticks from ‘red noise’. But some of them slope down at the end. And others don’t slope at all. And the magnitude of all is tiny compared to the actual HS.
What was done was to run the code hundreds of times and select those plots most ‘hockey-stick’-like for presentation, see here:-
http://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/
Phil Jones and Michael Mann have both admitted to dropping substantive data from the paleo record and substituting in temperature data for the graphic that was supposed to grace the front cover of IPCC AR4
Not even close. It was the cover art for an obscure WMO pamphlet, edited for clarity. And anyone interested could have checked the sources of the data from the references on the inside cover.
Phil Clarke,
Not even close. It was the cover art for an obscure WMO pamphlet, edited for clarity.
>>>>>>>>>>
Yup. It was cover art, and then they covered up the decline (as in hide the decline using Mike’s “Nature trick”) and then when they got caught they claimed it was something they “forgot” to document, and then after they documented it, the “cover art” was changed to something else since it had been exposed that the graphs as submitted where bull sh*t.
Nice side step by the way. With only the paleo data used instead of the last 60 years or so being temperature data, the graphs by Jones and Mann both show a DECLINE ACCORDING TO THE PALEO DATA.
So, which of Mann’s paleo data was right? The declining paleo data that he hid from the AR4 graphic? Or the inclining data from the paleo data that he won’t show us, graphed by a program he won’t show us?
I’m going with the declining data that he got caught hiding and which makes a mockery of paleo data in general, Mann’s bull fart in particular.
The rest of your responses are similarly just spin. Either you don’t have all the facts or you should be ashamed of yourself.
PS – it wasn’t for an “obscure” article either. The original purpose was for the front page of AR4.
Keep spinning.
Heh, ‘reality based’ people defending the hockey stick. James Lovelock may not have the wherewithal to understand that it is the shaft of the stick which is so perverted, but he can see that the blade looks sort of stubbed, now.
These are true believers and true authoritarians with a sophisticated rationale for dwelling in their own reality, But all your base are belong to us.
=================
Phil Clarke says: April 24, 2012 at 11:59 am
Oh dear. No such thing has been demonstrated…
Not even close. It was the cover art for an obscure WMO pamphlet…
Clever old obscurantist, aren’t you?
The TP comments are a hoot. “You and Dr. Hansen are not public figures…” Hansen is the guy who makes about $1M/year doing public appearances, while getting arrested outside coal plants.
The WMO report that Jones was discussing when he used the innocuous word ‘trick’ is <a href="https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:S8suFMZAIzsJ:www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/statemnt/wmo913.pdf+WMO+1999&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShdKQ5IsSbetSURTtqrOW5Xl4L1xAVpJseWRFQGfk5J6RMv8DhPiy9WwUmIDKKzdAuK-OdjG9QyEnkkPB2K4TFS8IdmomCqC1eyrkTSfa18FYd8tQ1ZCZ7-aQF2n63k1V4NiS40&sig=AHIEtbSScQsWNfqJXbYM6m5kLBBfKi0DXQhere.
As you can see the full data sources are documented on page 2 as I stated. Before the ‘ClimateGate’ faux controversy it was not mentioned on a single blog or news article ever, so it’s hard to claim anyone was substantially misled. It was never used in AR4, never intended for AR4, it was never amended, nor was anyone ‘found out’.
You’re just makin’ stuff up.
Steven McIntyre says:
Why is it amazing to believe that there are people motivated by political / ideological / financial reasons to challenge the science of climate change? It is not amazing to believe this…It is common sense and if there is any doubt that this sort of thing happens, one only need look to the case of evolution to see how science gets challenged when it conflicts with what some people strongly want to believe. (I’ll cast the net wider than saying it is part of a “massive fossil fuel disinformation campaign” because I think many of the people involved are motivated by ideology, not any connection or funding to fossil fuels, although there is obviously some of that too.)
No, what is amazing is believing that the entire scientific community has been corrupted or duped so that the expressed scientific opinions of organizations like the IPCC, the NAS, the AGU, the APS, and the AMS should all be discounted in favor of the expressed scientific opinions of the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, the George C Marshall Institute, etc.
Phil, phil, phil…
The documentation was added AFTER they got caught. I don’t make this stuff up, I am no where NEAR that creative. And just because you point to an email where a WMO document was discussed does NOT mean that the graphic wasn’t intended for the front of AR4. In fact, the initial copies were exactly that, they were quickly withdrawn when the subterfuge was discovered.
Can you answer my earlier question? Which of Michael Mann’s paleo data should we accept? The paleo data from MBH98 that he won’t show us and which he claims shows a steep incline? Or the paleo data from the graphic for WMO/AR4 that was deleted because it showed a decline?
Why do the warmists keep side stepping that question?
joeldshore says:
April 24, 2012 at 2:15 pm
No, what is amazing is believing that the entire scientific community has been corrupted or duped so that the expressed scientific opinions of organizations like the IPCC, the NAS, the AGU, the APS, and the AMS should all be discounted in favor of the expressed scientific opinions of the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, the George C Marshall Institute, etc
Uhhh … There are quite a few of the “scientific community” that have threads and comments here and on other sites that have reasoned arguments and evidence that disagree with the mythical “consenus”. So, “the entire scientific community” has not been corrupted.
Can you answer my earlier question? Which of Michael Mann’s paleo data should we accept? The paleo data from MBH98 that he won’t show us
There is no such data. You invented it. But my advice would be to accept the data from Mann et al 2008. It is more complete and up to date that the stuff from a decade earlier and freely downloadable.
Or the paleo data from the graphic for WMO/AR4 that was deleted because it showed a decline?
That was nothing to do with Mann. CRU published an updated figure showing the proxy and instrumental data here:- http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/CRUupdate
Only one series – Briffa 1999 suffers from ‘the Divergence problem’, and he cleverly hid the problem by erm, publishing a paper about it in the academic literature. Sneaky!
Why do the warmists keep side stepping that question?
Dunno, perhaps because they would first have to correct a raft of factual errors before dealing with your Straw Man?
joeldshore says:
April 24, 2012 at 2:15 pm
what is amazing is believing that the entire scientific community has been corrupted or duped so that the expressed scientific opinions of organizations like the IPCC, the NAS, the AGU, the APS, and the AMS should all be discounted in favor of the expressed scientific opinions of the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, the George C Marshall Institute, etc.
Fortunately, rational, thinking human beings don’t have to simply believe what they’re told to believe. Rational, thinking human beings can and do check things out for themselves. I know this is a difficult concept for unthinking, irrational climate bedwetters.
Phil Clarke says:
“There is no such data. You invented it.”
Sorry Phil, your lies and/or ignorance don’t get you very far here. When Steve McIntyre states that Mann has produced all the data, methodologies, code and metadata that Steve has requested, I will accept that Mann has finally provided transparency — after fourteen years. But to the best of my knowledge, Steve has still not received what he’s asked Mann for.
Phil Clarke says:
“…my advice would be to accept the data from Mann et al 2008.”
Why? Mann08 is totally debunked crap. Mann used a corrupted proxy, and when caught by McIntyre, he pretended that it didn’t matter. What?! Why use something that doesn’t matter? In reality Mann used the upside-down Tiljander sediment proxy, KNOWING before he published that it was corrupted. He knew, because Ms Tiljander told him. How does that fit in with the scientific method, where the one making the hypothesis has the first duty to try and falsify it?
Michael Mann is a dishonest scounderel. Why are you carrying water for a proven liar?
Phil,
This is starting to get comical.
Phil says;
Can you answer my earlier question? Which of Michael Mann’s paleo data should we accept? The paleo data from MBH98 that he won’t show us
There is no such data. You invented it. But my advice would be to accept the data from Mann et al 2008.
>>>>>
First you say there is no such data then you say what amounts to “but don’t look any closer at that, look at this other thing instead”. Why is that?
I read the climategate emails on this matter, the back and forth between Mann and Jones and the rest of the team is pretty clear. There were two reconstructions that rested upon paleo data that diverged sharply from the temperature record. These were Mann and Jones. Jones writes about completing “Mike’s Nature trick” which is a clear reference to the original paper submitted by Mann to Nature in which he ALSO did not disclose until exposed by climategate that he had substituted temperature data for proxy data. So, Mann is guilty of pulling that stunt not once but TWICE. Jones then confirms that he has done the exact same thing to “hide the decline” showing that they BOTH used data that declined since 1950 and both hid that fact by substituting temperature readings instead. Which gets us full circle. They had data proxy data which showed a decline in opposition to proxy data in 98 (and 08 too for that matter). The 98 data remains unreleased, if you claim otherwise, then post a link to the actual data and the actual code. If you can’t do that, then STFU. The 08 data uses proxies that are discredited, and the tiljander data is in BACKWARDS.
Phil says;
That was nothing to do with Mann. CRU published an updated figure showing the proxy and instrumental data here:-
>>>>>
That has EVERYTHING to do with Mann. They had to publish the updated figure BECAUSE MANN GOT CAUGHT!
Phil says;
Only one series – Briffa 1999 suffers from ‘the Divergence problem’,
>>>>>>
Yeah right. That’s why there’s all those emails between Jones and Mann and the others talking about how to hide the divergence problem using Mike’s “Nature trick” and Jones saying that he had done the same with his own data. Not Briffa’s data, his own. And he referenced using the same approach that Mann had used on his data. Nice try. Actually, for anyone that bothered to read the emails and look at the before and after graphs in both Nature and the various AR4 versions, that was a pathetic try.
Phil says;
Why do the warmists keep side stepping that question?
Dunno, perhaps because they would first have to correct a raft of factual errors before dealing with your Straw Man?
>>>>>>>>>
And once again…. a step sideways pretending that the issue has been dealt with when all that has been presented is misdirection.
izen says:
April 24, 2012 at 4:21 am
Compare and contrast Mann with McKintyre….
Well whatever the local dislike of Mann the reality is he is a leading scientists with over 50 peer reviewed scientific papers to his name, wide acclaim in the field and highly cited.
Whatever the local support for McKintyre he has … One paper to his name, highly cited, but mainly to dispute its findings. He is not regarded as a scientist in the field, just a mathematician who made some criticisms of a new methodology of climate reconstruction. It is notable that he has never contributed, or participated in any constructive research, his contribution has not been to expand the horizons of human knowledge…
———————————————————————————–
So, putting up false theories based on cooked data is ‘expanding the horizons of human knowledge’? Demanding that the world’s economy and governance be restructured in line with the aforementioned nonsense is laudable?
Whereas, pointing out that the theory is based on flawed (at best) data and methodology is a lesser form of life called ‘just a mathematician who made some criticisms …’? Truly, I feel as though I just stepped through Alice’s mirror.
Your lack of regard for the virtue of accuracy is underlined by the fact that you can’t even be bothered checking the spelling of McIntyre. Or, perhaps you are unconsciously inserting a reference to McKitrick, his co-conspirator in narrowing the horizons of dishonest junk science.
Smokey says:
You know what they say about people who live in glass houses. The truth of the matter is that Mann know there was some concern about this proxy so he did what any reasonable scientist would do in such a situation and showed the results both with and without it.
Bruce Cobb says:
And, coincidently, most of them come to the conclusion that the science says what their ideology wants it to say. This is why we have had scientific policy set by having scientists advise on scientific matters rather than turning scientific matters into political footballs that ideologues use to advance their own agendas.
johanna,
It is also noteworthy that in the Climategate emails, Mann is conspiring to artificially inflate the number of Phil Jones’ papers. If he did that with Jones, is there much doubt that does it for himself, too? And with climate pal review saying “How high?” when Mann says “Jump!”, everything he writes, no matter how crappy, gets hand-waved through.
So Mann has 50 papers. Big deal. Prof Richard Lindzen’s CV shows several times as many — and Lindzen’s papers generally dispute Mann’s CAGW nonsense. Question for izen: given their diametrically opposed conclusions, which one are you gonna believe?
And there’s Joel Shore with his “ideology” blinkers on. He can’t see how lame Michael Mann’s papers are. They’re bunk, pure and simple.
Joel Shore says:
“The truth of the matter is that Mann know there was some concern about this proxy so he did what any reasonable scientist would do in such a situation and showed the results both with and without it.”
Yes, Mann showed the with/without results AFTER he was caught by Steve McIntyre using the upside-down Tiljander proxy. Joel Shore just left out the word “after”. That’s what any ideological propagandist would do in such a situation.
Smokey says:
That is because Lindzen got his PhD more than 30 years before Mann did.
Actually, Lindzen’s papers generally have nothing to do with CAGW…and the few that do haven’t fared very well.
One should never believe one individual scientist. The NAS was set up to provide the best scientific information to the public and policymakers for a reason and that reason is to prevent ideologues like Smokey from trying to make science into a political football.
Another falsehood that Smokey has repeated before and has never been able to back up. To do so, he would have to show that the supplementary materials submitted with the paper were later altered (but with no change in the publication date attached to them).
Like I say, people who live in glass houses…
Smokey,
“Michael Mann is a dishonest scounderel.”
Mann stated in his paper that the Tijander proxy was problematic. As a result he gave it very little weight. If you remove the Tijander proxy from his data, it makes almost no difference in the result, and doesn’t change any of the conclusions of the paper. It really is an insignificant point.
It may have been poor judgement to use it, but it hardly shows that he is a dishonest scoundrel. I think that claiming the Tijander proxy invalidates the paper is mistaken. If I thought like you, I might claim that you and McI are dishonest in making that claim.
Here, by the way, is a link to the Mann 2008 paper from the Proceedings of the NAS website, from which one can see both the paper and the supporting materials. Particular note this discussion inf the supporting materials:
Eric Adler,
You gloss over the fact that Mann was informed before he published that the Tiljander proxy was completely corrupted. It was totally worthless as a proxy, and it skewed the results the way Mann wanted. Thus, Mann was being his typical devious self. Ever since, Mann has been backing and filling, trying to explain why he used a proxy that was never any good.
Also, I never said the Tiljander proxy invalidates Mann08, as Eric Adler mendaciously implies. I said that Mann is a dishonest scoundrel, and I stand by that opinion.
And Joel Shore says: “Another falsehood that Smokey has repeated before and has never been able to back up”.
But I did back it up, with the citation I linked to. There are several similar citations showing the same thing. Shore’s carping is just more evidence of his blinkered ‘ideology’ pathology. Or in his case, the curse of popular idiocracy.
BTW, thanx for Mann’s weasel words. They change nothing.
joeldshore says:
.
No. Any reasonable scientist who knew there was some concern about this proxy WOULD NOT USE IT!
When Steve McIntyre states that Mann has produced all the data, methodologies, code and metadata that Steve has requested, … …
Sorry, that’s not how it works. Any researcher is only obliged to make enough of his suporting material available to enable others to reproduce his results – which the NAS panel, Wahl and Annan, von Storch etc were clearly able to do without having their hands held by Professor Mann, not pander to the neverending demands of every last blogger.
McIntyre has at least once made a fuss about ‘stonewalling’ when he already had the data he was asking for. (And btw in the years after the publication of MBH98/99 this ‘man of integrity’ was in the habit of logging onto Usenet sci.environment discussions using the fake identity of ‘Nigel Persuaud’, and attacking Mann while promoting his own dubious claims.)
Smokey 4:50: “Mann08 is totally debunked crap. Mann used a corrupted proxy, and when caught by McIntyre, he pretended that it didn’t matter. “
Smokey 8:05 “I never said the Tiljander proxy invalidates Mann08”
You really ought to leave longer gaps before self-falsifying if you want to be taken seriously. But then anyone who asserts that a 2009 blog post occurred AFTER a 2008 paper clearly has certain temporal challenges [say what? . . kbmod] ….
Oops clearly I have ‘typographical challenges’. Should be BEFORE, as actually reading the assertions makes clear.