UPDATE: 7:10PM PST Rather than answer the questions, I appear to have been blocked by Dr. Mann from viewing his twitter account. See below
Earlier today, this tweet exchange took place.
I found this curious. And it prompts me to ask these three questions:
1. If in fact Yamal was “largely” irrelevant, how then do you explain this graph?
One makes a hockey stick, the other does not.
2. If in fact Yamal was “largely” irrelevant, why then did CRU fight the FOIA requests, invoking a decision by the ICO? According to Steve McIntyre:
Phil Jones’ first instinct on learning about Climategate was that it was linked to the Yamal controversy that was in the air in the weeks leading up to Climategate. I had speculated that CRU must have done calculations for Yamal along the lines of the regional chronology for Taimyr published in Briffa et al 2008. CRU was offended and issued sweeping denials, but my surmise was confirmed by an email in the Climategate dossier. Unfortunately neither Muir Russell nor Oxburgh investigated the circumstances of the withheld regional chronology, despite my submission drawing attention to this battleground issue.
I subsequently submitted an FOI request for the Yamal-Urals regional chronology and a simple list of sites used in the regional chronology. Both requests were refused by the University of East Anglia. I appealed to the Information Commissioner (ICO).
A week ago, the Information Commissioner notified the University of East Anglia that he would be ruling against them on my longstanding FOI request for the list of sites used in the Yamal-Urals regional chronology referred to in a 2006 Climategate email. East Anglia accordingly sent me a list of the 17 sites used in the Yamal-Urals regional chronology (see here). A decision on the chronology itself is pending. In the absence of the chronology itself, I’ve done an RCS calculation, the results of which do not yield a Hockey Stick.
3. If in fact Yamal was “largely” irrelevant, why not advise your friends at CRU to release the previously existence denied regional chronology still being contested with the ICO?
In my opinion, Dr. Mann is untruthful about the relevance of Yamal tree ring chronologies.
If I’m wrong, sue me. I look forward to the discovery process.
===============================================================
UPDATE: It appears Dr. Mann can’t handle the questions, I posted this tweet to his account, as did another user “Decatur Alabama”. It was the first tweet ever to Dr. Mann (from WUWT).
Now what I get is this:
That “loading tweets seems to be taking awhile” is code for “you’ve been blocked”.
As Louis Gray points out:
Quietly updated with the ongoing rollout of #NewTwitter, it now looks like trying to view the timeline of someone who has blocked you no longer works. Instead of a list of their tweets, you see a white lie from Twitter that says “Loading Tweets seems to be taking a while”. In actuality, this means those tweets are not going to be showing up for you ever – at least until the other person unblocks you or you use a second account.
I’m betting those two tweets have been removed as well. Can anyone who hasn’t been blocked by Dr. Michael E. Mann confirm and supply a screen cap? Revkin seems to have removed the tweet I made to him as well.
In related news, I was surprised to discover that Dr. Mann has 3,105 followers and WUWT has 4, 645 followers. I suppose he can’t block all of them, can he?
UPDATE2: 8AM PST 5/8/12 Mann has removed both tweets as I predicted he would…note the yellow line I added demarcation of his tweet just prior to the ones on the three questions.
I’m thrilled!. I’ve made one tweet to Dr. Mann in my entire life, asking three relevant questions about his hockey stick science. He responds by blocking me and deleting the tweets. “Who’s the denier” now?
UPDATE3: 1:30PM PST some commenters suggest I’m not really blocked, but when I’m logged into twitter as “wattsupwiththat” and press the “Follow” button, I get this:
The Learn more link take you here: https://support.twitter.com/articles/117063#
They say…
Blocked users cannot:
- Add your Twitter account to their lists.
- Have their @replies or mentions show in your mentions tab (although these Tweets may still appear in search).
- Follow you.
- See your profile picture on their profile page or in their timeline.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mann is the fastest account blocker on twitter, the Mann cannot defend his positions so it seems he has given up even trying.
Your tweet is still there, and I am blocked. To determine if you are blocked click on “follow” and if you cannot, you are blocked.
Skiphil says:
May 7, 2012 at 11:00 pm
“A lot of people like to use such “short” URLs, especially on Twitter where there is such a space premium for only 140 characters. ”
Twitter will go down in history as the biggest advancement in communication since… wait… the Sumerians already had clay tablets that allowed for richer expression… since before the Gilgamesh epos.
Mann operates with impunity. Who endows impunity in democracies? The press. Who can be turned? The press. LBJ once famously said “If we’ve lost Walter Cronkite, we’ve lost the war!” Too bad Andy Revkin has too much to lose by pursuing this. His entire peer group would turn on him. He would lose access to all of the Team “scientists.” But there he sits precariously on the fence and you just know the right Canadian push might make him slip. Eh, it’ll never happen. Two mice, no men.
Espen says:
May 7, 2012 at 10:54 pm
Oh no. Mann’s bit.ly-link is to the notorious “Hey ya mal”-post at RC!
Every die hard warmist I’ve ever met refers to that post when I try to explain that the hockey stick is broken. It’s becoming really annoying. I think we need a point by point debunking of it once and for all to refer back to.
Excellent idea. Like to do one?
Oh no! He’s coming to Florida. To talk about “sea level rise”. A subject that I’m sure he’s an expert at.
.
.
.
Oh, wait. It’s okay. He’s going to Boca. That’s not really Florida. Whew!
Lucy Skywalker says:
Excellent idea. Like to do one?
I would like, but I’m not sure I currently have the time. On the other hand, it’s pretty easy to dismiss most of the other hockey sticks than the Kaufmann (2009) one, because it looks much more convincing than the spaghetti graphs and all those sticks that begin in the LIA. What I discover that I’ve been missing when informally debunking this to warmists that I know, is to know what Kaufmann looks like if both Yamal and upside-down Tiljander are removed. I wonder if Steve McIntyre has tried that? If you look at Gavin’s figure in some detail, the blade of the hockey stick already looks quite a bit less impressive without Yamal, but this is almost hidden under the red instrumental record.
It appears to me that Mr. Mann views himself as Mr. Science. Therefore anyone who asks critical questions which might undermine his scientific views is a anti-science hack.
The first law for a “warmist scientist”, never ever debate with a critics who has scientific credential.
Loehle and McCulloch’s paleo temperature reconstruction looks better and better.
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/
He has blocked me too – I’m proud to be in such distinguished company! Anybody else?
It is interesting that twitter is being ‘economical with the truth’ with the message that “Loading Tweets seems to be taking a while”. One way to check you really have been blocked is to log out of twitter then google Mann’s twitter account, and it loads immediately (or, you can set up a second twitter account). Another way to check is to try to follow him – not that you’d really want to of course – then you get a message confirming that he has blocked you.
My last tweet to him agreed with him (about people being misled). But there was an earlier one mentioning that a certain 4-letter word was used by Mann’s peers to describe his work, so I expect that’s why I was blocked.
Mike “Piltdown” Mann…
If Revkin were an excellent reporter, his wide readership would know (a) that Steve McIntyre is more astute than Michael Mann, (b) that Michael Mann has successfully misled tens of millions of the world’s most powerful and influential people, and (c) that Justin Gillis’s NYT piece suggesting that only one skeptic (Lindzen) has only one hope (clouds) to disprove even a portion of AGW is one of the most outrageous examples of biased journalism that even the Times has ever produced.
Don’t sell your coat.
Andy Revkin has been treated badly by Mann and the rest of the team for sometime. They have manipulated and misled him for many years.
Nerd says:
May 8, 2012 at 5:13 am
“Mike “Piltdown” Mann…”
Mike ‘Meltdown’ Mann may also be appropriate at some stage…
Wow, Harold Ambler: pretty succinct comment! …Lady in Red
What still amazes me is not the fraud, cherry picking and upside down data manipulation, but the fact that anyone would consider that dendro was a suitable proxy in the first place. A proxy for what ?
There was a piece here just last week about an official, but badly sited instrument that might have been up to 5c out. If Manns dendro results are a proxy for THAT , its seems like a whole lot of hogwash to me
Joseph Bastardi says….. “Confidence from ignorance of anything that challenges them.”
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolved-primate/201006/when-ignorance-begets-confidence-the-classic-dunning-kruger-effect
Thanks for the “When Ignorance Begets Confidence: The Classic Dunning-Kruger Effect” reference! It’s a keeper. It ties in nicely with a previous reference I printed out “Critical Thinking in the Engineering Enterprise- Novices typically don’t even know what questions to ask. How can engineering leaders help then catch on more quickly”. http://www.criticalthinking.org/files/Niewoehner_2008.pdf
The Niewoehner article came to my attention via either a WHWT reference in Tips and Notes of over at Climate, Etc.
Mann’s ego will in the end be a real asset to AGW skeptics , keep him in the public spot light , keep the pressure on and wait for him to blow .
DavidA wrote:
“I’m curious if someone can respond, in a nutshell, why or how (his method isn’t detailed) he could still come up with a HS after including all — by his definition — of the trees?
I will take a stab at that. There is a widespread belief in the dendro community that some trees at timberline track temperature, but for various reasons others nearby might not. So first you grab a regional temperature curve and pick a “calibration” interval. Then you assess the trees in your population based upon their conformity to the documented temp curve during the calibration interval. (If you fudge it a bit to ensure closest conformance with the late 20th century it helps to get a HS). Now reject all trees that do not conform. Voila! A hockey stick. I suspect that when Mann acccused Steve Mc of “randomly” adding data, he most likely meant that Steve did not filter out the trees that did not closely track the recent rise in temperature, but there are other possibilities. It is the same duel on all fronts: the team wants you to see only the data that best supports the theory, Steve wants you to have all the data so you can make your own judgement if you are able.
Criticize this thought pattern then: Mann’s entire career (his life’s work and energy and his entire academic and worldwide (fundraising) credibility) are based on his theory of tree-ring growth that:
“An increase/decrease in worldwide temperatures will cause an increase/decrease in tree ring thicknesses” … and so therefore … (if everything else and all other factors are assumed to be the same)
“I can use tree ring thicknesses to back-calculate worldwide average temperatures.”
Further, Mann is determined, fixated, and mesmerized by his theory that:
“An increase in man-released CO2 is driving an increase in worldwide temperatures.”
Can anybody, anywhere, regardless of what their opinions are about CAGW, disagree with those two statements?
If so, then look at two cases:
A. Global Average Temperature (and all other factors!) remain steady, CO2 increases linearly over time since 1950. Tree ring thickness during the growing season increases.
B. CO2 (and all other factors!) remain steady, Global Average Temperature increases linearly over time since 1950. Tree ring thickness during the growing season increases.
How does he separate the influence of CO2 increasing (and causing an increase in tree ring growth by as much as 27%) from temperature increasing over that period? Tree ring widths have increased recently, but how can he tell WHY they increased between CO2 and temperature?
If he has not factored CO2 increases into EVERY recent tree study for EVERY tree specie since 1950, or has over-corrected (or under-corrected) for CO2 increases in growth rates for one or more tree species over that same period, does that not require Mann to “reverse his temperature proxies” to force them to match the recent thermometer record?
RACookPE1978 says:
May 8, 2012 at 7:45 am
Further, Mann is determined, fixated, and mesmerized by his theory that:
“An increase in man-released CO2 is driving an increase in worldwide temperatures.”
In other words, he is unable to hear reality over the sound of his own awesomeness…
Sooner or later we are going to see the e-mails Mann is fighting so desperately to see. Eventually the third and largest tranche of clmategate e-mails is going to be released.
Both of these data groups are unlikely to help Mann or the rest of his team. All we need to do is encourage Mann and his pals to be themsleves, stick to the high ground, and keep on pointing out the holesin AGW extremism.
Still would like to hear him address the issue of no hockey stick in China. Anthony, lets have that post brought forward again. I love it
Revkin is a rag doll for the climate alarmists. When Climategate first came out he panicked for a moment and was almost going to have an opinion of his own, but the alarmists didn’t take long to put him back in his box. He is quiet a revolting person really, as he completely lacks intelligence and a back bone..
RA Cook Other factors apart from temperature affect tree ring growth for example rainfall even if temps are lower they grow and, drought with high temps no growth etc completely unreliable as a proxy as shown by Yamal etc… Only reliable temp are radiosonde and satellite meters and they show no warming but flat since recordings began RSS shows a slight warming but I don’t think its significant