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.
It’s ironic that Anthony states in his contact section that he won’t “do research” for people because he doesn’t have the time, but expects Dr. Mann to spend time answering his questions. [Trimmed, see site policy. Robt] seem to lack the ability to identify irony.
[But here I assume university writers can read site policies….. Robt]
Have you ever wondered why a study has never been produced that actually refudiates the 1999 and 1998 studies by Mann et al.? It seems like every comment hear claims that the two works are incorrect, and yet not a single study has been offered that contradicts the conclusions. On the contrary, several studies have validated the findings and every paper that supposedly contradicts the findings has eventually been ripped to shreds on close examination. Very odd that so many people would deny scientific discovery and accept Heartland funded propaganda.
“[But here I assume university writers can read site policies….. Robt]”
“Andy” is a university writer??
“Refudiates”? and: “…every comment hear…”?
No wonder our schools are turning out failures! They are being taught by failures.
Andy claims that no study “refudiates” Mann. Andy is as ignorant of facts as he is incompetent at spelling. I’ll help educate Andy:
Nature, which published MBH98/99, was forced to issue a Corrigendum, showing that Mann’s paper was no good. It was riddled with errors. A Corrigendum is very rare, and is only published when there is irrefutable evidence that a paper is fatally flawed.
However, due to the incestuous journal/pal review system, Mann himself was allowed to write the Corrigendum. So of course he tried to whitewash himself. But the fact remains that Nature was forced to print a Corrigendum of Mann’s paper.
Andy probably also doesn’t know that Mann’s original Hokey Stick, which the IPCC repeatedly published up to AR-4, can no longer be published. Why not, Andy asks? Because Mann’s hockey stick chart has been debunked. That’s why not, Andy.
Andy says:
May 9, 2012 at 3:14 pm …Very odd that so many people would deny scientific discovery and accept Heartland funded propaganda.
Ah, the old-Heartland-Koch-brothers-big-oil-funded lie refutes itself (er, returns) again. The following from Bishop Hill’s site, from “Tom” over who did the real work:
So, a single grant, which resulted in getting half of the funds requested from a single, non-government-funded supplier is “Heartland-funded propaganda” according the CAGW-propagandists, but 80 billion in government funding to run government-funded labs and pay government-funded salaries of so-called scientists and mega-computers for those universities and labs by government-funded “scientists” that strangely enough only yield results that favor those same government-funded agencies who ONLY fund government-funded research projects which are approved by those same government-funding agencies to promote results that favor government control and new government taxes …. In the order of 1.3 trillion … are “independent science”. In the mind of CAGW-extremists.
Could 1.3 trillion dollars corrupt “scientists” who favor politicians and extremists who – by their own words – seek to destroy capitalism and the world’s energy systems? That seek activity and publicly to kill millions of people in the name of population control and sustainability?
OK. So, if “Big Oil” funding corrupts scientific research, please support your charge with ANY evidence of corruption or results that been changed, cherry-picked, or data hidden BY the people who got funded by non-government resources. Or, barring that, since you obviously have evidence” that money can corrupt scientific research”, please explain exactly what that evidence is and who was corrupted by how much money at what time.
That may be a bit difficult, since YOU seems to have only been associated with government-funded so-called “scientific research” – which, by the way, appears to be paying your own salary and research projects. Obviously, since you are only experienced with government funding of “big science” yielding CAGW results, you must have first-hand experience WITH corruption BY government funding yielding CAGW-favorable results.
More irony that Smokey’s link goes to the Heartlander site and not to Nature. Kudos for pointing out my typos. I forgot that this web site is dedicated to nothing but total correctness.
REPLY: And yet you are here – Anthony
Ah yes, the ever popular McIntyre and McKitrick paper that incorrectly stated that Mann used the wrong average for normalization. More irony. McIntyre and McKitrick’s paper led to several recreations of Mann et al.’s original work that showed the original conclusions were the same regardless of the normalization process. In the process McIntyre and McKitrick were proven wrong and their paper was removed from Nature. The reason Mann et al.’s graph is no longer used is because the advancement of climate change research is more important. The only folks who are obsessed with the “hockey stick” graph are people who try to claim that it has been “debunked.” It hasn’t been. But, it has been validated in numerous studies.
REPLY: And yet, Yamal – Anthony
Andy,
Just trying to help out an aspiring writer. De nada.
Regarding the Nature Corrigendum, when I clicked on the Nature link I had saved [and had posted here numerous times before], I got a 404. I told you about the incestuous relationship between journals and pal review. There’s a good example.
But the info is in the Heartland article. And you will not find Mann’s original MBH99 hockey stick chart in any new IPCC publications, because it has been thoroughly discredited.
The alarmist crowd always likes to accuse scientific skeptics of ‘denying climate change’. That is pure psychological projection [imputing your faults onto others]. The fact is that Mann tried to show that the climate did not change until the industrial revolution [the long straight shaft of his hokey stick]. But skeptics have always known that the climate naturally changes. In reality, it is the climate alarmist crowd that refuses to accept that the climate changes naturally. Here is one of many examples. I have plenty more if you’re interested, just ask.
And for some perspective, see here.
To RACookPE1978:
Your “money buys climate scientists” argument is circular reasoning. You argue that climate scientists are somehow reaping a financial windfall through US federal funding and they therefore have been bought off. This would presume that the US government is espousing global warming when in fact Congress has spent thousands dragging scientists into investigations that attempted (but failed) to discredit their work. Very strange behavior for a government trying to push global warming while holding mock trials to debunk it at the same time.
As with any political agenda, one must follow the money. Who loses money if science is left to stand on its own merits? Fossil fuel producers stand to lose trillions of dollars if the US enacts legislation to reduce the use of coal, gas, and oil. Heartland is funded by Koch Industries and the major oil producers. Why would the fossil fuel producers spend money putting anti-global warming propaganda on line and in the media? Because they expect a return on that investment.
As for your accusations about me being involved with govermnemt fraud, well, you base your attack on … I don’t know what you base it on. I guess you just made it up. That’s a common tactic, to attack the messanger. It kind of puts your arguments in the light of drawing conclusions without facts. You know, the oposite of science.
Smokey you lack an understanding of the methods used in Mann et al.’s 98 and 99 papers. Short term variation in yearly temperatures is included in the data that was used. When that data is normalized, what’s left is the long term trends. The data is what it is. One thousand years of fairly steady state variations in global temperatures followed by an extreme climb starting during the industrial revolution. Additionally, the graph contains upper and lower confidence intervals representing the range of error. As for peer review, it seems you’ve never had a paper reviewed for a science journal. Papers are put out for review to scientists who have not colaborated with the authors and who have no connection to the authors. That’s how the process works. It makes for good “scandal” to insinuate that real evaluation doesn’t occur, but it does. Far from being discredited, Mann et al.’s articles are still in Nature (you can look them up) and they’ve been thoroughly vetted and reproduced. Mann was correctly asked to respond to McIntyre and McKitrick’s incorrect accusations against him. That is to be expected at any scientific journal. When an author is accused of gross error, the author is given space to answer the accusations. Subsequently, the McIntyre and McKitrick paper was found to be seriously flawed to the point of being completely wrong in its methods and conclusions.
A note to the editor. I had a word deleted from my post because it didn’t meet with the site’s policy. I used a derogetory term for a group ascribing to a certain philosophy. That was an appropriate edit in keeping with your policies. However, Smokey’s last post refers to “the alarmist crowd.” It’s odd that this term is acceptible.
REPLY: “The alarmist crowd” has no connotation with Nazi Germany, yours did. Be as upset as you wish, but if you use the term we’ll snip it. – Anthony Watts
Andy is so naive, he’s cute. I’ll bet he really believes what he’s writing: “Papers are put out for review to scientists who have not colaborated [sic] with the authors and who have no connection to the authors.”
I recommend that Andy read A.W. Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion, available on the right sidebar. If Andy reads it, he will see how preposterous it is to believe that there is no connection between pal reviewers and authors. In fact, they collude constantly.
Andy also believes that: “One thousand years of fairly steady state variations in global temperatures followed by an extreme climb starting during the industrial revolution.”
Of course that erases the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, but true believers are not concerned with long established facts. The narrative is everything to them. It doesn’t matter that there has been no modern acceleration in the long term warming trend since the LIA. Andy simply believes the narrative, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He’s a true believer.
And if Michael Mann believed what he is trying to sell, he would be anxious to debate his ideas in public, with skeptics. But he hides out like a craven coward, and refuses to appear anywhere, unless it is totally scripted. Does that sound like a scientist who believes in the transparency required by the scientific method? Or does it sound like a scientific charlatan riding the grant gravy train?
Finally, Andy repeats the terrible [to him] accusation that the Koch brothers funded Heartland. So what? George Soros funds far-left causes with hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Koch gave Heartland a one-time, trivial donation. What is wrong with that? Andy, the dainty flower, is the one complaining about ad-homs, but he’s at the head of the line when he wants to trash the Kochs — who made their money fair and square, and can give it to whomever they want. For Andy’s edification, Heartland is an excellent organization that operates on a shoestring budget. They punch far above their weight in this debate.
Andy should quit being such a hypocrite, man up, and admit that the whole runaway global warming scare is based on money and politics, not science. Will Andy man up? We’ll see.
Anthony, Yamal is just the latest in a long string of half truths drug out as proof of a conspiracy that doesn’t exist. Looking at individual tree-ring chronologies and comparing them to global average temperatures is like measuring tire pressure on one car and claiming that everyone’s car has improperly inflated tires.
REPLY: And when you remove YAD061 it lets the air out of the paleo-tire. Sorry, you won’t win this argument. – Anthony
Andy,
Keep digging, I’m enjoying it. And re-read RACookPE1978’s comment @May 9, 2012 at 4:02 pm again. It will do you good.
The only “half truth” about Yamal is Briffa’s cherry-picked inclusion of one tree that skews the entire result: YAD061.
Without that one cherry-picked tree, there would be no hockey stick chart. That is not science. That is pseudo-science. You really could not be more credulous.
Anthony is right, I can’t win a debate here. I’m discussing scientific discovery and the remainder of the posters here are arguing conspiracy without proof. Thanks for the oportunity to go on record debunking the nonsnese on this thread. Thought I’d try reason, but I didn’t realize that nobody here has any scientific training. Good luck.
Andy says:
“…I can’t win a debate here.”
You can’t win a debate anywhere, unless you can cite verifiable, testable, reproducible evidence supporting the CAGW conjecture. You have been out argued by folks who have facts, versus your opinions. You have ‘debunked’ nothing; that is pure psychological projection on your part. Equating skeptics with Holocaust deniers is the best you can do.
Most commenters here can easily destroy the CO2 = CAGW conjecture, therefore we are not allowed to post on alarmist blogs; we are censored out. That is because skeptics routinely deconstruct the crap that passes for science on the blogs that Andy frequents.
Andy cannot handle it here for one reason: he lacks the scientific facts to support his belief system. So long, Andy. Enjoy your fantasy world. We deal in reality here.
Re-read my posts. I cited verifiable, testable reproducible evidence that supports global warming. The three of you who responded, skirted my citations and haven’t offered any verifiable, testable, reproducible evidence to prove that the earth isn’t warming. And therein lies the problem. All of the science points to global warming caused by increasing CO2 levels. No studies exist to say otherwise that are verifiable, testable, or reproducible. When I provided citation and evidence, you ignored it and/or attempted to demean me. BTW, back to my original inquiry. Anthony, why would Dr. Mann have time to answer your questions about a study with which he is unconnected when you state in your communications section that you don’t have time to do other people’s research? Seems a bit hypocritical. Lastly, if all studies that show evidence of global warming are imediately dismissed on this site, how can you claim impartiality and an open forum for discussion?
Andy,
No one here disputes that the planet has been warming since the LIA. That is a pure red herring argument. The planet has been warming naturally along the same trend line since the LIA. Warming has not accelerated; the trend line is within it’s normal parameters.
From that red herring you segué into an unsupportable position: “All of the science points to global warming caused by increasing CO2 levels. No studies exist to say otherwise…”
You are either totally ignorant of this subject, or deluded. “All of the science points to…” is a baseless appeal to a non-existent authority. You can not produce any testable measurements showing that X amount of anthropogenic CO2 causes Y increase in temperature, because there are no such verifiable measurements. If there were, the climate sensitivity number for 2xCO2 would be definitively known. It is not; there is a wide discrepancy in opinions, from the IPCC’s preposterous 3+ºC, to Dr. Miskolczi’s 0.00ºC, and many numbers by other climatoologists in between — most of which are at 0.5ºC or less.
The fact is that most of the rise in CO2 is the result of a warming ocean, which outgases CO2 the same way that a warming Coke does. There is verifiable, empirical evidsence [ice core data] showing that rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature, from months to hundreds of millennia. Effect cannot precede cause, therefore rising CO2 must be the result of rising temperature.
Finally, your citations are based on computer models, not on testable, verifiable evidence [note that models are not evidence]. When you have evidence that allows you to directly measure the rise in temperature per rise in unit CO2, wake me. You don’t have that, all you have are conjectures. That is no good here. Not by a long shot.
I just started a twitter account, followed Mann and WUWT, and within – literally – *five minutes*, I was blocked.
Keith W. says:
May 7, 2012 at 7:28 pm
“Hiding in the dark, Mann sits stroking the core from YAD061, cooing softly to it, “Yes, Precious,”
Thanks Keith for the good laugh!
I’m pissed at all the double talk climate liars (not warmists or alarmists). Why can’t someone take that lying POS to court and force him to divulge all his nasty little secrets? I’d donate $100 to the cause, anyone else?