The question put to Dr. Mann at Disneyland today

UPDATE: 12:55PM Dr. Mann ducks a TV station reporter who requested an interview afterwards, see below.

Steve McIntyre recently published a new graph on his website Climate Audit.

Alerted to the fact that Dr. Mann would be speaking at the OC Water Summit, I was asked to submit a question, but I could not make it there in time given the short notice. A suitable proxy, our friend Roger Sowell, was kind enough to attend and ask a question. Here’s what I sent him in way of a primer, I don’t know the actual question he asked, but we hope to have a video presentation later as I was told it was recorded.

Figure 1. Yamal Chronologies. Green – from Hantemirov _liv.rwl dataset; red- from Briffa et al 2008.

How interesting it is that the Hantemirov data in green, diverges from the CRU 2008 “Hockey Team” data in red. This is due to a larger data sample. One tree core, YAD061 is responsible for most of the difference, when a small set of tree core data is used.

This graph demonstrates how trees simply don’t show a hockey stick shape when all of the data is used.

In MBH98, your paper Dr. Mann, has a similar problem to the Briffa data. Your solution was to not use tree core data after 1960 and to splice on the instrumental temperature record to in effect “hide the decline” of the trees after 1960.

How do you respond to the charge that the tree ring data was cherry picked to show a desired result, and that Mr. McIntyre has falsified your work by showing that the premise of a hockey stick falls apart when all of the data is used?

===========================================================

Roger Sowell was in the audience this morning (thank you for responding on short notice). I received this answer via text from Roger Sowell, to a question he asked:

He responded that it was Bradley as coauthor, and his (MBH98) work did not use the Briffa data.

Said the decline or divergence is well known but not understood, so is being studied.

Basically dodged the question; called it “specious”.

He said the warming is real and he addressed all this in his book.

It was hoped that Steve McIntyre would have provided a question for submission, but there was no email response from him in time.

Roger Sowell has done some excellent work in climate skepticism, I urge readers to read his recent presentation, here’s the primer:

The following is the presentation I made on April 17, 2012, to the Southern California Section of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), at their monthly dinner meeting held at Long Beach, California.  The title for the presentation is “What if the Warmists are Wrong? Is Catastrophic Cooling Coming?  Implications.”   My heartfelt thanks to Mr. Alan Benson, chair of the Southern California Section, for the invitation to speak.   I also appreciate those who attended, and especially for their questions.  As always, it is an honor to address AIChE members.  

The presentation was approximately one hour, followed by another hour of questions and answers.  The presentation is in three parts, as suggested by the title: 1) Are the Warmists Wrong? 2) Is Catastrophic Cooling Coming? and 3) Implications.   

Background: this topic could easily require a week to present the many aspects and interesting details.  With a mere hour at my disposal, this presentation necessarily hits only the major points.  My purpose here, firstly, was to inform the audience of what has transpired in the climate science arena in part 1, primarily as to the quality of the data and the climate models.  It is important to note the scarcity of agreement between the model projections and actual data.  Secondly, my purpose was to present the case for imminent global cooling in part 2.  Thirdly, my purpose was to describe a few of the many and serious implications for imminent global cooling in part 3, tying this in to what engineers can expect.  Engineers are problem-solvers, and this presents a great many problems to solve.  I also described a few of the legal ramifications of imminent global cooling.

Full presentation here, well worth bookmarking.

============================================================

UPDATE: 11:40AM I’m told via telephone that a local TV station is going to be interviewing Dr. Mann, and also Mr. Sowell due to his question. He promises more details later. Stay tuned.

UPDATE2 11:55PM: I wrote to Roger Sowell, after getting the above message, he reports Mann ducked the interview with KOCE-TV, the PBS station in Southern California. When Mann can’t even appear on warm-friendly PBS, you know he’s on the run.

On Friday, May 18, 2012, Anthony wrote:

Dear Roger,
Thank you most sincerely for taking time out of your busy schedule to do this, I am in your debt. Anthony,

He replied:

My pleasure.  This has been noteworthy.

Dr Mann refused the interview, and according to the reporter, he was extremely rude about it.

My interview went ok, I believe.

Roger

I’ll post that interview if it becomes available online.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Sounds like it was the wrong question to ask. You need to figure out something Mann cannot dodge away, if that ‘something’ exists that is.
Every public speaker has a set of canned responses anyway.

Bob L

Thought he already lived in Fantasyland…

D. Patterson

The response was truly worthy of a Manniac. So which cards are Briffa and Bradley in a game of three card Monte?

omnologos says:
You need to figure out something Mann cannot dodge away, if that ‘something’ exists that is. Every public speaker has a set of canned responses anyway.
• • •
How about this:
“Dr. Mann, you repeatedly claimed to have won the Nobel Prize. I have here the official list of all Nobel Prize recipients. You do not appear on that list. Care to explain?”☺

Global cooling has far greater dangers to humanity than global warming – crop failures, economic depression, and famine. See the consequences of the Little Ice Age. e.g., about 1/3rd the population of Finland perished during the Grea Famine of 1695-97.
Neumann, J., S. Lindgrén, 1979: Great Historical Events That Were Significantly Affected by the Weather: 4, The Great Famines in Finland and Estonia, 1695–97. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 60, 775–787.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1979)0602.0.CO;2
Overall, on average, global temperatures climate has been declining from the Holocene climatic optimum as we head towards the next glaciation.
Central planning bears equally large threats. Mao’s “Great Leap Forward” caused 36 – 45 million million deaths from famine, with a similar number of children not born. This caused a major dip in global population.

This graph demonstrates how trees simply don’t show a hockey stick shape when all of the data is used.

Sorry, I’ve read here that the algorithm used would create a hockey stick graph no matter what you plugged into it. I recall a posting here of a climategate email where even one of the team described creating random data in Excel and feeding that in and generating a hockey stick graph. Wasn’t he crowing that his, what, 12 year old daughter could do a better job?
Now you’re saying the algorithm is valid but the data they used was insufficient and cherry picked.
Ok, which one is it?

Davy12

The question is unimportant. What is important is that where ever Mann goes he knows someone could be there with that killer question, the organises know, the audience know.
Mann is in play.

Robert Gee

The question posed to mann should have been, ” Have you stopped falsifying data sets?”, answer yes or no.

SteveSadlov

I love when someone opens a good can of worms! 🙂

Louis

Pardon my ignorance on the details, but I don’t understand why this question was asked of Mann instead of Briffa? As I understand it, Mann didn’t use tree ring data to construct his hockey stick. He replaced the tree core data after 1960 with the instrumental temperature record to “hide the decline”. So his hockey stick shape after 1960 came from the instrumental record. So how does the fact that “trees simply don’t show a hockey stick shape when all of the data is used” connect to Mann when he didn’t use trees to construct his hockey stick in the first place? Do you understand my confusion?
I’ve read several articles on this, including some by Steve McIntyre, but they all seem to assume the reader already knows the connection of the tree ring data to Mann’s hockey stick. Is the connection too complicated to summarize and that’s why these articles leave it out? I would be surprised if other novices besides me are not confused on this point. Perhaps someone can explain (or provide a link that explains) how the tree data connects to Mann’s hockey stick given that Mann did not use tree data for the hockey stick part of his graph.

Ged

@TomB,
This isn’t about the algorithm used, which you’re right would produce a hockey stick shape from multiple data sets, basically no matter what data was used.
What’s discussed here is the raw data set, not the algorithm or its output. There is one tree in particular that has a hockey stick shape in its raw data, and by over representing that tree, you get that red line in the graph.
When you use all the raw data, and graph the raw data, you get no hockey stick shape what so ever.
This is nothing to do with the algorithm, which is a separate issue -on top- of this issue.

davidmhoffer

I would have asked a completely different kind of question. Something like this:
Dr. Mann, suppose you became aware of an impending natural disaster, say something like a volcano erupting in downtown New York City. If the authorities were reluctant to evacuate millions of people on your say so, would you share with them data and scientific analysis that led you to your conclusion, or would you just let those millions of people die?

Joe

omnologos says:
May 18, 2012 at 11:11 am
Sounds like it was the wrong question to ask. You need to figure out something Mann cannot dodge away, if that ‘something’ exists that is.
I have a step-daughter who lies incessantly and, for years, it’s only her mother and I who would call her out – everyone else accpeted her version of things because she’s good at it. Recently she’s gone a little too far and others are starting to wise up. As they do there’s a snowball effect and she’s losing her credibility faster than any of the individual “gotchas” would warrant.
With luck the local TV picked up on Mann’s evasion, hence the interview with Mr Sowell as well. If that’s the case then every little chip in the armour helps 😉

Latitude

He responded that it was Bradley as coauthor, and his (MBH98) work did not use the Briffa data.
===============
I’m thoroughly confused by this statement………….

Gunga Din

TomB says:
May 18, 2012 at 11:31 am
This graph demonstrates how trees simply don’t show a hockey stick shape when all of the data is used.
Sorry, I’ve read here that the algorithm used would create a hockey stick graph no matter what you plugged into it. I recall a posting here of a climategate email where even one of the team described creating random data in Excel and feeding that in and generating a hockey stick graph. Wasn’t he crowing that his, what, 12 year old daughter could do a better job?
Now you’re saying the algorithm is valid but the data they used was insufficient and cherry picked.
Ok, which one is it?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The deception is layers upon layers. Mann’s mannipulation of the data would produce a hockey stick using random noise. On top of that, handling the data he chose to use (more tree rings were available) in an honest manner would still produce a hockey stick because of just one atypical tree ring. Leave that one tree out and use all the rings and the hockey stick disappears. (He tried again with corings from a lake but handled them as honestly as he did the tree rings.) Besides, tree rings are lousy proxies for temperature to begin with. Layers upon layers.

In answer to Louis, I would say that the fact that the tree rings did not show the warming of the 1980’s and 1990’s suggests that they are not a reliable guide to past temperatures. It is this that he was hiding as much as anything.

Gunga Din

I should add that he wasn’t just out to make the future look hotter, he was out to change the past.

just some guy

“Said the decline or divergence is well known but not understood, so is being studied.”
I think Mann might have actually slipped here. Every time I hear an AGW advocate discuss “hide the decline” on TV, the talking points are always drivel about how the emails were taken out of context, there’s no “trick”, nothing unusual going on, etc etc.
I could be wrong, but I’ve never seen one publicly admit to anything being “not understood”.

Mac the Knife

“UPDATE: 11:40AM I’m told via telephone that a local TV station is going to be interviewing Dr. Mann, and also Mr. Sowell due to his question. He promises more details later. Stay tuned”
Hurrah!!! Another public opportunity for a quid pro quo comparison of the data and analysis, as well as to assess the integrity of each presenter adherence to unbiased, honest science…. or not!
Thanks for posting the link to Roger Sowell’s SoCal AIChE presentation!
MtK

I’m told via telephone that a local TV station is going to be interviewing Dr. Mann, and also Mr. Sowell due to his question. He promises more details later. Stay tuned.
*making popcorn*

DR_UK

Louis, you can see Mann’s proxies here: http://climateaudit.org/2005/06/02/mbh98-proxies/
They do not end in 1960 and they do include tree rings.
And, you should be cautious about what you say Dr Mann did. As he said himself: “No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction.” http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/
You can search for this quote on Climate Audit and elsewhere for further analysis of this statement.

davidmhoffer

just some guy;
I could be wrong, but I’ve never seen one publicly admit to anything being “not understood”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I noticed that too. Mann would look pretty silly trying to assert that the divergence problem is not understood and also that the trees are an accurate proxy for temperature.
Then again, the notion that tree growth responds exclusively to temperature is pretty silly, and he’s gotten away with that.
And he got caught using an algorithm that sifts the data looking for hockey stick shapes and emphasizing them over the rest of the data which is pretty silly too, and got away with that as well.
And it would be pretty silly to graph temperature data onto a graph of tree ring data to “hide the decline” in the tree ring data because it would be so easy to get caught. Wait… he DID get caught… and got away with that as well.
There’s no words to describe the debate anymore, none.

davidmhoffer

DR_UK;
And, you should be cautious about what you say Dr Mann did. As he said himself: “No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction.”
>>>>>>>>>>
As always when Dr Mann is looking like the charlatan he is, the paid trolls come out of the woodwork with “warnings” and handy quotes and links to articles on charlatan friendly sites.
Sorry DR_UK, I read the climategate e-mails, I looked closely at those graphs, and I read the excuses after the fact trying to justify that they did exactly that. This was what Phil Jones was reffering to as “Mike’s Nature trick” in the climategate emails, and the fact that various researchers tried to JUSTIFY what they did instead of claiming that they didn’t tell me all I need to know about this fiasco.

EternalOptimist

Dr Mann.
When Wile E Coyote breaks the law of physics, why does he get away with it until he faces the camera and the audience laughs? Before he crashes and burns.
If he were so wily, why run off the cliff in the first place ?

davidmhoffer

Let me put my question to you, DR_UK.
If you were a scientist who, in the course of your research, became aware of an impending natural disaster, only days away, that would kill millions of people, would you disclose your data and methods to the public in order to convince them to take action?

D. J. Hawkins

If Roger is bringing light to the AIChE, good on him. As a member, it is maddening to see the organization diving head first into the CAGW pool. If I see a yet another promo for a webinar on CO2 sequestration, I may throttle someone.

The question to Mann is surely ….
“Why are you are Penn State,
rather than in the State Pen?”
…. in my opinion [legal advice]

Shevva

It must be hard for the egotistical Mann, your desperate for any sort of lime light to stroke your ego but every time you appear in public you get asked awkward questions.
I bet he wishes he was like Al Gore and could just charge £100,000 and then just leave.

Glenn

“He responded that it was Bradley as coauthor, and his (MBH98) work did not use the Briffa data.”
Eh?
“This directory contains…The original Climatic Research Unit (CRU) gridpoint surface temperature temperature database from 1854-1993 of Jones and Briffa [1992] used by MBH98 (this version of the dataset has been replaced by a different surface temperature dataset at CRU and is no longer available). ”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6995/suppinfo/nature02478.html

Follow the Money

Said the decline or divergence is well known but not understood, so is being studied.”
Justsomeguy responds: “I think Mann might have actually slipped here.”
But for the most part, it is a perfect dodge. Sounds “smart,” sounds like scientists take it seriously, plays upon “hope” in the future. But it’s a trick. He can front his bad info that doesn’t take into account the divergence, and still present it as good science, and shore up negatives by kicking them down the road.
Politicians would convey similar by words like, “We’ll look into it.” “We’ll study it after we pass it.”
Or the current favorite, “the bureaucracy we created was supposed to do that.” E.g., the Volcker Rule so much in the news, which the Democrats faked supporting by a kick the can maneuver. These tactics work because people fall for them, i.e., the US media who actually believe the Demo. party supports the Volcker Rule.

Brian H

“Have you stopped beating your co-workers yet?”
>:)

The Aussie thing – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/26/getting-your-mind-right-in-australia-round-2/ – latest update from a few minutes ago: –
PostShow –
The Votes:
Dismissive 49%
Alarmed 23%
Concerned 13%
Doubtful 9%
Cautious 5%
Disengaged 1%
5322 votes counted
Five or six thousand votes [it closes on Monday 21st at 8 pm [I guess Sydney time, so about 0800 or 0900 GMT/UTC]] is hardly representative of even the twenty-five or so million Australians.
But – almost half of all votes are dismissive, with more than a sixth of the rest being doubtful.
I feel that The Team is now facing the possibility, at least, that their silver-tongued eloquence has not been uniformly successful.
Is it possible that there was a Medieval Warm Period?
Or a Little Ice Age [at least in much of Europe]?
Best regards from a damp London Town [still in the death grip of the wettest drought in history].
Auto

Mac the Knife

This is a gentle plea to all preparers and presenters of graphical data. Please consider using red and green ‘line’ and ‘point’ colors judiciously, when graphically plotting data.
I am afflicted with red/green color blindness, as is some 6 percent of the male population and less than 1 percent of the ladies. This affliction can range from mild impairment in discerning shades of either red or green, to complete inability to see either or both colors as anything other than shades and intensities of grey.
I have the mild form, making it difficult to discern fine red lines from fine green lines. It is even more difficult to figure out which color is which, when presented with a data point ‘cloud’ graph using small points of both red and green! I often ‘zoom’ the graph to maximum magnification, to try to make the data points or lines big and bold enough to tell which color they might be. I also have difficulty discerning pastel shades of red and green from shades of grey. I once bought a fine pair of ‘grey’ whale bone chord pants, only to find out they were mauve (pastel pink), much to the amusement of my friends! To paraphrase Kermit the Frog, ‘Life ain’t easy, not seeing pink!’
If you can plot your data effectively, without using either red or green colors, please do so. If you need to use red and green, choose the boldest color of each (no pastels) in your graphical plots and use larger line or data point sizes, to give us ‘6 percenters’ a fighting chance at comprehending your communication!
We prepare and present graphical data, to inform and persuade 100% of our audiences. Please use red and green colors in your graphical plots judiciously, lest you leave 6% of your audience lost in shades of grey confusion……
Thanks for your consideration!
MtK

Way to go Roger!
No way would Manny take a chance that an interview would become a debate with a knowledgeable science oriented questioner (being an engineer is a megabonus and Manny would have looked the fool, accurately).

clipe

Why does a quickly “hoovered” ice cream soda send bubbles to my brain?

Mann is a joke

Phil Clarke

>>How interesting it is that the Hantemirov data in green, diverges from the CRU 2008 “Hockey Team” data in red.
I agree. It would be regrettable if Mr McIntyre had, in his haste to get a ‘non-hockey-stick’ graph into the discussion, failed to do exactly the kind of due diligence and detailed work on the provenance of the data that he demands of others. I wonder what Rashit Hantemirov, who collected, curated and published the data from which Mr McIntyre’s plot is based, makes of it?
Ah, no need to wonder, he’s made his opinion plain at Climate Audit:
Steve, I’m horrified by your slipshod work. You did not define what you compare, what dataset used in each case, how data were processed, and what was the reason for that, what limitation there are, what kind of additional information you need to know. Why didn’t you ask me for all the details? You even aren’t ashamed of using information from stolen letters. Do carelessness, grubbiness, dishonourableness are the necessary concomitants of your job?
Perhaps Steve could be interviewed on the TV to explain himself?
http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/15/new-data-from-hantemirov/#comment-333857

Phil

@DR_UK (May 18, 2012 at 12:52 pm)
RE: Dr. Mann’s statement that “No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction.”
Please see Mike’s Nature trick.
In that post by Jean S at CA, what actually happened is explained in more detail. To Hide The Decline®, Mann did a couple of things. In a WMO publication, he plotted a curve that

included proxy data up to 1960 but only actual temperatures from 1961 onwards…

I guess it depends on what the definition of “grafting” is.
Also, see Gavin Schmidt’s admission that temperature data was grafted onto proxy data here:
See also here and here.
See also this where Jones first admits the deception, then the admission is removed.
Second, simply deleting the proxy record after 1960 (the “declining part”) would still leave a downward curve that would clash with the instrumental record plotted on top of it in the spaghetti graph that became know as the hockey stick. Jean S in the first referenced post on CA explains that instrumental data was padded onto the end of the proxy data, so that the smoothed curve would now point upwards.
Here a CA commenter reports a reply by Mann on RealClimate where he admits:

In some earlier work though (Mann et al, 1999), the boundary condition for the smoothed curve (at 1980) was determined by padding with the mean of the subsequent data (taken from the instrumental record). This does make a small difference near the end of the series. It doesn’t effect any of the conclusions drawn in the paper though.

Further Jean S explains here:

First, notice that Jones talks about “adding” temperatures to data not “plotting along” as the “group” misinforms over RC. “Adding” is exactly what Jones did: he took the reconstructions (three of them; listed in the figure caption) until the final years, added the instrumental temperature from that on, and then smoothed this with end point padding. In other words, he “grafted the thermometer record onto” reconstructions.
Second, notice that Jones writes about adding temperatures to “Keith’s” and “Mike’s” series. So there is “a decline to hide” in both series. If Jones was talking only about “Keith’s series” (as RC claims), he would have likely chosen the word “divergence” instead of “decline”.
Third, gavin is right in that only reconstruction (without any padding!) was smoothed in “Mike’s Nature paper” (MBH98), but “Mike’s trick” (adding real temperature to reconstruction before smoothing) was actually used in “Mike’s GRL paper” (MBH99), which contains the series commonly referred to as the “hockey stick”, and more importantly here, is plotted in Jones’ WMO figure. So “Mike’s Nature trick” is actually slightly a misnomer (should be “Mike’s GRL trick”) from Jones’ part, but I do not blame him for that.

Here Jean S corrects:

UC has corrected me on the fact that adding the instrumental series to the proxy data prior smoothing was used already in MBH98 (Figure 5b), so, unlike I claimed in #66, “Mike’s Nature trick” is NOT a misnomer.

Phil

Here is another explanation of Dr. Mann’s grafting of temperature data onto proxy data that summarizes things on one web page.

Follow the Money

Phil,
The spaghetti graphs say “instrumental record.” They do not say “thermometer record.” One may contend that “instrumental record” should obviously indicate use of thermometers, but this is post-normal science. It is just as likely that they mean measurements by “instruments” other than thermometers, or thermometers alone. The graft may very well have CO2 measurements smeared into it, or anything else that can be measured by “instruments.”
All your points are well taken, I only offer an additional conclusion–has anyone actually inquired “what” the “instrumental record” appearing on the spaghetti graph actually is?

I was at the conference. Mann’s presentation was smug and dismissive of any contrarian thought. His complete dodge of the question was obvious to all, and all the people I talked to thought little of Mann going in and less of him going out. I spoke with one of the conference organizers about what it was like to get Mann to agree to speak and she just shook her head and said, “I’ll have to tell you about it later.” Another organizer told me Mann would only agree to speak if there was a guarantee no one opposing his position would be on the panel.
The other panelist was from Pacific Gas & Electric, and explained how the utility is planning for the complexities of cap and trade and other foolishness (my word, not hers) related to AB 32, California’s Quixotic climate change legislation. When asked how much it was costing PG&E to do all this, she demurred. When asked if it affected the bottom line, she said no … then added “It’s a customer impact” … in other words, they pass through, we pay. And California already had the highest electricity costs in the nation before this latest round of insanity.

I was at the conference and Mann’s dodge was apparent to most in the audience and a surprise to none. All I spoke with afterwards discounted him and scoffed at his woosiness. Also, I talked to one of the organizers who just shook her head and said, “I’ll have to tell you about it later” when I asked her about the details of getting Mann to agree to speak. Another told me later Mann would only appear if the event organizers promised there would be no opposing voice on the panel. The other panelist was a utility person (Pacific Gas & Electric) talking about all the work they’re doing to address California’s AB 32 global warming legislation and cap and tax. When asked how much all that regulatory compliance and carbon credit purchases was going to cost, she demurred. When asked if it affected the PG&E’s bottom line, she said no. Then added it was a customer impact – in other words, ratepayers are paying for it (however much it may be), not the utility. California already had the nation’s highest electricity costs before this foolishness started.

Mr. Mann should be in jail just for the damage he has done to my PSU Science degree AND being a rude son-of-a-gun.

kim

It is known that the Piltdown Mann has been caught in a lie, but it is not understood yet.
==================================

Mark T

Sorry, I’ve read here that the algorithm used would create a hockey stick graph no matter what you plugged into it.

No! The algorithm can produce a hockey stick shape with arbitrary data, but does not always. A distinction worth noting.

I recall a posting here of a climategate email where even one of the team described creating random data in Excel and feeding that in and generating a hockey stick graph. Wasn’t he crowing that his, what, 12 year old daughter could do a better job?

Dunno, but it is irrelevant.

Now you’re saying the algorithm is valid but the data they used was insufficient and cherry picked.

No! In reality, the algorithm is valid but only when the data meet some rather stringent requirements. Arbitrary data that do not meet these requirements can, and often will, produce spurious results using PCA, and such an expectation is increased when data are selected using post-hoc methodologies. When the data are thusly cherry-picked, it is impossible to make any legitimate claims. What is being said is not what you claim, rather, it is simply “when all the data are included, the hockey-stick no longer appears,” which actually refutes the original hypothesis (the hockey stick) by glaringly pointing out that the result is specific only to a subset of the data. In other words, application of Mann’s method to this data produces results that are, for lack of a better phrase, all over the map.

Ok, which one is it?

Neither – well, ignorance is bliss is what it is.
Mark

I am maybe too cynical. i would not ask Mann about anything scientific. I would simply ask him what he saw when he last went to a cinema.
His pseudo-scientific views are of no interest to me and neither are his attempted justifications. Hearing him tell me lies would not please me.
His confusion at a non-threatening/supportive questionmight be telling..

Phil Clarke says:
May 18, 2012 at 2:43 pm
“Perhaps Steve could be interviewed… to explain himself?”
Phil, you devious conniver, you left Steve McIntyre’s response off of your cut ‘n’ paste. McIntyre replied to Hantemirov:
All graphics and results in these posts have been supported by turnkey code, showing the precise calculations for an interested reader (other than the calculation from your living data set which I showed the calculation method.) Some of the steps have been shown in recent or linked posts and the present post is not self-contained. But the steps are all shown
As to the CRU emails, I do not know that they were “stolen”. Many people believe that they were released by someone within the University. Nor was any disrespect shown to you in the quotation from the email, which showed you in a professional light.
I totally agree with standards requiring disclosure of “what dataset used in each case, how data were processed, and what was the reason for that, what limitation there are, what kind of additional information you need to know”. That’s why I provide turnkey code as much as possible. Much of my frustration in this field has arisen because authors do not do this and are unhelpful to inquiries. I’ve placed source code to generate the graphics at the bottom of the article.
I regret that you you feel this way. If I can provide specific clarification on data sets, processing steps, etc, perhaps through reference to prior posts and scripts that are familiar to regular readers or through any other way, please advise me.

McIntyre continues two posts below that one:
[Hantemirov] …has to coexist with Briffa, Schmidt and those guys. I suspect that he’s received criticism for providing me with data. I didn’t do anything complicated in the calculation, so I’m not sure what his specific problem is.
In addition, CRU has told Muir Russell and the public that the “purpose” of Briffa 2000 and Briffa et al 2008 was to do RCS-style calculation on a Hantemirov data set. What is the objection to doing a similar calculation on his 120 core living data set? Even if there are other worthy data sets.

Phil Clarke, you are being deliberately deceptive, as anyone can see who reads the comments following the one you posted. There is even a serious question whether that comment came from Dr Hantemirov.

Mark T

Another organizer told me Mann would only agree to speak if there was a guarantee no one opposing his position would be on the panel.

He can’t answer the hard questions and he knows it. His typical big oil conspiracy, or futile argumentum ad hominems, in response to hard questions when he is cornered, are the best evidence of that. Well, I guess the fact that nobody that understands the concepts behind his work actually agrees with him is good evidence, too, but that group would not include your typical journalist or the hoi palloi reading his pronouncements on MSNBC.
Mark

Taphonomic

“…the decline or divergence is well known but not understood…”
Then the next question is:
If temperature and tree ring data diverge and you don’t understand it, how can you justify the assumption that the trees are proxies for temperature?

Bruce of Newcastle

Beautiful work Anthony and Roger! First I’ve heard of an author who is spruiking a book to refuse a TV interview. Especially PBS. And in California too!
As an aside Simon Tumbrill of Australian Climate Madness features on the front page of The Australian paper edition this morning, the highest selling serious broadsheet in Oz. Enormous credit to Simon as he’s managed to completely pwn the national university and also the national broadcaster (both CAGW hotbeds) with just one FOIA request.
Keep chipping away at them thar foundations, the cracks are getting wider and wider.