The question put to Dr. Mann at Disneyland today

Thought he already lived in Fantasyland…

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

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?

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………….

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.

“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”.

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*

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

Mann is a joke

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 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.

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

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..

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

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.

This so needs to be a sticky post as Mann is in a rather sticky situation [grabs popcorn to watch this one grow]

Man, or any of the team for that matter, would be outright fools to ingage in any exchage or debate that would lend credibility or equivelancy to the sckeptics claims. The goal posts are always moving as evidenced by the many heated exchanges by experts on this blog so point and counter points would desolve into meaningless chatter. A debate would absolutely be a loser for the team and they know it very well. Quit asking. It isn’t going to happen.
Jim

Mann may be auditioning for the next Snow White and the Seven Dwarves movie; playing the roles of both Dopey and Grumpy. 😉

Smokey says:
May 18, 2012 at 3:50 pm
Phil Clarke says:
May 18, 2012 at 2:43 pm
““Perhaps Steve could be interviewed… to explain himself?”
Smokey’s response:
Phil, you devious conniver, you left Steve McIntyre’s response off of your cut ‘n’ paste. McIntyre replied to Hantemirov:….
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.”
Smokey,
Very Nice! You caught him in a deliberate deceit by omission, trapping him like a repugnant fly transparently displayed in amber for all to examine at their leisure. Nice!!!
MtK

Phil says:
May 18, 2012 at 4:48 pm
@Follow the Money (May 18, 2012 at 3:14 pm)
I’ll probably get banned for life from WUWT, but here is a reference from Wikipedia.
There are 10 reconstructions and the black line is identified as the “Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nice try at a re-direct Phil.
Here’s a link to the actual reconstruction and the actual trick that we’re actually talking about:
http://climateaudit.org/2007/05/11/the-maestro-of-mystery/
The subterfuge is clearly evident. The proxy reconstructions are clearly truncated at the point where the instrument record begins. It appears to the casual observer that the proxy data and the instrumental record agree. They do not. The proxy data declines in opposition to the instrumental record, and that is why it was truncated at the point of decline, so that nobody would see that the trees do NOT mirror the temperature record after all, except for one short time period. If they cannot mirror the temperature for decades at a time during the temperature record, there is clearly no reason to consider them accurate for the other 900 years of the reconstruction.

I had heard Mann was selected to lead the charge against “Deniers” and other denizens of pure scientific thought.
Apparently they didn’t select someone with sufficient backbone. That decline is certainly difficult to hide.

Tom of Florida
I think we’re on the same side. I believe (as I think you do) that (a) a little bit of global warming will not harm mankind, (b) there is no impending disaster, and (c) the solution proposed by CAGW proponents to reduce carbon emissions back to some level in the past will cause more harm than good.
However,you said that my “…first error is the statement “assume the phenomenon would harm all mankind“. How can an assumption be an error? A conclusion can be an error; but the only way an assumption can be an error is if it is internally inconsistent with other assumptions. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think my assumptions are internally inconsistent. I was trying to show why independent of Dr. Mann’s scientific abilities, his behavior was and is in opposition to man’s best interests.
To answer your question, if the “sun’s swelling to a red giant” will occur in a time interval short compared to our ability to leave this Planet and colonize someplace safe, I’d enjoy life to the fullest while it lasted. If we have time to leave this Planet and colonize someplace safe but we don’t have any time to waste, then I’d say we shoulld make the attempt. If we have a billion years before the Sun becomes a red giant, then at this time I wouldn’t spend any extra effort to decide how to address the problem. I’d wait at least 500 million years before giving the matter much thought.

You have got to be kidding? I’d buy the computer geek thing if he ever actually demonstrated an understanding of them, but even there his competence is arguably non-existent. Mann has done more damage to science than any hack in recent memory. He is, at best, a physics school dropout.
Mark

Seth;
Seth says:
May 18, 2012 at 7:46 pm
Dr. Mann has done a lot of great work, and has advanced the field of paleoclimatology even since he was a recent post-doc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Then I shall put to you the same question that I put to DR_UK who also spoke in Dr Mann’s defence. DR_UK hasn’t responded, maybe you are made of sterner stuff.
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?

otter17 says:
May 18, 2012 at 9:30 pm
This is just sad. If any of you truly have a scientific case against Dr. Mann’s work, submit original research to a journal.>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You’ve made that silly argument in several threads and been mocked for it repeatedly. Science doesn’t have to appear in a journal to be credible (just ask the patent office) and appearing in a journal doesn’t make something credible science either. Can you come up with some new material?
But while we’re at it, since you so adamantly defend Dr Mann’s science, could you please answer the question that I put to both Seth and DR_UK with no response from either at this point?
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?

What’s truely sad is that fact that the well documented, despicable behavior on the part of Mann and others has led to internet blogs being more credible than certain peer reviewed journals.

otter17 says:

May 18, 2012 at 9:30 pm
This is just sad. If any of you truly have a scientific case against Dr. Mann’s work, submit original research to a journal.

Not sad at all, “otter”. We don’t need some Team-infested journal to tell us what Mann wants us to think. The graph at the top of this thread with the two colors (green for reality; red for Mann’s fantasy) is sufficient-that is, unless you’re color blind.
What’s sad is you’ve apparently been sucker-punched by The Team, promoting The Cause, to make Big Payola (for them–you get to pay, and worry, and fret, and in the end feel foolish).

Thanks, Anthony, for posting my small part in this rather interesting episode. I appreciate the link to my little blog, too! The Orange County Water Summit was actually quite interesting, as water is also a favorite topic with me.
Regarding the question I asked, I tried to stay as close to the two short paragraphs as stated in the body of this post. I wrote it out on a piece of paper, and read it when my turn to ask arrived.
Here is what I asked to the best of my recollection (this can be confirmed if and when the video/audio is available):
“My question is for Dr. Mann. Dr Mann, in your 1998 paper co-authored with Dr. Briffa and Dr. Hughes, you showed a warming since 1960. The same hockey-stick graph was shown earlier today. However, you chose to not use tree core data after 1960 but instead 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. Steve McIntyre has falsified your work by showing that the premise of a hockey stick falls apart when all of the data is used?”
Mann then proceeded to state that my question had false information, since it was Bradley, not Briffa as co-author. OK, we can grant him that small point. He went on to say, as I emailed Anthony and shown in the post above, the decline is well-known but not understood; research is on-going; then dodged the question and called it “specious;” then made a plug for his book (about the third or fourth time, I believe) saying the warming is real and he addressed all this in his book.
There were a couple of other questions from skeptics, one related to Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT. Mann replied that Lindzen is a maverick, and that the consensus is what we follow in science. He stated that we don’t believe in Evolution theory simply because Darwin proposed it, but because it has withstood the test of time and many scientists’ verification for more than 100 years (I think I have his answer pretty close to verbatim).
Now, about the Nobel-prize: Mann stated at the outset that he did not win the Nobel prize, and explained that he merely shared in it as a contributing scientist to the IPCC, which organization did win.
I actually enjoyed Mann’s presentation, because it reminded me a bit of being in a final exam in university, where the goal is to spot the errors, omissions, and misleading statements. Mann’s presentation was full of such things. For example, he showed a graph of Arctic ice decline, during a segment on the many threads of evidence that proves the globe is warming. His graph stopped at 2007, at the lowest point in the record. He did not explain that the graph was for summer minimum extent, which I think it must have been. That cherry-picked endpoint made the graph take a dramatic downward trend, and was most impressive. And, very misleading because the minimum extent has stabilized and slightly increased since then.
Another was the latest 12 months in the USA being the hottest 12 month period on record. No mention of Europe or Asia, though, which just ended brutally cold and bitter winter.. Again, misleading.
Another was the intense rainfall on the East coast from hurricane (or was it tropical storm?) Irene. Mann stated that the intense rain was due in part to global warming, since the Atlantic Ocean was unusually warm when Irene passed over it and collected water vapor to dump on shore as rain. That raised my suspicions, since I have never heard that before; perhaps it is true; I just don’t know.
He also presented a graph to show how superbly well the climate models match the actual temperature trend since Dr. Hansen made his speech to congress in 1988. What he didn’t mention, though, is that the “actual data” has been severely manipulated and approximately half the warming is due to adjustments. His “actual data” also either 1) stopped before the recent leveling off, or 2) showed a warming for the past 12 or so years; I could not read the time-scale on the chart from my seat near the back of the room. Either way, that was (again) very misleading.
Finally, he showed the (is it obligatory?) photo of a polar bear on a tiny ice floe. He spent some time talking about his little daughter and how he wants to leave a good world for her. The polar bear on the ice floe was displayed during this portion of the speech. Again, extremely misleading since polar bears have plenty of ice on which to sit, and their numbers are growing, not declining.
Mann tied in global warming to the water topic, saying the models forecast a much more arid climate for the US southwest. This, of course, will make the existing water shortages in California and other Western states much, much worse. He then confused us all by saying it was not clear if more La Niñas or El Niños would prevail. He noted that global warming creates warmer oceans, which would mean more El Niños, which almost always bring more rain, not less. I must note, here, that the existence of multiple models, as Mann mentioned, is a clear indication that the science is not settled. My words not, not Mann’s, but if a person on a journey had 12 different maps, and took the average of the 12 routes and directions to his destination, one must wonder if he would reach the destination at all.
Thank you to all the commenters above for the kind words on my speech to the AIChE. That speech was a lot of fun, and it was rewarding to have a few college students from California State – Long Beach in attendance. They seemed to not be aware of any of the points I made, and it came as somewhat of a surprise to them.
Just a few words about the television interviews, that Dr. Mann declined and I accepted. I was asked by a very nice young lady to step out of the convention hall into the hallway, where she confirmed that I had asked the question of Dr. Mann. She then said that was an excellent question, and a news reporter from PBS would like to interview me, would I consent to the interview? I said I would be happy to do so. I met the reporter, David, and I apologize to him that I didn’t catch the last name. He’s a very interesting and quite nice fellow. We went through the preliminaries, my name, occupation, and he asked my affiliation. I told him I’m in solo practice and was here on my own, not representing any organization. That seemed to perplex him, and I stated that I am just one of many thousands of climate skeptics. Some others wanted to attend today but could not for various reasons, so I came alone. He seemed more relieved when he asked what kind of law I practice and I told him Climate Change law.
David then decided he wanted to interview Dr. Mann first, then me second to get the skeptic view. He asked me to step away and return in 10 minutes. I went back to the presentation and took my seat. I could see Dr. Mann across the room, and he went out for a few minutes then returned. So, I went back out to find David and his camera-man. At that point, David told me that he did not interview Dr. Mann after all. He said, and I’m paraphrasing here, that Dr. Mann refused the interview and got angry. I believe David told him that he was to be interviewed first, then me, although I was not identified by name but by the question I asked. It could be that Dr. Mann did not want to be interviewed then have a skeptic follow him, with no opportunity to rebut. This is just speculation on my part, though.
In the actual interview, David asked me a few of the questions he had intended to ask Dr. Mann, such as what is global warming, and what role does mankind play in this? I can’t recall my exact words, which should be available soon if and when the video is aired and placed on-line, but here is what I believe I said.
I said that global warming is the fact that the world has warmed somewhat, perhaps one degree F, in the past 150 years. The cause of the warming is mostly natural forces, since mankind has not placed much CO2 in the air until the past four decades.
He asked other questions, such as what is the skeptic view. I told him that I don’t believe that CO2 causes much, if any warming, and that the more important issue is global cooling due to the weak solar cycle.
David ended by asking why I thought Dr. Mann was so rude in his refusal to be interviewed, and I replied that I don’t know, but I do know he is party to some litigation. It is possible his attorneys have advised him not to do interviews. This is a pure guess on my part.

Since this was a Water Summit in California, much was made of the forecasts of sea level increase. The particular focus of today’s conference was the California Delta, where two major rivers meet, and then flow into one channel into San Francisco Bay. The two rivers are the Sacramento (flowing from the north), and the San Joaquin (flowing from the south).
What struck me was the blatant statement that sea level would rise 55 inches (1.4 meters) by the year 2100. That statement was not challenged by anyone, as far as I could determine. The mid-century mark was to be about half of that. The point was made that the Delta region has many miles of levees, with only approximately one foot freeboard at high tide presently. Therefore, something must be done to all the levees before the sea level rises 55 inches. This is important, because the dry land behind the levees has subsided, in many places as much as 30 feet below sea level. All of that land is subject to flooding, permanently, if the levees are not modified to increase their height — and the sea level does indeed rise.
That amount, 55 inches, is far beyond what I recall as the most likely prediction, even from the IPCC.

Re:Roger Sowell’s comments
Amazing!
Btw, Building miles of levees with only 1′ of freeboard seems like it was at bad engineering decision to begin with to me. I wonder about the rest of the story there.
Thanks for sharing.

davidmhoffer wrote: “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?”
Things to note:
1) Mann’s data is available.
2) Mann’s work has been paleoclimatology, not any impending effects. He’s looking back in time, not forwards.
But to answer your question:
I imagine not, I expect that I would be busy making my own preparations.

TomB said:
“… I’ve read here that the algorithm used would create a hockey stick graph no matter what you plugged into it. …Now you’re saying the algorithm is valid but the data they used was insufficient and cherry picked. Ok, which one is it?”
TomB, you seem to have a problem understanding the basics. GED’s response is a good one. Re-read it. Nobody said Mann’s algorithm is valid. You are mixing apples and oranges, raw data versus algorithmic garbage.

Seth ~ But to answer your question:
I imagine not, I expect that I would be busy making my own preparations.
——
Problems with ‘mann’s data is ‘available’,’ aside, You just gave the Perfect reason why the junk science movie ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ should never have been made!

davidmhoffer says:
May 18, 2012 at 9:42 pm
You’ve made that silly argument in several threads and been mocked for it repeatedly. Science doesn’t have to appear in a journal to be credible (just ask the patent office) and appearing in a journal doesn’t make something credible science either. Can you come up with some new material?
______________
It isn’t an argument, but a challenge. Can you actually put together a formal body of research and submit it through the scientific process?
The way the scientific process has worked since the days of Isaac Newton and the founding of the Royal Society goes something like this. Peer review catches methodology/accuracy errors and should bring the research and presentation of the paper up to a journal’s standards. Rebuttals provide a means for submitting evidence to the contrary of other papers. When certain hypotheses and collections of papers become cited, further reinforced by research, or built upon in other ways, a body of research pointing towards a theory begins to take shape. The scientific journals have been the proving ground for grand scientific ideas and subjects such as evolution, astronomy, electro-magnetism, etc.
When you have several reconstructions using other paleo evidence that reinforce the Mann et al reconstruction, it is an indicator of where the science is coalescing. When you have complaints concerning those lines of evidence on a blog, it doesn’t say much in the scientific sense. It is completely reasonable for someone to be skeptical of notions that are NOT sent through the scientific process. Lay people that decide to uncritically accept notions that have not gone through this process, yet discredit notions that have been proven in the process, are clearly exhibiting behavior that is non-skeptical.

Thank You Roger Sowell and Anthony.
Why am I not surprised that Mann ducked the interview? I do not think he is capable of holding his own against anyone of above average intelligence armed with facts and he darn well knows it. You can not appear to be an all knowing “Godlet” if you are shown to be a buffoon in public, hence he ducks any chance of that happening.

Seth says:
May 18, 2012 at 7:46 pm
Dr. Mann has done a lot of great work, and has advanced the field of paleoclimatology even since he was a recent post-doc.

Seth: I don’t know if you chose your nom de plume, but it is very appropriate, as it describes your comments AND Mr. Mann to a T.
“Representations on gravestones in Upper Egypt, dating from the third millennium BC, attribute to Seth a donkey-like appearance, with long legs, long and broad ears, and a short upright tail.”
“A trickster, he was a sky god, lord of the desert, and master of storms, disorder, and warfare.”
It is interesting how the sub-conscious reveals itself. GK

So I awoke this morning to see if Seth, Otter17 or DR_UK had the cahonies to answer my question. Of the three, only Seth responded:
“But to answer your question:
I imagine not, I expect that I would be busy making my own preparations.”
I figured there woulde be some way to weasel out of the issue and Seth found it. He wouldn’t even TRY to save a few million lives by warning people of the impending disaster, he’d just save himself. What does that say about Seth?
But if we presume that Seth’s attempt to wiggle off the hook is a credible answer, we should then consider if the “Team” is perhaps behaving in the same manner and protecting themselves from the impensing disaster that they are predicting. Are they buying property in northern climates? Are they seeking citizenship in northern countries? Are they taking steps to ensure that what little patches of earth are left that are suitable for human habitat after the dreaded CAGW ruins the planet will be reserved for them, their children, and their grandchildren?
No they are not. Al Gore recently bought beach front property for crying out loud. Why would he invest millions in something he says he is certain will be drowned by CAGW?
So…. we have Seth, who wouldn’t even bother to warn the rest of us, and the climate scientists who warn us on a daily basis, but won’t explain for certain how they know, and are taking zero steps to protect themselves and their children from the disaster they claim is certain.

otter17;
It isn’t an argument, but a challenge. Can you actually put together a formal body of research and submit it through the scientific process?>>>>>
The scientific process and journal publications are not the same thing, which you seem to attempting to assert. Journals are simply an attempt to document science and expose it to scrutiny.
otter17;
The way the scientific process has worked since the days of Isaac Newton >>>>>
Really? How many journal articles did Henry Ford publish? How about Alexander Graham Bell? The list of towering accomplishments in human history that never went through the journal system is extensive. But where your position really falls apart is that regardless of how science progressed through (in part) the journal system, that was then, this is NOW. In the current state of affairs, journal editors are under extreme pressure to block the papers of skeptic scientists, and we have, in the here and NOW, one journal editor who was fired for not buckling under pressure, and another who resigned claiming that he’s erred in allowing a skeptic paper to be published though he couldn’t say exactly what the problem was that should have prevented the paper from being published. Then he apologized to Kevin Trenberth (whom, as it turned out, was in a position to scuttle that editor’s personal research funding) despite not being able to cite a single problem with the paper!
This is science? No otter17, it is not.

davidmhoffer says:
May 19, 2012 at 6:53 am
“So I awoke this morning to see if Seth, Otter17 or DR_UK had the cahonies to answer my question. Of the three, only Seth responded:”
____________________________________
Sigh, your question didn’t seem to have much of a point, but sure, I’ll bite too. If the supposed disaster was a few days away, I would quickly release the data to the various members of the appropriate scientific community such that it isn’t interpreted incorrectly, and to check my results. Thus, we would quickly confirm the nature of the threat, then warn the appropriate national security officials. Then, full release of data in a ticker tape parade fashion. I’m not sure what this shows.
Smokey says:
May 19, 2012 at 4:57 am
“Peer review is not important”.
____________________________________
No, it is part of the scientific process, and it is important. And yes, data and methods are important, too. The original Mann work has been reviewed and confirmed by other scientists with different methods; also reviewed by IPCC, NAS, etc. Those scientists used the scientific process, and there were some modifications on error bars, again science at work. Quite a bit of data is available; some is held by entities outside of the scientists themselves and requires due diligence to go to the original data holder. Some data is even available online, at the link below for example.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/data.html
And you say I am a “lemming of Mann’s alarmist narrative”. Your choice of words does not make you sound tough or correct, only immature. The accusation game is useless in both ways; maybe you are a lemming of a “shoot the messenger” narrative, who knows.
The real issue is, we have a set of evidence that has been put through the paces of the scientific process, including data shared with a large number of other scientists. On the other hand, we have non-peer reviewed information. Yes, this new information has a slight chance of being valid, but as a lay person, it is not very skeptical to uncritically accept the work that hasn’t gone through the scientific process, while deriding the work that has.

otter17;
it is not very skeptical to uncritically accept the work that hasn’t gone through the scientific process, while deriding the work that has.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You cannot define science as being conducted exclusively in journals and retain any credibility. Journals are not only hopelessly corrupt, they are, like the newspaper, obsolete. You’re trying to assert candles being superior to light bulbs because they have a longer history and better documentation and there were millions of candle makers and only a few manufacturers of light bulbs. The millions of candle makers have spoken, there is a consensus, and the light bulb doesn’t work, the science behind it hasn’t even been published in a peer reviewed journal, so it must be a lie. The science of candles and light is settled. No point installing light bulbs in your house, there is a consensus, a peer reviewed, published in journals, consensus.
Stop being ludicrous.

Re: the above debate regarding peer reviewed journals
I believe the peer review system was designed with good intentions to reinforce the scientific method and to provide a way to ensure research is credible.
The problem, however, is that when the topic of research is highly controversial and subject to extreme political pressures, such as the case of AGW, then the system fails miserably. What was intended to serve as a gatekeeping mechanism for weeding out “good” research from “bad” research, becomes a gatekeepering mechanism for blocking any research not in agreement with the side of the gatekeepers
That is why I cringe every time I see an argument like what is coming from Seth and Otter17. There is a danger in putting blind faith in a what a says journal simply because it claims to use peer review.
frankly, considering the well documented evidence of scientific malpractic and downright fraud coming from a certain “team”, I consider an internet blog (that does not use hall monitors to block dissenting opinions), to be more credible than certain journals which under “occupation” by these criminals.

davidmhoffer says:
May 19, 2012 at 8:58 am
The science of candles and light is settled. No point installing light bulbs in your house, there is a consensus, a peer reviewed, published in journals, consensus.
Stop being ludicrous.
________________________________
So, first you assert a notion that journals are obsolete (blogs to replace them I guess?). Then you make a faulty analogy demonstrating your initial assertion, claiming that there is some fictional scientific consensus that candles are better than light bulbs. Finally, you project that faulty analogy onto me, and claim that I am ludicrous.
All this seems like a cop out, to believe what you want to believe, while ignoring the scientific process and the existing framework (which is superior to blogs). If peer-review is obsolete, then why have there been successful attempts in the past to submit to peer review publications, such as the BEST collaboration, or Fall, et al, 2011? Why not forget about that entirely and stick to the blogs?
Furthermore, why are you so sure that we must “… take steps that will cast billions into abject poverty and push those already in poverty into starvation”? Even Chevron, who has every interest to discredit the established science, quotes the IPCC indicating that it is very likely that a significant level of warming is due to human activity. Then they lay out a measured plan to approach the issue while still helping people. Unless you have some evidence for that statement, it seems you are displaying unfounded alarmism concerning solutions, and it does not help the policy debate.
http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/sevenprinciples/

I think peer review was designed with good intentions and is very effective as long as there is no political pressure to favor one particular side. Unfortunately, with the topic of AGW, peer review went from serving as a gate for seperating good science from bad science, to a gate that just blocks research not in agreement with the gatekeepers.
There is a great danger in making the mistake of putting blind faith in peer reviewed
journals, without also considering the politics at play.
Considering the well documented evidence of scientific malpractice and downright fraud on the part of a certain “team”, I consider a blog (at least on that doesn’t use hall monitors to block dissenting opinions) to be more credible the certain peer reviewed journals.

davidmhoffer says:
May 19, 2012 at 10:15 am
“Nice diatribe. Now once again:
How do you excuse Michael Mann insisting we take dramatic action while refusing to disclose the methods and data upon which his recommendations are based?”
____________________________________________________
Not a diatribe, I was asking some tough questions, that seemingly go unanswered, or the answers provide a very minimal standard of evidence. All these assertions that blogs would be better than journals ignore that blogs are rife with political speech and ideology. There are plenty of blog articles that indicate climate change mitigation is impossible, which is a belief that is potentially in direct conflict with a body of evidence that indicates a need for an appropriate and rational risk mitigation strategy.
I provided a link to data that is freely available online, if you look for Mann under reconstructions you will find him. Mann has given data and methods, allowing a lot of other scientists and the NAS to review his work (all corroborating, though with caveats). Other scientists have used different data and methods and have come up with similar results. What specific piece of data is he supposedly hiding, such that I can learn about it?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/data.html
I can’t stress enough my skepticism of the notion that there is a vast failing in nearly every journal, scientific organization, and among a vast majority of practicing climate scientists. I am also equally skeptical that a handful of blogs that also discuss political issues, will somehow have all the right answers. There are anti-evolution blogs that employ similar tactics.

otter17

There are plenty of blog articles that indicate climate change mitigation is impossible, which is a belief that is potentially in direct conflict with a body of evidence that indicates a need for an appropriate and rational risk mitigation strategy.

I will leave it as an exercise for the student to deconstruct what is wrong with that sentence. One can start by focusing on “indicates a need” vs “indicate … is impossible”.
I “indicate a need” for a raise to my boss all the time…

davidmhoffer says:
May 19, 2012 at 11:58 am
“You can find no excuse to justify Mann’s refusal to release the data and methods upon which his conclusions are based, so you engage in misdirection and obfuscation.”
_____________________________
I gave a link where he has data shared. He has shared his methods and data with a number of other scientists and the NAS. Which particular piece of data is he hiding? It would be nice to know.
I understand the science fairly well for a layman, but since I don’t do direct research in climate science I can’t make up my own value judgments based simply on my common sense (as some are prone to do on blogs). This is why we have a scientific process of journals, peer review, rebuttals, etc, to ascertain knowledge (which eventually makes it into science textbooks by the way). Pointing to research that has gone through that process is not argument from authority any more than citing a textbook, since there is no one particular authority referenced, except for the scientific process itself and the multitude of viewpoints and research that went into that process. An argument from authority is thinking that a single piece of research on a blog is correct, while it has yet to start through the established scientific process. An argument from authority is thinking that blogs can now supercede journals, when blogs have no track record whatsoever in ANY field of science.

otter17;
since I don’t do direct research in climate science I can’t make up my own value judgments >>>
Well that has become painfully obvious.
otter17;
This is why we have a scientific process of journals, peer review, rebuttals>>>
And, having admitted that you are incapable of judging the science for yourself, you have no means to determine if what you are reading is credible or not. You’ve accepted the authority of the journal system, and you cite the journal system as backing your position, despite having admitted that you don’t understand any of the science presented in the journals, nor the criticism of it. Since you understand neither by your own admission, STFU.

Just some guy says:
May 19, 2012 at 1:25 pm
“…blogs are rife with political speech and ideology. “.
“So are journals. The difference is that the journals ideology is hidden from public view. Fortunately, someone leaked several years of emails allowing us to see the malicious behavior going on behind the curtains.”
____________________________
That wasn’t from a journal, but emails between scientists. Many in the media/blogs took a good chunk of those emails out of context. Out of about 1000 stolen, only a handful had anything resembling malpractice. Something like six independent investigations looked into the context of the emails and found no major malpractice. I have seen a couple of the investigation reports and a handful of the emails. They were rational analyses of the incident.

otter17;
I have seen a couple of the investigation reports and a handful of the emails.>>>>
Since you admit you do not understand the science in the journals, nor the criticism of it, how can you possibly judge the quality of the quality of the invesigative reports? And, wow, we’re really impressed that you read a “handful” of the emails. Many people on this blog have read hundreds, and we’ve researched their context. Further Mr Argument from Authority, you would be shocked how many people commenting on this blog have PhD’s and do research directly relevant to climate issues. You admit you know nothing about the issue, yet babble on making an even bigger fool of yourself with each additional comment. Go read a few hundred emails, go read a few papers and when you hit terms and concepts you don’t understand, look them up and read about them until you understand them and then the paper itself.
But for goodness sakes, cease being the fool who opens his mouth and leaves no doubt.

otter17;
This is healthy skepticism.>>>>
This is intellectual baby talk.

So, I ask generally, what should the layman do to learn about climate science? Read only blogs? Smokey above said I should read the WUWT archives to learn something instead of my knowledge on “free-association” (whatever that means). That seems like a very direct appeal to authority. I would rather gather information from a variety of sources first, then take a look at the hypotheses on blogs.
What about the DoD Quadrenniel Defense Review? The military is outside the journal community, too. And the military tolerates zero bullcrap in their assessments of threats.
QUOTE from DoD QDR
“Assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate that climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments.”

Smokey;
I’m compiling a list I’m calling The Sins of Mann for quick reference in the future when discussions come up with nitwit defenders of Dr Mann. Am I missing any of the big ones?
The Sins of Mann
Sin1; Dr Mann claims that tree ring thickness responds primarily to temperature alone, and that this is the consensus position of science.
Reality; The consensus position of arborists, botanists, and biologists stands in direct opposition to this claim. Further, this claim defies logic. If temperature were the only significant factor in tree growth, the fastest growing trees in the world would be in the Sahara.
Sin2; MBH98 is claimed by Dr Mann and his co-author to “prove” that the world is warming at an accelerating rate.
Reality; The Wegman Commission demonstrated that a version of Mann’s code they obtained would seek out hockey stick shaped data and attribute higher statistical value to it that any other data, thus producing a hockey stick shape output nearly regardless of the data. Dr Mann claimed that the version of code available to the Wegman Commission was not his “actual” code, but has refused to release the “actual” code or data for verification of his claim.
Sin3; Dr Mann’s supporters claim the Wegman report has been discredited.
Reality; The only claim made against the Wegman report is that it improperly attributed a single quote that wasn’t even central to the issue. The central findings of the Wegman report have never even been disputed, let alone discredited.
Sin4; Dr Mann used sediment data known as the Tiljander Series to augment his tree ring studies.
Reality; Dr Mann was advised that the sediments in the lake had been mechanicaly disturbed and over turned prior to sampling, turning the temperature record they supposedly represented “upside down”. Despite being made aware of this, Dr Mann used the Tiljander series anyway, and has not withdrawn the paper or results derived from them.
Sin5; Mann was accused of malfeasance on several scores which he claims to have been cleared of by investigation on the part of the universities involved.
Reality; Anyone who reads the investigation documents becomes quickly aware that the issues central to the accusations against Dr Mann were never put in direct questions to him. Further, what few difficult questions were asked of him were responded to indirectly or in a manner so confusing that the answer hardly seemed related to the question.
Sin6; Dr Mann claims to be an open and honest scientist who has done nothing wrong, and has nothing to hide.
Reality; Dr Mann has gone to court, seeking intervener status, in order to prevent his email exchanges with other climate scientists to be made public. His reasoning is that only he can understand them. If that were the case, one can only wonder with whom he was corresponding, and to what end, since only he could understand what he wrote.
Sin7; Dr Mann claims that Phil Jones reference to “Mike’s Nature trick” was out of context and only referred to clever but proper handling of the data.
Reality; Dr Mann truncated tree ring data from his paper submitted to Nature because it began declining, rather than rising like a hockey stick. He patched in instrumental data instead, without explaining what he had done. This was the “trick” that he used to “hide the decline”. Having now been caught, Dr Mann reluctantly admits that the tree ring data goes in the opposite directionh to the instrumental temperature record for nearly half of the instrumental record. Despite this, Dr Mann continues to claim that the previous 900 years of tree ring data (which cannot be corroborated) accurately represent temperature.

davidmhoffer says:
May 19, 2012 at 6:07 pm
“Itz worse than that. otter17 is trying to claim that the military thinks climate change is real, and so Dr Mann’s papers must be right.”
____________________________
No. I was floating the QDR out there to see what you guys thought of it. Before making such judgments about me, it is proper form to clarify first. I have given you that courtesy. I have refrained from such language as “STFU” and calling one a “fool” or “nitwit” as well. An apology is requested.
But, back to the subject at hand, it appears that in your view that the blogs are where a lay person should go to learn about the latest science. But which blogs are credible? There are quite a few blogs out there that make potentially better cases for much of climate science, like Tamino or Skeptical Science. How is the average person supposed to begin learning about the subject? I’m just trying to understand the mindset.

otter17;
If you think that Tamino and Skeptical Science are blogs with actual science on them, then by all means, go spend your time there. You’ve added zero to the dicussion of science here.

Here’s some interesting reading on wikipedia.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-4241293.html
I stopped trusting them as a credible source of information (on controversial topics) a long time ago.

davidmhoffer says:
May 19, 2012 at 10:16 pm
“If you think that Tamino and Skeptical Science are blogs with actual science on them, then by all means, go spend your time there. You’ve added zero to the dicussion of science here.”
_______________
But this still doesn’t address how a potential newbie to the debate is supposed to choose a blog, or set of blogs to believe. If blogs or even think tanks become the new standard for science, then it becomes a crap-shoot of articles from non-experts, cartoons, politics, Unabomber comparisons, etc, with no organized way to collate knowledge. Furthermore, if blogs became the new standard, all the current scientific establishment (with all their data, laboratories, measuring equipment, etc) would simply move to the blogs and you have the same issue. As it stands now, though, blogs provide an outlet for potentially unfounded hypotheses that aren’t subject to the scrutiny of those with actual measuring equipment, laboratories, etc. It is potentially a breeding ground for a self-promoting set of ideas, maybe leading to all manner of fallacious arguments and conspiracy hypotheses.
And no, I have added much to the discussion of science and epistemology. I have added several pertinent questions and ideas on how to logically approach the epistemology of this subject. You state that I have “added zero” as if it were fact, yet I have asked some very important questions concerning how one approaches sources. Other very relevant questions concerning the level of evidence to show all-encompassing corruption in all the journals and scientific organizations go unanswered.

G, Karst;
In once recent thread, he claimed that by constructing buildings, we were reducing the surface area that could radiate directly to space. When I pointed out that this could only be true if the roofs of the buildings themselves didn’t radiate, he became strangely silent. I don’t follow all threads by any means, but that is the last I recall of him on this blog, so if it was me that frightened him away, I’ll apologize.
Mr Connolley, I’m sorry that you said something so stupid that pointing it out made you look foolish and frightened you away.

@David, do you remember what thread that was in?

otter17;
You state that I have “added zero” as if it were fact, yet I have asked some very important questions concerning how one approaches sources.>>>
I said you’ve added nothing to the discussion of the science, and you haven’t. If you truly are a newbie, and you truly are interested, then take this advice:
Educate yourself in the basics. Find out for your self what “CO2 is logarithmic” means and figure out for yourself what that implies about itz ability to warm the planet. Gets some books on botany and read up on the factors that govern plant growth, and the relative importance of each in comparison to temperature. Pick up a geology text book and read through the history of the ice ages and what their causes were. Read some history books that focus on human activity during the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Check out articles on receding glaciers in the current period which are exposing the remains of human civilization that precedes the glaciers. Take a look at the data from UAH and GISS on a regular basis. If you are really a newbie with a real interest in the issue, these are the things you need to do for yourself to have any hope of understanding the issues. If all you want to do is play “my cite is better than your cite” you will learn nothing, you will teach nothing, and you will waste other people’s times as well as your own.

davidmhoffer says:
May 20, 2012 at 10:54 am
Just some guy says:
May 20, 2012 at 9:55 am
@David, do you remember what thread that was in?>>>>
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/30/supreme-irony-wind-farms-can-cause-atmosphereic-warming-finds-a-new-study/
———————————-
Thanks for that link. I just briefly read some of the discussion, I’ll read the who thing when I have more time. As one who’s been on the receiving end of the WMC & Co. brand of “wiki-bullying” (many years ago) , it is immensely satisfying to see this condescending jerk get put in his place.

just some guy;
Connolley showed up on a couple of threads at Tallbloke’s as well, and got to looking awful foolish awful fast. When he’s in a conversation where he doesn’t have editorial control, he is out of his depth on the science by about the second sentence.
I share your frustration with wikipedia, but what has happened to it was inevitable. Being crowd sourced, any controversial topic becomes a target for propogandists. The battles to control the content about middle east history, or the Armenian holocaust, or anything else you can think of where emotions and political advantage are major factors are sickening. For those sort of topics, wikipedia isn’t just untrustworthy, it is dangerous.

Tom in Worcester;
Where can I find these. I would be interested to read any I could get my grubby little hands on>>>
Just google something like “receding glacier human remains” and you’ll get hits like:
http://climateaudit.org/2005/11/18/archaeological-finds-in-retreating-swiss-glacier/
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/featured_articles/19991005tuesday.html
There have been quite a few finds in the last few years, many of them reported in newspapers as local events, many in archeology papers, but narry a mention of climate when they are brought to light. Yet, there they are, proof positive that humans lives at a time when the earth was much warmer than it is now, and not an SUV in sight.

davidmhoffer says:
May 19, 2012 at 6:53 am
So I awoke this morning to see if Seth, Otter17 or DR_UK had the cahonies to answer my question. Of the three, only Seth responded:
“But to answer your question:
I imagine not, I expect that I would be busy making my own preparations.”
I figured there woulde be some way to weasel out of the issue and Seth found it. He wouldn’t even TRY to save a few million lives by warning people of the impending disaster, he’d just save himself. What does that say about Seth?
_____
That he’s not a good a man as Dr. Michael Mann?
But that’s okay, I’m not as well recognised either.

Phil Clarke says:
May 20, 2012 at 9:54 am
“PS BTW if the name Hantemirov seems familiar, it was he, who when McIntyre complained about CRU scientists ‘stonewalling’ his requests for data revealed:
Steve has an amnesia. I had sent him these data at February 2, 2004 on his demand.”
Holy cow! I wasn’t aware that Hantemirov was a CRU scientist! Why, that changes everything. Was he a co-author on Briffa 2000 as well?

Tell me, if the Yamal data is the source of all hockey sticks, how did Professor Mann manage to plot one without a single Yamalian tree in MBH98/99?

Who made that statement? You? Nice strawman.
Mann did a similar trick. He grossly overweighted one grove of trees to come up with his HS. One grove of stripbark Bristlecone Pines in the US Soutwest took precedence over all the other proxies in his “study”. Briffa used a single tree from Yamal to garner the same effect.

Moreover, all the MBH data is available here: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/research/research.html

Seth;
davidmhoffer says:
May 21, 2012 at 12:00 pm
Seth,
Sorry can’t find it. Could you please post a link to the specific data and the specific code used to produce the hockey stick graph in MBH98?>>>
Let me save you some time looking for it Seth. Dr Mann testified that he would not release his code for MBH98 because it was very special code and that there was no guarantee that it would produce the same result when run on another computer.

Just some guy:
If you truly think that the best analysis of scientific evidence can be found in books rather than the peer reviewed literature, I suggest you read a book called “Merchants of Doubt,” by Dr Naomi Oreskes. It is subtitled “How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming”, and gives a window of understanding of how books like “The Hockey Stick Illusion” can come to be published.
Even better, you would do better to read some science before suggesting that some of the world’s most regarded ones are “flat out lying”. Dr Michael Mann’s book “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” might give you some insight into that, and would help you get yourself informed of the issues (of which is is painfully obvious that you are not) before posting your opinions.