Steve McIntyre finds yet another instance where Mann applies his special “secret hot sauce” to data, selling the sizzle, rather than the steak. It is another familiar tale of data holdback, gatekeeping, obfuscation, and cherry picking by The Team. One wonders just how long the rest of science will stand idly by.
From Climate Audit:
Mann et al 2008
Fisher 2002 (Holocene) carried out a principal component analysis on a wide variety of proxies for the 210 year period from 1761-1970 when the proxies were all available. Fisher created an archive of these proxies for the period 1761-1970, one of which was Law Dome (LAWA210.ANT). This was obviously only a fraction of the available data but was the portion used in his analysis.
Even though Mann had a current and much longer version of the Law Dome O18 series that he/Jones had obtained from van Ommen, Mann et al 2008 substituted the truncated version used in the Fisher principal components analysis. The difference in the two versions is shown below.
Figure 3. Law Dome versions. red- 2003 version; blue – Mann et al 2008 version ( truncation of 1997 version to 1761-1970).
It would take a while to calculate the effect of Mann’s use of an obsolete and truncated version of the Law Dome series on his SH reconstruction, but no one should assume that it didn’t and doesn’t “matter”. My guess is that this decision had a material impact.
Full story here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What are the units being measured on both axes?
For some reason these Warmists never have to explain why some data is relevant and other data not. In fact they don’t seem to be required even to share the raw data. If this was in another branch of research, say medical or herbicide trials or perhaps something more akin, say astronomical dating,, the data would be poured over government, academia, industry, and peer reviewers.
I wonder why they bother to get data at all. They make it up anyway.
The CERN researchers show how it should be done. They found an unexpected result so released all of the data to allow aproper audit. They made repeat observations (both the original group and other “denier” groups) and eventually identified an erroronous signal from their instruments. Had Mann worked at CERN he’d have demanded the whole of physics to be re-written!
Mann’s red hot sauce.
Something like the Frank’s red hot sauce commercials. He puts that ___ on everything.
http://www.franksredhot.ca/products/hot-sauce/nutrition/info
Yikes! This is even worse than Mann’s hockey stick. We can only hope it gets commensurate coverage in the media but I’m sure not holding my breath.
Pat says:
“For some reason these Warmists never have to explain why some data is relevant and other data not.”
Clearly, you’re unaware of how those viewing Climategate e-mails – and now even the peer-reviewed papers of Warmists – tend to take certain statements – and now even deliberately-truncated data – “completely out of context” – http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/statements/CRUnov11 . /sarc
“Two all BS patties,
special sauce,
you won’t lettuce see the data,
cheesy claims,
cherry picking,
smells like onions,
on a sesame seed bun”
Aaahh, he would have inverted (imagined anyway) it anyway if it didn’t meet his needs. Nothing like a little MMannaestra’s special hot hot sauce mixed with viagra for raising drooping members.
Sure looks like most of his research is spent searching for lost outliers so he can fan them into the flames of present day scares. His widespread outlier resurrection efforts will someday spark books about how the CAGW scam was built. From paper hanging (graphed figures are often hung on walls) to global tyrant wannabe. May his reward be the one he desires most for all of us, toasted, thirsty, dirty, hungry and grubbing for his existance along with us peasants. Of course, after the scam is fully cleansed to it’s roots and it’s discovered that all of the scares are grossly overstated, that means he’ll be stuck in suburbia like many of us, only he’ll be working as a Kmart clerk. Spill in aisle 3, boy!
@Tom Murphy
I’m noticing a very interesting trend in troll behaviour. When an article appears on WUWT that is of general interest, a new paper with an interesting look at some specific issue.there’s plenty of comments, but nary a troll to be seen. But put up an article that directly questions the results of a member of the “Team” and out roll the trolls with links to articles claiming their egregious comments were taken out of context and citing whitewash inquiries as proof that they did nothing wrong.
Really trolls? You think you are fooling anybody? Your pathetic whitewash inquiries have been discussed in depth on this site, and anyone bothering to look into the details of them can only come away incredulous at the lengths to which the inquiries went to inquire about…. well, nothing. As for the accusation of being “out of context”, that too has been done to death on this site and others, and again, anyone who researches the context of comments like “Mike’s Nature trick” and “hide the decline” and so many others knows that the full context is hundreds of times worse than the out of context remark itself.
But most telling about you trolls is that you do not show up in the majority of the strictly science discussion threads at all. Even in the threads about the “Team” you restict your comments to indirect and misleading defenses of what and fair minded person in possession of the relevant facts can only conclude is criminal behaviour.
Why is that Tom? Why to you and your troll budies refuse to discuss the science head on? What are you afraid of?
@Phil C,
The Y-axis is the (log, I think) Oxygen 18 measurement, and the X-axis is calendar year. Basically, higher the O18 number, the higher the temperature, and vice versa.
I found it telling that disruptive troll Phil C even needed to ask the question…I was hoping he’d figure it out himself.
Yes Oxygen18, a proxy for temperature, and years. Pretty obvious if you’ve been following climate science for any length of time, or bothered to read the CA post in full.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9418O
Excellent troll fight. Only I think you missed the /sarc at the end of Tom’s post.
Shame to waste a good troll shot though. When the chance comes again, and it will, don’t forget to add that they show up whenever certain folks post here too. Often they show up as blind waves of trolls then, not really knowing wwhat they’re posting about; shouting at the wind without rationale.
I like your posts David! Everyone is allowed minor slips every now and then, especially when the trolls get us all keyed up with their spinning illogic arguments. It’s like an Excel sheet, there should be an automatic function in wordpress that publishes their words in red as soon as the argument goes into circular reasoning. Chicken, egg, chicken, egg, chicken; given the forever circular reasoning of the trolls you’d think there is no rooster or barnyard or feed, only CO2 and the ‘team’.
davidmhoffer says:
June 5, 2012 at 11:17 am
Blue on blue there David; you missed the /sarc tag at the end of Tom’s post.
Billy Liar says:
June 5, 2012 at 12:04 pm
davidmhoffer says:
June 5, 2012 at 11:17 am
Blue on blue there David; you missed the /sarc tag at the end of Tom’s post.
>>>>>>>>>>>
And so I did! The troll comments are so formulaic that once you’ve seen one you’ve seen most of them. I wind up skimming as a result.
I found it telling that disruptive troll Phil C even needed to ask the question…I was hoping he’d figure it out himself.
I’m baffled that you would find it acceptable to call me a “disruptive troll” for asking a straightforward scientific question. I merely asked what units were being plotted here. Is that really a bad thing? Even Ged, who answered the question for me, isn’t sure. Does not he deserve a smackdown for posting an answer that he’s not sure about? What’s the standard you’re applyting here?
REPLY: Not for asking this question, but for your history of behavior here, which is all troll. Be as upset as you wish. – Anthony
When you look at full cores, it is obvious that Oxygen18 is not a proxy for temperature. Specifically, the Vostok core shows 4 Deuterium peaks and 11 Oxygen18 peaks in the same time period. This demonstrates (to me) that they can not both be temperature proxies.
I have 3 plots at http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Icecore_Data/Vostok.html
In some cases, the Deuterium increases before Oxygen18, while in other cases, that relationship is reversed. The third plot, zoomed in around 1,800 meters, clearly shows the problem.
“One wonders just how long the rest of science will stand idly by.”
As long as their bread is getting buttered. Honest science has been totally corrupted by money and power which is why 98% of it is total crap.
“I wonder why they bother to get data at all. They make it up anyway.”
They don’t care about getting data but they care about the apparence of getting data.
And this Mann has a PhD to his name?If Steve M carries on exposing his tricks like this he’ll be known as the David Copperfield of climate science!
mycroft says:
June 5, 2012 at 1:59 pm
And this Mann has a PhD to his name?If Steve M carries on exposing his tricks like this he’ll be known as the David Copperfield of climate science>>>>
With apologies to Arthur C Clarke:
Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from science.
Why do these little history re-writes always seem to trend towards a warmer 20th century?
Hey Michael Mann, we know you read this blog, even if you don’t participate. Here is my message to you….
@davidmhoffer
What’s more telling than missing the /sarc tag (an honest mistake that anyone can make – skeptic or alarmist) is the reaction such a post garnered. I think you were correct to presume that a Mann et al 2008 apologist would likely assert contextomy on the part of McIntyre (and now Watts because he referenced McIntyre).
But at day’s end for Mann et al 2008, it’s removing “this” (ostensibly because the data didn’t “fit, align, parallel” some calculated regression) and adding “that” (the data that does fit some… desired intention – not observation). Warmists can call this deliberate obfuscation of the data a “neat trick” and assert that skeptics are guilty of quote mining along the lines of “hide the decline,” but anyone (again, skeptic or alarmist) with an open mind (and perhaps a mediocre appreciation of common sense) can perceive the hollowness of such… deceit. Thus, your troll comments on the sarcasm are understandable.
Perhaps this is why a majority of Americans think it likely that some climate scientists have *gasp* falsified their papers on global warming – http://tinyurl.com/3wesauw (Rasmussen Reports link). That’s not to say Americans deny global warming’s occurrence but rather question how its impact is being represented or more appropriately – manipulated deliberately (i.e., with intention).
Once again its worth remember that for some all things done to support ‘the cause ‘ are automatically good and justifiable and never mind the facts or the reality of the data . This is not science at work but owes far more to a religions outlook were ‘faith’ in such ‘self evident truths’ overrules all other issues.
[snip. Gratuitous name-calling. If you don’t like it, you can go on the internet and complain. ~dbs, mod.]