Monday Mirthiness – Watch the genesis (and retraction) of a smear

This is hilarious, I finally got a retraction out of Dr. Michael Mann.

The AGW proponents must be reeling from McIntyre’s takedown of Marcott et al, because I watched the most hilarious smear genesis unfold this morning a few minutes after a note about McIntyre’s analysis was sent to Joe Romm of Climate Progress.

First, I sent this note to Romm this morning at 6:40AM PST. It was a little good-natured ribbing over Romm’s extrapolation of the Marcott hockey stick (in red):


I sent a one line note with a link to McIntyre’s latest:


I got his back almost immediately from Romm at 6:45AM PST:

Now you are denying the instrumental record, too?

This made me laugh, because neither Romm’s graph, nor Marcott’s, has the instrumental record in it, only Marcott’s reconstructed temperature and Romm’s red line “projected” add on. Plus, as McIntyre points out, Marcott et al did NOT splice on the instrumental record:

I have consistently discouraged speculation that the Marcott uptick arose from splicing Mannian data or temperature data. I trust that the above demonstration showing a Marcottian uptick merely using proxy data will put an end to such speculation.

Ten minutes later, at 6:55AM PST, this appeared on Dr. Mann’s Twitter feed:


Wait, what?

Coincidence? Maybe, but I don’t think so. Note Mann says “News Alert” and  “now denying”, which implies immediacy. Of course since I am blocked by Mann on Twitter (as are dozens if not hundreds of people), I’m not allowed to post a response, so I have to do it here.

For the record, I don’t “deny” the instrumental record, but I do study it intently. For example, via this peer reviewed paper published in JGR Atmospheres of which I am a co-author:

Fall, S., Watts, A., Nielsen‐Gammon, J. Jones, E. Niyogi, D. Christy, J. and Pielke, R.A. Sr., 2011, Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends, Journal of Geophysical Research, 116, D14120, doi:10.1029/2010JD015146, 2011

Certainly it has gotten warmer in the last 100 years.


It also hasn’t warmed significantly in the past 15+ years, much like that period post 1945 to the late 1970s in the graph above:

My view of the instrumental record is that it is clearly showing some warming, but as I point out many times, some of that warming trend is due to siting biases and adjustments.

Following the initial conversation, over the space of an hour, while starting to write this post, I communicated in several emails to Romm how his characterization of my “denial” of the surface temperature record was wrong, and how the Marcott et al graph he posted on Climate Progress had no instrumental record in it at all, only proxy data and projection:


And, “somehow” this must have been communicated to Dr. Mann, (and If Joe Romm sent my email along, I thank him) because up until this blog post there has been no public discussion here of my supposed “denial of the instrumental record”. Shortly after my last email to Romm at 8:35AM, Dr. Michael Mann, to his credit, tweeted this rare retraction at 8:58AM PST, though he just couldn’t resist getting another jab in:


Watching the reverse denial now of Marcott et al failings, I think we have entered the era of climate satire.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

I really hope at some point the serious science community, computing, engineering, physics,maths,atmospheric physics…. will realise the damage that “climate science” and the “work” they are undertaking is damaging the reputation of science as a whole.


I’d say we’ve now entered the era of “climate farce,” thanks to people like Mann and Romm. Thanks for breaking another hockey stick over their heads.

Kurt in Switzerland

This is funny. Mann & Romm are behaving like scared musk oxen on Baffin Island. Circling with their hind ends to the center to defend against the rabid predators of climate denial, who surprise them by appearing in the center. Tag-teaming musk oxen, with a penchant for face-palming, er, snout-hoofing. Maybe Josh could work on this one.

Willis Eschenbach

You keep poking them with a stick, and I’ll keep popping the popcorn, this is the best show in town these days.

Alex Avery

The whole world gets more and more Wonderland-ish. Thanks Anthony, it’s a real window into who these people really are.


More popcorn please!

Jim Ryan

Also, the term “Climate change denier” is mental gunk, language which makes it impossible for its user to think. Notice Mann slings it around. He’s not stupid. He just knows that it will gunk up the brains of his readers. (“Watts denies that the climate changes?! Wow! I didn’t realize Watts was that out of touch with reality!” Do you see?) The local rag in my town uses the term to smear local deniers of AGW theory, too. (“So-and-so, a climate change denier, said that…”)
No one who thinks the AGW theory is false is a “climate change denier.” They all, to a man, believe that the climate is changing, always has, and always will.
To conflate “climate change” with “AGW” is the sophistical tool of a junk scientist. He can’t sell his theory on the evidence, so he must conflate it with common sense in the language in order to get enough people to be confused enough to accept it, so that he continues to be funded.

John V. Wright

You couldn’t make it up. Oh…hang on….they just did…………………

Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:


New Alert: Michael E Mann doesn’t know the difference between instrumental temperatures and proxy reconstructions.

Great work Anthony. Mann has gone in way too deep in support of Marcott et al. But so did Science and so many blogs and media outlets. Exactly how it will all fall apart and in what order, who knows. Pass that popcorn, Willis.


These guys spend a great deal of time trying to prove something they claim to already proven. sort of like a sand castle at the wave line.


Apparently Michael Mann does know the difference, so I withdraw the claim. But he still thinks it’s ok to mix & match them arbitrarily to create the desired result.

Kurt in Switzerland

I want to know more about the “Ladder of Denial”, with labels on the various rungs.
Does Romm have a posting on this?
Maybe Josh should do a cartoon on the same.
Kurt in Switzerland

John Greenfraud

Has Mann ever publicly retracted a claim? Might be useful in the NRO lawsuit.

Alan A.

I just wish the media would report Mann’s and other similar activists’ pathetic descent in [snip]. But I know it is not going to happen. A farce indeed, but it is becoming rather sad.


The ‘team’ is all in a lather now. It seems they are desperate. They have pulled all the stops and have astronomers joining the cause. It’s pathetic to watch them squeel like children when they don’t get their way.


Due to the need to find a snappy term in the German language, the German media usually used “Klimaleugner”, climate denier, which is even more absurd.
(And yes, the flagship of “German journalism” or what goes for it, Der Spiegel itself did it as well:
The warmists were always fighting a propaganda war and not a scientific cause. They were dishonest to a man from the beginning.


I really hope at some point the serious science community….

The “serious” ones are fully aware of the damage being done by the so-called “climate sciences”, and many are plenty worried about the long term ramifications.
As for me, I look at it in a more positive way. I thank these climate fraudsters for opening my eyes and making me skeptical of everything, which is my recommendation to others. Trust no one, do your own vetting and seek the truth. I believe “climate science” has taught us all (those who wish to learn) this valuable lesson, which I believe needs to be taught and re-learned periodically. The climate cons have us well this time. So what can be at stake if you simply play the role of the sheeple? Don’t be a sheeple!


We actually need a different, and more accurate term for us.. “climate change isn’t as much as what you say it is nor is it caused entirely by what you say it is denier”


“Notice Mann slings it around. He’s not stupid.”
Allow me to strongly disagree with that sentiment. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this entire episode stands as evidence in favor of the proposition.
the behavior of those behind the “science” of “climate change” is now indistinguishable from a pack of junior high girls.

So Mann is saying “Ok, you are right, but you are still a ninny”. That sounds so mature. [snip]

Random Thoughts

It appears that Mann & Co. have figured out how to use GIGO to create more garage out than garbage in. If only there was a way to turn the extra garbage into energy.


“This is funny. Mann & Romm are behaving like scared musk oxen on Baffin Island. Circling with their hind ends to the center to defend against the rabid predators of climate denial, who surprise them by appearing in the center. “
I think their hind ends are pointing outwards. They don’t seem to be able to get anything right.

Kurt in Switzerland

Excellent. Romm & Mann as musk oxen in a circle with their hind ends facing outward.
McIntyre & Watts as polar bears teasing their tails.
Josh should draw it for us!
Kurt in Switzerland


And are any of those involved in the “peer-review” process going to be held accountable?
After-all their approval of this kind of report ensures that $Billions will be wasted worldwide.
No doubt their Teflon reputations and incomes are totally unaffected.

If Mann thinks there’s an instrumental record in Marcott et al, he clearly hasn’t read it. Does that mean he wasn’t one of the peer reviewers? Not necessarily…


Not surprising that Romm and Mann got confused, since it’s traditional in Clymutt Syunts™ to graft the instrument record onto the end of proxy data.

An honest, real scientist would never behave in such a way in a public forum. He should be forced to do janitorial services at PSU. At least something might get cleaned up.


Entered the era? We’ve been there for a long time.

Richard Day

Evidently those “climate scientists” haven’t progressed beyond their own I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I scientific method.


Mann is a reality-denier.

As noted at Tips and Notes, I posted a comment at RealClimate. The primary contributors there work for or are paid by the government. It is hardly surprising that they would support “science” that provides such excellent cover for government incomptetance. I noted that Bloomberg’s papers screamed “this is what global warming looks like” rather than “this is what poor planning for a predictable storm surge looks like”. Dr. Schmidt, Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann know who signs their paychecks and they aren’t going to let anyone slow down their gravy train.


You’ll enjoy this;
Joe Romm says:
March 8, 2013 at 3:38 pm
Uhh, I’m running climate blog here so you should pretty much expect posts on climate science and solutions and politics. If you don’t understand the purpose of this blog, I can assure you, tens of thousands of people do. It is not only the most widely read climate science blog in the world, it is also the fastest growing in social media. We’re very much an expanding circle.

NZ Willy

I got tired of being attributed by others of things which I neither said nor did, so now I pass on only those things which I witness first-hand. The medium is the message, so allocate blame 50% Romm, 50% Twitter — but Romm at least fixed his mistake.

Michael D Smith

I wonder what metric prefix is typically used when measuring the thickness of Michael Mann’s skin… Zepto has a nice ring to it.


It is beyond funny (or sad) that these “experts” didn’t understand where the uptick came from. Way to go Anthony!


Warmists’ responses to McIntyre and Watts: But… but… but…
Adding Warmist “butter” to the popcorn makes it even more tasty. 🙂


Well – you were against it before you were for it – written by your biographer Michael Mann. And he is, as I understand is from a Canadian point of view, one of America’s great fiction writers of his day.


Hmmm… amazing, to actually get a retraction from Mann … but not much else has changed – still prefers to argue on the basis of labeling and denigrating.
Seems to be some error in Joe Romm’s Marcott chart ? Blue is proxy temp? It shows a recent new record temperature but it still should be lower at the recent peak than for 25% of the Holocene.

“Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends… Certainly it has gotten warmer in the last 100 years.”
And if we examine the Suns exposure on instruments which influence on the Historical temperature record. If we were to remove it’s signal this claimed “warming” over the last 100 years would decrease further.
Oxford: 1865-2012
Stornoway: 1875-2012
Armagh: 1875-2012

Richard G

Climate Farce : Cow Methane as Romm, Mann : Bloviation

Mark Bofill

I must say I’m most curious about exactly what Romm said to get the response ‘LOL! Legal already? There’s no threat here, only a discussion of facts, and I’m allowed to defend myself when Mann reacts like that.’ from Anthony. Was Romm feeling threatened? Threatening a lawsuit? Anticipating one? What on earth was going on there? Wish I was a fly on the wall for that exchange! 🙂

Luther Wu

Hey Mike-
I know it’s somewhat moot at this point since you are on “permanent sabbatical”, but
State pen instead of Penn State- I’m in the US- sue me!

Is anyone here really surprised that both Romm and Mann are confused over what is and what is not the instrument record?

Could it be that Romm is in charge of Mann’s Twitter feed? As he said “It is not only the most widely read climate science blog in the world, it is also the fastest growing in social media. We’re very much an expanding circle.”


Now wait a minute….I thought the whole purpose of global warming was to give some credibility to a field of science, and the people in it, that had previously been the laughing stock……..
They’re back sliding again…………50% chance of weather tomorrow

Louis Hooffstetter

I must issue my own retraction and an apology:
I was convinced Mann was complicit in the statistical torture of Marcott et al.’s data. However, it’s clear from his tweet that he was truly convinced they spliced historical temperature data onto proxy data. I was wrong, so I apologize.
But let’s think this through:
Mann’s been doing the Snoopy dance since this ‘goat entrail’ paper was published. The fact that he believed Marcott et al. spliced historical temperature data onto proxy data (and condoned it) confirms he is not a true scientist. It confirms he is one of the worst climastrologists evah!

Duke C.

“‘LOL! Legal already? There’s no threat here, only a discussion of facts…”
What is the context here? did Romm threaten legal action?

Richard M

In the future this period may go down as the romm-mann warm period. It really wasn’t that warm thermally but the heated exchanges more than made up for it.