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.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1912/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1912/trend
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:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/trend
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/08/1691411/bombshell-recent-warming-is-amazing-and-atypical-and-poised-to-destroy-stable-climate-that-made-civilization-possible/#comment-771141
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.
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.
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
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/oxford-average-november-sunspot-number-and-march-minimum-temperature-1865-2012.gif
http://wp.me/p1f2qz-6f
Stornoway: 1875-2012
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/stornoway-nov-ssn-v-mar-tmin-1875-2012.gif
http://wp.me/p1f2qz-69
Armagh: 1875-2012
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/nov-ssn-v-feb-tmin-1875-20121.gif
http://wp.me/p1f2qz-5u
Climate Farce : Cow Methane as Romm, Mann : Bloviation
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! 🙂
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
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!
“‘LOL! Legal already? There’s no threat here, only a discussion of facts…”
What is the context here? did Romm threaten legal action?
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.