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.
Oh, Jeeeeez. His name might be “Mann” but he’s such a child, he really is. I mean, seriously, when all you have is name-calling it’s just so pathetic and sad. Wish I could laugh about it like you, Anthony, but I can’t. Sigh.
Dr. Michael Mann has, by posting disparaging Tweets containing inflammatory language regarding Anthony Watts’ conclusions concerning Global Warming / Climate change / Global Climate Disruption / Extreme Weather events, etc… and then not allowing Mr. Watts to reply in kind to the very same group of peers (Dr. Mann’s Twitter followers) is in fact committing a form of Cyber Bullying. The responding Tweets that are allowed by his “Friends” which then affirm Dr. Mann’s position and speak against Mr. Watts are a form of Cyber Mobbing. Unless Mr. Watts is allowed to respond directly to and in the same forum as Dr. Mann’s comments, Dr. Mann is no better than the School Yard Bully who picks on the other students and his twitter followers are no better than the Bully’s Lieutenants.
Speaking as someone that has been repeatedly Physically Bullied, Harassed and even Mobbed through school, I know what is involved and what constitutes Bullying.
Bullying definitions and citations are listed below
Bullying is a form of aggressive behavior in which someone intentionally and repeatedly causes another person injury or discomfort. Bullying can take the form of physical contact, words or more subtle actions.
The bullied individual typically has trouble defending him or herself and does nothing to “cause” the bullying. (1)
In 2011 President Barak Obama attended the White House conference on Bullying Prevention
“If there’s one goal of this conference, it’s to dispel the myth that bullying is just a harmless rite of passage or an inevitable part of growing up. It’s not.” That’s how the President explained the first-ever White House Conference on Bullying Prevention during the opening session of the day-long summit. And judging by the attention, passion, and intense interest that the issue has generated over the past few days, it’s a sentiment that millions of Americans share, and hopefully all of this discussion will help those who want to break unfortunate traditions to realize they’re not strange or alone.(2)
Online bullying doesn’t necessarily harm only young people.
Cyber bullying among preteens and teens has increased dramatically in recent years as young people spend more time socializing online, according to the Second Youth Internet Safety Survey.
Cyber bullying includes sending hurtful or threatening e-mails or instant messages, spreading rumors or posting embarrassing photos of others.
Not all students feel distress when they’re victims of such online bullying, say the researchers.
They found that only 38 percent of those bullied said such incidents made them very upset or afraid.
Bullying was most likely to cause worry when it involved offline contact or an adult harasser.
That distress can have an impact offline, the researchers found. (3)
From WIKIPEDIA
Bullying is the use of force or coercion to abuse or intimidate others. The behavior can be habitual and involve an imbalance of social or physical power. It can include verbal harassment or threat, physical assault or coercion and may be directed repeatedly towards particular victims, perhaps on grounds of race, religion, gender, sexuality, or ability. If bullying is done by a group, it is called mobbing. The victim of bullying is sometimes referred to as a “target”.
Bullying can be defined in many different ways. The UK currently has no legal definition of bullying, while some U.S. states have laws against it. Bullying consists of three basic types of abuse – emotional, verbal, and physical. It typically involves subtle methods of coercion such as intimidation.
Bullying ranges from simple one-on-one bullying to more complex bullying in which the bully may have one or more “lieutenants” who may seem to be willing to assist the primary bully in his or her bullying activities. Bullying in school and the workplace is also referred to as peer abuse. (4)
Cyber Bullying
Legal definition
Cyber bullying is defined in legal glossaries as
actions that use information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended to harm another or others.
use of communication technologies for the intention of harming another person
use of internet service and mobile technologies such as web pages and discussion groups as well as instant messaging or SMS text messaging with the intention of harming another person.
Examples of what constitutes cyber bullying include communications that seek to intimidate, control, manipulate, put down, falsely discredit, or humiliate the recipient. The actions are deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior intended to harm another. Cyber bullying has been defined by The National Crime Prevention Council: “When the Internet, cell phones or other devices are used to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person.”
A cyber bully may be a person whom the target knows or an online stranger. A cyber bully may be anonymous and may solicit involvement of other people online who do not even know the target. This is known as a ‘digital pile-on.'(5)
(1) http://www.apa.org/topics/bullying/index.aspx
(2) http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/10/president-obama-first-lady-white-house-conference-bullying-prevention
(3) http://www.apa.org/topics/bullying/online.aspx
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying
(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Bullying
I am tired of being called a “Climate Change Denier”! I’m going to start calling then “Climate Change Exaggerators”. Use their verbiage against them so to speak.
Mikey Mann . . . The only thing he is disappearing is his credibility.
He still has to have a little dig and ad hom you with the usual ‘denier’ rubbish … Perhaps one of his friends should buy him some crayons and a colouring book …
If the warmers had it their way the hockey stick would or could have never been in vented (no Ice hockey).
@Robert of ottawa –
Funny that McKibben rails at white climate “deniers” – when it’s people of color that will suffer the most from the alarmist agenda, while white fat cats like Al Gore – and yes, Hansen and Mann – get richer.
RangerRick,
Some of these heated gassy obfuscators qualify easily for “Climate Change Hysterics” or “Climate Change Chicken Littles”
I wish I could be a Michael Mann denier.
RangerRick says:
March 18, 2013 at 12:13 pm
I am tired of being called a “Climate Change Denier”! I’m going to start calling then “Climate Change Exaggerators”. Use their verbiage against them so to speak.
———-
How about ‘CO2 Celebrators’? I’m a CO2 celebrator…
Nah, it doesn’t flow right.
Never bothered me being called a ‘denier’. I’ve been called worse. 😉
@Bryan A –
Obama on bullying – what color is hypocrisy? GREEN! What effrontery, for the Bully-in-Chief! He needs to take a good look in the mirror, and as you point out, Bryan, bullying can be done by surrogates. He doesn’t have to get his hands dirty himself.
Of course it’s OK for Mann et al to bully skeptics. The whole premise of AGW can’t be sustained without bullying – and lying, and deception – because it can’t be sustained by reason and facts.
Just for the record, what does it look like if DO add the 1920-2010 instrument record to Marcott et al.,?
I don’t think their uptick match’s the instruments.
Whenever I see Mann’s picture he always looks like one of those pictures of bank robbers with stockings over their heads. In his case, it’s always a 10 denier stocking – and we can see right through it.
I’m always struck by how Mikey’s twitter photo reminds me of this fellow:
http://media.photobucket.com/user/kenshin_top/media/lenin_fahne_plakat.jpg.html?filters%5Bterm%5D=lenin&filters%5Bprimary%5D=images&sort=1&o=148
What does this all say about the relationship between Mann and Romm?
“The Team” sure seems to be a close-knit bunch. I wonder who their “coach” is.
Consider the flagrant incoherence of Michael Mann’s tweet:
He acknowledges that Anthony does not “deny” warming in temp. records and immediately says “but he’s still a #climatechange #denier”
Either that is logically incompetent on Mann’s part, or he has some bizarre definition of “climate change denier” which includes people who explicitly affirm (temp.) climate change.
Is Michael Mann an imbecile or truly an obsessively dishonest propagandist?
@MichaelMannScientist #climatechange #incoherent #propaganda
DocMartyn says:
Just for the record, what does it look like if DO add the 1920-2010 instrument record to Marcott et al.,?
Do you mean the actual instrumental record, or do you mean HadCrud ?
They are two totally different things.
If/when the CAGW crowd realizes that Marcott et. al. is bogus, they will simply stop praising it. Rachel Maddow has verified the accuracy of Marcott. There will be no retractions, no apologies. The damage to science has been done.
@WWSchmidt…..You must mean apack of “Weather-Heather”.
Michael Mann and the other extreme AGW paradigm pushers are in denial, avoiding the painful truth. Observations and analysis do not support the extreme AGW paradigm. The planet’s response to a change in forcing is to resist the change (negative feedback) rather than positive feedback (amplify) the warming. There is no extreme AGW problem to solve.
Will the AGW paradigm pushers take responsibility for the billions of dollars that have been wasted on the scams?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/16/article-2294560-18B8846F000005DC-184_634x427.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/18/newsbytes-climate-scientists-turn-skeptical-as-climate-predictions-fail/
http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000- 2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. The present analysis accounts for the 72 day precession period for the ERBE satellite in a more appropriate manner than in the earlier paper. We develop a method to distinguish noise in the outgoing radiation as well as radiation changes that are forcing SST changes from those radiation changes that constitute feedbacks to changes in SST. We demonstrate that our new method does moderately well in distinguishing positive from negative feedbacks and in quantifying negative feedbacks. In contrast, we show that simple regression methods used by several existing papers generally exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative. We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. ….
…The heart of the global warming issue is so-called greenhouse warming. This refers to the fact that the earth balances the heat received from the sun (mostly in the visible spectrum) by radiating in the infrared portion of the spectrum back to space. Gases that are relatively transparent to visible light but strongly absorbent in the infrared (greenhouse gases) interfere with the cooling of the planet, forcing it to become warmer in order to emit sufficient infrared radiation to balance the net incoming sunlight (Lindzen, 1999). By net incoming sunlight, we mean that portion of the sun’s radiation that is not reflected back to space by clouds, aerosols and the earth’s surface. CO2, a relatively minor greenhouse gas, has increased significantly since the beginning of the industrial age from about 280 ppmv to about 390 ppmv, presumably due mostly to man’s emissions. This is the focus of current concerns. However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth. Cloud feedbacks are still considered to be highly uncertain (IPCC, 2007), but the fact that these feedbacks are strongly positive in most models is considered to be an indication that the result is basically correct. Methodologically, this is unsatisfactory. Ideally, one would seek an observational test of the issue. Here we suggest that it may be possible to test the issue with existing data from satellites.
The claim of warming based on hadcru data is unjustified. There are no measured global temps prior to the satellite era. Certainly not for the polar regions or most of the global ocean.
The trend line plot is also not evidence of warming. The plotted temp for 2012 is not significantly warmer than 1912. No error bars implies no information. Measurement errors are certainly greater than 1Celsius for the 1912 data. Not to mention that pooling data from tropical climates with polar climates is also gibberish.
Here is a more realistic plot.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/to:1980/plot/rss-land/plot/uah-land
Biased data is bad data. Rejecting known biased data is justified.
Examine a few surface stations known for higher quality data, or known corrections for TOBS or UHI bias.
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/europe/western-europe-rural-temperature-trend.php
No warming since measurements began.
Examine Antarctic science stations with good data since 1957. No warming. There is no reason to claim that those polar stations are immune from “global warming” if CO2 is the cause.
The conclusion is obvious. The null hypothesis prevails.
Well, it’ll take some time for them to turn around. I mean, they have to come up with something that shows they got the idea FIRST – so there’s some data adjustment to do and some record changing and a little bit of modelling, but they’ll soon be out there saying they led the way out of madness and could they please have some funding to work out how Gaia failed them and the polar bears let them down.
Go easy on Mr Mann I think as he ages he will admit his mistake a bit like the fellow who slaughtered 40000 elephants because he thought it damaged land. He unreservedly apologised for his mistake at an older age LOL
EBSFDNC: If you have to ask, you’ll never know.
They’re not called The Team for nothing.
My earliest suspicions of the hoax arose because of the meticulously co-ordinated nature of the PR campaign.
Now we’re wise to their every trick.
We know who the activists are, we know who the ‘s’cientists are and we know who their buddies in the media are.
This is the kind of intelligence you need to win the war.