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.
Mann twitted a response to a request for a rebuttal to McIntyre,
“For the time being, the disturbingly bad track record & documented past misbehavior should suffice”
It looks like Mann is finally admitting to “past misbehavior”.
“Certainly it has gotten warmer in the last 100 years.”
And to think they had to stick a thumb tack at the fifty year point and turn the graph counter clockwise to double the warming and get rid of the pesky 1936 record and then, for good measure, triple climate sensitivity to get a hockey stick projection.
As someone who was trained as a scientist, it really makes me sad to see the state that climate science is in. Given how far technology has developed in the past century (satellites to monitor the planet’s climate 24/7? that’s mind bogglingly incredible!), this should be a fascinating and wonderful time to be in the climate science field. The amount and breadth of data we can collect now is just beyond comprehension.
Sadly, instead of this field being full of lively scientific debate and discussion, it’s a sad example of putting conclusions before evidence, ignoring the scientific method, and using ad hominem attacks to “win” arguments that would otherwise be lost. It’s sad to see adults in a scientific field reduced to petty name calling. Mann and his cohorts are a disgrace to science. Using the word ‘denier’ to try to minimize someone’s argument, or to attempt to shame people away from healthy skepticism, is thoroughly anti-science.
I guess advocacy just pays a hell of a lot better than actual science.
Now that the Club of Rome’s chief lie (cLIEmate) is wearing thin, expect some new shenanigans to be played. Perhaps the Cyprus Dip is a signal that the ptb know the game’s up and it’s time to dispense with the gloves. Last year we had a rather unsettling announcement on the propaganda, ahem, radio news, to the effect that the German Army is once again permitted to use tanks on German soil, for assisting with civil disturbances, cough cough. The reassuring part of the cheerful report was that such a compassionate decision cannot be made by one person, so I’m hanging my hopes on there not being TWO genocidal scumbags in the chain of command in Berlin. Impossible, never ever been heard of. Hmmm, perhaps I’ll merely end up hanging. Btw, does live cremation count as carbon sequestration, or is it more along the lines of carbon footprint reduction? Nothing new under the sun. Must check that footnote in the Lisbon treaty again…
@jim Ryan Says: “Notice Mann slings it around. He’s not stupid.”
I’m sorry, but I disagree. He hasn’t enough wit to be anything but a bully. I’ve thought this ever since the first “Climategate” emails were released. It’s sad to watch this unfold. How pathetic!
Bryan A,
Give it a rest with all the tripe about bullying. This is bad behavior on the part of a child, coming into the room whining and screaming about the truth being spoken out loud. No matter how loudly the child screams, how often they kick your ankles or how many times they throw themselves in the floor as the hold their breath…it won’t work. Not with real adults like Anthony and Steve Mc and Willis. Unbullyable all. (To coin a word).
It is just a fact. Strong people cannot be bullied. They can be wronged. They can be punished. They can be tortured. They can even be killed. But the choice to be bullied is just that, a choice and Anthony has obviously made the choice to keep moving forward to the beat of his own drummer and ignore, or tweak, or embarrass those who want to be bullies, but ultimately prove out to be nothing more than small children who have been left crying in the school yard.
Bryan A
I have in the past stated I believe Dr. Mann to exhibit at least 5 traits of a narcissist.
He is certainly a bully.
DaveE.
Does Michael Mann do any actual work ? He seems to be on Twitter 24/7.
You really pwned him this time, Anthony! Good for your relentless spirit. It must frustrate Romm no end. His tactic of just repeated nonsensical fallacies and hoping it will pass, probably works within his coterie of beer-siphon-hat swilling comrades. Not for us true blue climate scare deniers.
Anthony that uptick is Romm’s scythe. See Mann’s Facebook for reason.
Ha!… that last tweet by Mann made me laugh!
Good job Anthony!
Name calling is always the resort of those with no arguments. And of the scoundrel
Sadly however, there are still thousands in positions of influence who believe Mann, Romm, and all the Team to be ‘scientists’ and blindly believe them on those grounds alone. Equally most of those people, inc their cheerleaders in the media and most politicians, lack to scientific and statistical understanding to grasp the scale of the fraud. And they have no wish to learn or to question.
I’m more than ever glad I never had children. This whole insane situation drives me crazy enough as it is.
Re Stu……Maybe his wife already is. That would explain the facial expression he seems to be saddled with. in fact it would explain a lot.
So, basically, that’s all they’ve got now to hang their hat on. The instrument record….
There is one take away from this all. If we did not know before, we know now. Joe has Mike on speed dial.
Sam The First….Having no children is in this debate the ultimate answer to all other arguments. Their entire whine always defaults to “what about the children”. No children = no issue. Moreover, always mention it when referring to Ecos who have children. Having children makes them responsible for 100% more than your enmtire lifetimes effect for every one they have. So by their yardstick they are indelibly culpable. Traitors to their cause in fact.
In fact, I see no reason why anyone should have children. Under any circumstances. Its utterly absurd. Except when children are a necessary economic investment in ones own age. Which is not absurd, but exploitation to the point of evil: Oh I love you son, I created you to look after me when Im old.
Thats just slavery.
I’m surprised that Romm et al still use the term ‘climate denier.’ Romm even tried to quit the booze once: http://www.masterresource.org/2012/07/league-conservation-voters-denier/.
It’s always sad and funny to watch people with no children try to tell people what it’s like to have kids. They are always wrong.
The Mann is a wonderful tool for scepticism, praise him when ever you can.
His pronouncements and demeanour have done more for turning public opinion, than most ,of the science, rebuttal of nonsense and knowledge of history combined.
I could call the Mann a force of nature, as only the behaviour of nature has done more to discredit the cause.
Encourage the mann.
Yes, I am proud to be a denier.
I deny that black equals white.
I deny that 1 == 999.
I deny that slavery is just.
I deny that dictatorships represent a sound form of government.
I deny the earth is flat.
I deny there is any proof that man-made CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming (or other climate change).
I deny that making energy unavailable and unaffordable for individuals or businesses will benefit mankind or the planet.
I deny tons of stuff. So go ahead and label me a denier.
Michael Palmer says:
March 18, 2013 at 3:55 pm
DirkH says:
March 18, 2013 at 2:11 pm
squid2112 says:
Michael Palmer says:
March 18, 2013 at 3:55 pm
DirkH says:
March 18, 2013 at 2:11 pm
squid2112 says:“ … 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.”
Agreed. It’s the Eugenics of our time.
—
False analogy. Eugenics has a sound scientific basis; at its core, it is nothing else but the application of the principle of selective breeding to the human race. This latter principle has been used widely and successfully to with domestic animals and crop plants, and I have not seen any scientific argument why this should not work with humans. The objections that keep us from using it are ethical in nature, not scientific.
======================
@ur momisugly Michael Palmer:
Sorry, but eugenics is in fact an excellent analogy. At the time it enjoyed its greatest support (1890-1939), people who earned a good income or belonged to certain social groups or professions were regarded as eugenically fit. The poor were not: it was assumed they were poor because they were stupid, and deserved it. Eugenics thinking in the US and Canada especially was not allied to any concern about people’s economic circumstances or upbringing: if you failed to get a good education it was because you were a moron, not because your parents’ abject poverty prevented this from occurring.
In the case of Doris Buck, a black girl growing up in the US in the 1930s, she was sterilized as a pre-teen because a white boy got her sister, a household servant, pregnant through raping her. Doris was mentally normal but was classified as mentally subnormal owing to the need for a privileged family to sweep an inconvenient ‘mishap’ under the social carpet: her sister was insitutionalized. The eugenically fit in the US also included white people, but not African Americans or Asians or Hispanics; in Canada the Ukrainians and Roman Catholics were considered eugenic targets in western provinces. Not a heck of a lot of science drove eugenics: it was a cesspit of class and racial prejudices.
Eugenics was undermined by real scientists like Lancelot Hogben and Leonard Huxley who found that human intelligence and other important traits were not a simple matter of Mendelian inheritance, and highlighted the role of unforeseen and unpreventable mutations. We don’t have one gene for intelligence and another for stupidity, as was blindly assumed by advocates of eugenics. And normal parents can have children with disabilities, as has occurred in my case. Eugenics was purely a politically driven attempt at social engineering, much like modern climate ‘science’.
You might object that modern science would enable a workable breeding program for human beings to improve the race. Aside from the obvious moral problems, which human traits need to be bred for? This turns out to be a knottier scientific problem than probably many would assume, as a lot of subjective assumptions would drive the breeding program.
The shoddy so-called ‘science’ that underlay eugenics should never be lost sight of, lest we give the social manipulators who used fear to gain support for this program an undeserved pass. As science, eugenics was a MASSIVE fail – just as CAGW has been more recently, with an obvious promoter and MANNipulator deserving the derision being served up in this thread.
Anthony, given your popular success in the climate science dialog it is reasonable that you had the stature to get a retraction from Mann. Thank you.
– – – – – – –
I suggest to think of Mann the following way:
John
RossP says:
March 18, 2013 at 4:50 pm
Does Michael Mann do any actual work ? He seems to be on Twitter 24/7.
====
Could be early stage Gavinitis.
[snip . . not helpful . . mod]
The ‘Mann’ has died at the Hotel ‘Marrcott.’
Wasting a’way at zee l’otel Marr’cott.
Such a Lovely Place … Such an Ugly Face.
Plenty of room at zee l’otel Marr’cott.
The ‘Mann’ has died … Without an Alibi.
XD