Dr. Michael Mann's dishonest political messaging

Here are some old WUWT comments on the hockey stick’s replication–or not:
————————-
Manfred says:
October 25, 2012 at 10:27 pm
All so familiar…from the Wegman Report:
“…Generally speaking, the paleoclimatology community has not recognized the validity of the [McIntyre and McKitrick] papers and has tended dismiss their results as being developed by biased amateurs. The paleoclimatology community seems to be tightly coupled as indicated by our social network analysis, has rallied around the [Mann] position, and has issued an extensive series of alternative assessments most of which appear to support the conclusions of MBH98/99… Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.
It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent.
Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on [Mann’s work]. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility…”
http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/06/the-wegman-and-north-reports-for-newbies/
Craig Loehle says:
October 23, 2012 at 3:04 pm
According to Mann, a study is only science if it comes to the same conclusion as his own work, so by definition all subsequent work has “replicated” his results, since if it did not it does not exist. Thus multiple reconstructions that come to different conclusions were left out of IPCC reports, and in Mann’s book he claims that “NO studies” show a warmer MWP, when I have personally a whole file drawer full of papers indicating a warm MWP.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/18/yet-another-paper-demonstrates-warmer-temperatures-1000-years-ago-and-even-2000-years-ago/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/new-paper-confirms-the-climate-was-warmer-1000-years-ago/
[powerful]
http://climateaudit.org/2012/10/16/forensic-bioinformatics/#more-17077
[Steve notes parallels to the case of Mann in a recent scientific scandal.]
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/17/another-paper-refutes-the-mann-made-hockey-stick-mwp-was-1c-warmer-than-current-temperatures/
[Actually, it says the temp was the same.]
Smokey says:
You are absolutely correct about the upside-down Tiljander proxy. But you are too kind in allowing that Mann ‘made a mistake’. Dr Tiljander had informed Mann before he published that she discovered that her sediment proxy was corrupted. But MANN USED IT ANYWAY because it gave him the hockey stick shape he wanted.
Mann did not make a ‘mistake’. He deliberatly engaged in scientific misconduct.
ferdberple says:
July 9, 2012 at 6:37 pm
The divergence problem is a mathematical artifact of calibration. Formally known as “selection on the dependent variable”, it is a statistical flaw in the methodology that creates bias in the results. This bias leads to divergence at the calibration boundaries, and misleading results over the proxy period.
In other words, it isn’t the trees that are at fault. It is the knuckleheads looking at the tree cores that have improperly applied amplifier technology to statistics, thinking they were inventing a better way to look at noisy data. What they invented instead was a way to amplify noise, while making it look like signal. They fooled not only themselves, but most of the world as well.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/12/the-longest-most-high-resolution-most-inconvenient-paleoclimate-data-that-hasnt-been-published/
[Anatarctica shows MWP, declining long-term temp. Law Dome date—from Climate audit. Very important.]
Bill Illis says:
June 13, 2012 at 5:46 am
The do18 proxy is the best temperature proxy we have. Yet the pro-AGW posters do their best to denigrate it.
On the other hand, tree-rings are the worst temperature proxy that we have and the pro-AGW posters believe the tree ring data without question.
This whole science is like that. It’s not science, it’s choosing which data to believe. It’s a “belief system”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/09/jo-nova-chronicles-the-snapping-of-the-gergis-hockey-stick/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/08/american-meteorological-society-disappears-gergis-et-al-paper-on-proxy-temperature-reconstruction-after-post-peer-review-finds-fatal-flaws/
richard verney says:
June 9, 2012 at 2:33 am
John Bills says:
June 8, 2012 at 3:56 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////
As you rightly infer, it is a damning indictment of both the quality of the science and of the quality of peer review. If it was not for pal review, the errors ought to have beem picked up prioer to publication and the paper either corrected or rejected.
This affiar is an endorsement of the need to provide all code and data sets whenever a paper is published, it is also an endorsement of the effectiveness of independent review by ‘amateur’ scientists and demonstrates the value of their independent input and review.
To read about how the takedown came about, I suggest this excellent summary from Bishop Hill as the technical details are rather thick: Another Hockey Stick broken
The problems with the paper in a nutshell:
upside down proxy data again
preselection of data, ignoring the whole set in many cases
though they tried to justify preselection, the paper’s methodology doesn’t hold up (circular reasoning)
inability to replicate given the data and methods used
mpaul says:
May 8, 2012 at 7:39 am
For people who want a more accessible explanation of Mann’s statistical parlor tricks, I would suggests Andrew Montford’s book “The Hockey Stick Illusion”. Montford does a good job of detailing how the Yamal and Tiljander tricks work. The reason the Press hasn’t gotten on to is because the math that Mann uses is somewhat sophisticated. Most journalists have simply never encountered math at this level and they are intimidated by it. The short summary is that Mann has invented a variant of a well known statistical tool known as PCA. Mann’s version of PCA has never been reviewed in the statistical literature. McIntyre has demonstrated conclusively that Mannian PCA mines for the presence of hockey stick shapes within the data and then imposes those shapes onto the composite of all data. So if you have thousands of time series (proxies) all showing no trend and you add just one series that has a hockey stick shape to the mix, Mann’s PCA method will output a hockey stick shape as a high order principle component for the entire composite of all proxies. So all Mann [or a replicator] needs to do to manufacture hockey sticks from any data is to always include at least one series with a hockey stick shape.
David A says:
March 11, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Which of the folowing has Mann not done?
From the National Association of Scholars website:
“How to detect an obvious fraud:”
• If a researcher will not show their raw data.
• If a researcher will not show the “adjustments” they have made to their raw data.
• If the researchers historical “adjusted data” conflict rather dramatically with other generally accepted data sets without any rational explanation.
• If a researcher will not show the internals of the model that processes their adjusted data to produce their results.
• If a researcher attempts to destroy anybody who disagrees with them, instead of attempting to refute their position.
• If a researcher attempts to destroy their raw data/adjustments/models rather than have them released.
• If a researcher attempts to destroy their communications with other researchers rather than have them released.”
JJ says:
March 11, 2012 at 2:58 pm
It isn’t just stupid logic. It is a particular brand of stupid logic: consensus logic. According to consensus logic, Mann is correct because his results agree with Wahl, and Wahl is correct because his results agree with Mann. They are both correct, because they agree. This bootstrap loop can be expanded to include anyone who agrees, and the number who agree becomes further “proof” of correctness, to be used to obtain yet more agreement. Rinse, repeat.

@Alan the Brit says:
October 9, 2013 at 3:19 am
“I can understand that when faced with desperate situation, e.g. time of war, lying to the enemy. However the bottom line is, some people believe it is ok toile, especially for a “noble” cause whatever that may be, but for me, brought up with Judaic-Christian beliefs, a lie, is a lie, is a lie when all said & done!”
So… how do you handle that dreaded question, “Does this outfit make me look fat?”

Bill Illis says:
October 8, 2013 at 5:45 pm
This PPP survey of likely voters is the first to show McAuliffe over 50%. Cuccinelli is hurt by the Libertarian candidate, but that won’t matter if the Democrat can stay over 50%.
VA has a lot of furloughed federal workers, although how can they really object now that they’re getting paid not to work?
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/politico-poll-government-shutdown-backlash-terry-mcauliffe-ken-cuccinelli-virginia-governor-election-97953.html
PPP is a Democrat polling firm, but other surveys find Cuccinelli behind, too, as McAuliffe has worked the “War on Women” theme so popular & effective in recent elections.
Mann may never be called to task for his frauds.

Roger Knights (2:42am today) WELL DONE! Thank you for all that research. That must have taken quite awhile. I sure admire your perseverance. As D. B. (a.k.a. “Smokey) said, well worth the effort for it may help a genuine seeker of science truth to reject the lies and distortions of AGW.
*****************************
[WARNING TO ALL “Physics Major” (see Robert Simpson’s above comment) types who detest such things — OFF TOPIC — GO TO NEXT POST if not interested]
Re: “Does this make me look fat?”
WWS is precisely right — the honest, but unhelpful, answer is, “No.”
If you want to be helpful to her (always a “her,” I think, lol) when it DOES “make” her look fat:
1) put down the paper or whatever and actually look carefully at her (and maintain your focus on HER throughout the entire conversation — you can do it! — less than 5 minutes will be necessary);
2) don’t hesitate too long;
3) say:
A. “I don’t like it. It’s not you, it’s the skirt (or whatever). That style would make ANY healthy woman and especially a woman with such lovely, feminine, curves (yes, this would actually, in some cases mean “fat,” but say it anyway because part of that fat IS her lovely curves) like yours look heavy because of the way it’s cut. Only a way-too-skinny woman could wear that. It must have been designed by a man.” Then, remind her of clothing she DOES look good in (NO NOT A SWIMSUIT OR NEGLIGEE — she knows why you think she looks good in that kind of apparel — THAT is all about (in her mind, anyway) YOU and this conversation, just for 5 minutes, needs to be all about her), e.g., “if that skirt were like the black, swingy, one you wore…” or “you look GREAT in those navy trousers; those are a first class design and well-made, not cheap-looking like those… .”
B. Then, if you are her husband …. show her that she is, indeed, physically attractive to you (THAT is what she is really worried about, you know) in whatever way you think will be effective (but, NOT something that she will quickly realize is purely self-gratification — just something little, like stroking her cheek with the back of your fingers and saying, “It’s hard for me to give you fashion advice; you are always beautiful in my eyes.” — at some level, she is, you know; if you do NOT know that, then, work on realizing it! There is NO non-evil woman in this world who isn’t beautiful in some way.).
Rule for marriage happiness #1: “It’s my job to love __, it’s God’s job to make __ good (or improve, etc…).” Leave it to her sister or a magazine to help her with her physical appearance. She knows her flaws, believe me. She needs all the support she can get from you.
OKAY, OKAY, I know there will be someone who thinks, “But, there are women (and men) who really NEED and would welcome a hint.” Let them ask for the advice. You knew what a slob or poor dresser he or she was before you married her or him. (if he or she has put on a lot of weight after marriage, approach it as a health issue) Communicate, i.e., come up with a deal where they agree to ask when in doubt, so you can help them walk about town not looking like they just got off the little bus from the mental institution (not because appearance is important per se, but because how one dresses affects how people treat you and you want your loved one to be respected and valued — you can use this to help them to be willing to ask for that advice…).