The Inventor of the Global-Warming 'Hockeystick' Doubles Down

Professor Michael Mann, if you see something, say something – or maybe just keep your mouth shut

Guest essay by  Dr. Fred Singer

Professor Michael Mann, the inventor of the Hockeystick temperature graph, had a contentious editorial essay in the January 17th issue of the New York Times. [The Hockeystick graph purports to show that temperatures of the last thousand years declined steadily — until the 20th century, when there was a sudden large rise.]

I am using the word “inventor” on purpose, since the Hockeystick is a manufactured item and does not correspond to well-established historic reality. It does not show the generally beneficial Medieval Warm Period (MWP) at around 1000AD, or the calamitous Little Ice Age (LIA) between about 1400 and 1800. In the absence of any thermometers during most of this period, the Hockeystick is based on an analysis of so-called proxy data, mostly tree rings, from before 1000AD to 1980, at which point the proxy temperature suddenly stops and a rapidly rising thermometer record is joined on.

image

Since its publication in 1998 and 1999, the hockeystick graph has had a turbulent history. It was adopted by the IPCC (UN-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in its 3rd Assessment Report (2001) to support the claim of a major anthropogenic global warming (AGW) during the 20th century. Since then, the IPCC has distanced itself from the graph, which has been completely discredited. It not disagrees not only with much historic evidence that shows a MWP and LIA, but also with other analyses of proxy data. Most of the criticism has come from the work of two Canadian statisticians, Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who have uncovered a misuse of data, a biased calibration procedure, and fundamental errors in the statistical methods.

McKitrick, an econometrician at Guelph University in Canada, has a pungent comment on Mann’s op-ed, which had been titled “If you see something, say something.”

“OK, I see a second-rate scientist carrying on like a jackass and making a public nuisance of himself.”

I have added my own comment as follows: “OK, I want to say something too: I see an ideologue, desperately trying to support a hypothesis that’s been falsified by observations. While the majority of climate alarmists are trying to discover a physical reason that might just save the AGW hypothesis, Mann simply ignores the ‘inconvenient truth’ that the global climate has not warmed significantly for at least the past 15 years — while emissions of greenhouse gases have surged globally.”

Of course, this is not the first time that “hide the decline” Mike has done this.  Remember his “Nature trick” — so much admired by his ‘Climategate team’ mates? [For those who don’t remember the 2009 Climategate scandal: It consisted of a leak of some thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia, involving mainly Michael Mann and several of his English colleagues, documenting their completely unethical attempts to suppress any contrary opinions and publications from climate skeptics by misusing the peer-review process and by pressuring editors of scientific journals– unfortunately, with some success.]

We don’t quite know yet what the “Nature trick” refers to — until we get Michael Mann to tell us why he has refused to reveal his never-published post-1980 proxy data. We may have to wait until we have him on the witness stand and under oath. But I strongly suspect that it has to do with absence of any temperature increase after 1980; its publication would have created a conflict with the reported (and problematic) thermometer data and with the assertion by the IPCC that humans are responsible for such a temperature rise.

In actuality, we now have adequate proxy data from other sources, most particularly from Fredrick Ljungqvist and David Anderson. Their separate publications agree that there has been little if any temperature rise since about 1940! However, there was a real temperature increase between 1920 and 1940, which can be seen also in all the various proxy as well as thermometer data.

Anti-Science

Michael Mann saw something he didn’t like in the Senate testimony (Jan 16, 2014) of fiercely independent climate scientist and blogger, Georgia Tech professor Judith Curry; so he decided to say something in his NYT op-ed. He forgot that often it is better to say nothing than to accuse Curry of peddling anti-science.

Curry has lost no time in taking Mann’s challenge and turning the tables on him:

http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/18/mann-on-advocacy-and-responsibility/#more-14347

“Since you have publicly accused my Congressional testimony of being ‘anti-science,’ I expect you to (publicly) document and rebut any statement in my testimony that is factually inaccurate or where my conclusions are not supported by the evidence that I provide.

During the Hearing, Senator Whitehouse asked me a question about why people refer to me as a ‘contrarian.’  I said something like the following: Skepticism is one of the norms of science.  We build confidence in our theories as they are able to withstand skeptical challenges.  If instead, scientists defend their theories by calling their opponents names, well that is a sign that their theories are in trouble.

Curry’s final message to Mann: “If you want to avoid yourself being labeled as ‘anti-science’, I suggest that you are obligated to respond to my challenge.”

War on Coal

It is interesting that Mann now plays the role of the victim in purported persecution by powerful interests, darkly identified as the fossil-fuel industry. Actually, the reverse may be the case. Mann has become a strong proponent of emission controls on carbon dioxide, which fits in very nicely with the ongoing War on Coal conducted by the EPA and the White House – and with the editorial policies of the NY Times — coal being the most prolific source of CO2.

It is ironic that while coal use is increasing rapidly in China and India, it is also increasing in Europe where governments have been anti-CO2 fanatics in the past but have decided to stop nuclear power, which emits no CO2 whatsoever.

In the United States, requirements are being set up to capture CO2 from smoke stacks of power plants and store it underground. Carbon Capture and Sequestration is a difficult and costly undertaking, and has never been demonstrated on a commercial scale. There have even been calls for sucking CO2 out of the global atmosphere, which sounds like an impossible task — and in any case, would be very, very expensive.

And to what purpose? As pointed out many times, CO2 is beneficial for agriculture. As a natural fertilizer, it accelerates the growth of crops. Czech physicist Lubos Motl has calculated that if it were indeed possible to reduce CO2 levels to their pre-industrial value, global agriculture would suffer a strong decline and billions of people would starve to death.

But perhaps this level of population control is what the climate fanatics are really after. They have always maintained that the Earth suffers from over-population and that the number of people needs to be reduced to protect natural values –a truly misanthropic scheme. In 1974, the ‘Club of Rome’ group published a detailed study, predicting that a billion people would die of starvation, beginning in the 1980s and peaking in 2010. One of the proponents of this thesis is now the White House science adviser.

******************************************************************

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project.  His specialty is atmospheric and space physics.  An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere.  He is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute.  He co-authored the NY Times best-seller Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years.  In 2007, he founded and has since chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), which has released several scientific reports [See www.NIPCCreport.org].  For recent writings, see http://www.americanthinker.com/s_fred_singer/ and also Google Scholar.

*******************************************************

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

[SNIP – yeah, although we have no love for Dr. Mann here that’s a bit over the top -mod]

“There have even been calls for sucking CO2 out of the global atmosphere, which sounds like an impossible task — and in any case, would be very, very expensive.”
It’s not impossible, I have a friend who pulls tons of CO2 out of thin air every week and then sells it as dry ice. But it is very, very expensive.

The rise and fall of the Hockey Stick and Mann-made global warming alarm
A first-class summary of the rise and fall of Michael Mann’s bogus Hockey Stick graph, and the Mann-made global warming alarm along with it, from A Skeptical Mind:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-rise-and-fall-of-hockey-stick-and.html

RockyRoad

Mann isn’t worth a lengthy comment–he’s lost all credibility and usefulness.
Sure–go ahead and sue me, Mr. Mann; That’s all you’re good at.
See?

clipe

It not disagrees not only…

One not too many. /quibble

milodonharlani

I thought that Mike’s Nature trick was hiding the decline in one of Briffa’s tree ring proxy “data” reconstructions by cutting that line on his spaghetti graph off before it fell, the truncation obscured by all the other rigged lines.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/28/severinghaus-and-hide-the-decline/
Is the trick trickier than hiding the decline behind a mess of spaghetti?

Rob aka Flatlander

There’s a group testing industrial size CO2 scrubbers here in Calgary. It’s not imposible and perhaps it can be done for a lower cost than originally calculated, but the point is why?
Anthropogenic CO2 has been proven NOW to not effect the global climate in any significant way. There are arguments/evidence that atmospheric CO2 might actually trails global temperature.
The hockey stick would fail any graphing course. The “climate science” crowd continues to issue graphs of climate noise as evidence of AGW.
They tighten up the vertical temperature scale to a degree or less to show a massive roller coaster of temperature swings while the real graph doesn’t register as anything but a flat line (taking into account margin of error) over many years.
See my global temperature graph of 34 years of satellite data:
pic.twitter.com/XrhEGNA9mC

Mann is a total liability to the alarmist cause, which in a curious way means he’s more an asset of ours than theirs. I have to admit, I do enjoy his antics, especially his kamikaze attacks on anyone wavering on his own side such as Judy. Lubbly jubbly.
Pointman

Hey Dr. Mann –
Y ou
A re
M asking
A
L ie

Janice Moore

Mann has become the Climate Circus Clown, doing anything he can to get attention, ….. even spitting in the tiger’s eye. (better run far away, Mikey — those claws may be velveted, but they are dangerous)
What next, Michael? Big shoes and a red nose? Tiny car? Miniature bicycle? How about juggling, ever tried that?
What’s that you say? You’ve got a neat hockey stick “trick?” LOL, that is SO, like, yesterday, man.
Time to go home, kid; you’re starting to believe your own stuff.

Mike M

“But perhaps this level of population control is what the climate fanatics are really after. They have always maintained that the Earth suffers from over-population and that the number of people needs to be reduced to protect natural values –a truly misanthropic scheme.”
I’m convinced that that’s the ultimate aim of bio-fuel as well, even more convinced seeing how they ignore farmers destroying rain forests in some parts of the world to grow their lucrative bio-fuel crops, lucrative only because of government mandates and subsidies.

Dr Burns

“Their separate publications agree that there has been little if any temperature rise since about 1940!”
Data please.

cnxtim

Mann, the 19th century geologist who first postulated CO2 warming (a DNA sample will do), the IPCC megabuck rasta-guru, the “ship of fools” ratbag from Kensington High School and that NASA guy (father of the Ozone layer) plus Chicken Little aided by FlimFlam Flannery along with Bob “I talk to aliens” Brown should all pool their resources, build a spaceship and change planets.
Now that’s a Kickstarter project i WOULD back.

Janice Moore

Nice one, Charlie (I saw a hockey stick in there!).

DirkH

Did the NYT run out of Krugman?

george e. smith

“””””…..dak says:
January 21, 2014 at 2:31 pm
“There have even been calls for sucking CO2 out of the global atmosphere, which sounds like an impossible task — and in any case, would be very, very expensive.”
It’s not impossible, I have a friend who pulls tons of CO2 out of thin air every week and then sells it as dry ice. But it is very, very expensive……”””””
I gotta believe it must be infinitely cheaper to get CO2 for dry ice, by simply burning natural gas, and bubbling the combustion products through water, to filter out the water vapor, before you freeze out the CO2 to get the dry ice. Cooling that much air for a 0.04 % ore yield has to be extremely energy intensive, since refrigeration is way less efficient than heating is; must be something to do with that second law thingie !!

Marcos

has Mann ever answered the question as to why his tree rings stopped providing proxy data after 1980?

Steve from Rockwood

Just looking at Mann’s reconstruction – it doesn’t look natural. The Earth has been cooling for 1,000 years and suddenly warms out of control? It can’t be real. If he had left in the LIA and MWP maybe I would have believed him.

Neil Dunn

I am sending you the below link because I believe that USA Today (Tues p.6A 1/21/14) has plagiarized your online ID or perhaps you were involved in writing said article. This topic does not concern me because we are still using kerosene and candle here in the rural hill country of Texas. Enjoy your stuff. Thanks.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/01/20/energy-efficiency-light-bulbs-rep-michael-burgess-editorials-debates/4678975/

Russ R.

The “Hide the Decline” was a method of grafting, a plot of one proxy, onto another, so that in hid the decline.
They did stumble onto the truth. They were able to “Hide the Decline” of their scientific standards. Those standards are still in decline and falling precipitously. History will not be fooled, and it is not kind to those that try to “fix what ain’t broke, by breaking it”.

Thanks, Fred. Nicely done.

Lubos Motl didn’t write that billions of people would starve to death, he said only 1 billion people would starve to death… Hey wait a minute, I’m a people, this madness has got to stop.

aaron

For the inevitable commenter who mentions the lack of error bars, the hockey-stick graph does include error bars. They are the white part surrounding the trend line extending though the top and bottom of the page.

Robert A. Taylor

Typo: “It not disagrees not only with . . . ” Omit first “not”.

KNR

As I have written before when Mann falls we will surprised to see just who does line up to kick him on the way down , for the most shocking part is not his views on sceptics but his views on AGW proponents who dare not to give him the adoration his ego thinks its entitled too,

Jimbo

Monseigneur Michael Mann also invented the paleo-climate rain gauge.

Steve McIntyre
Here’s the MBH98 PC1 (bristlecones) again marking 1934. Given that bristlecone ring width are allegedly responding positively to temperature, it is notable that the notoriously hot 1934 is a down spike.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/19/treemometers-or-rain-gauges/
——————
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/20/who-knew-plants-are-heavy-water-rain-gauges/

Monseigneur Mann himself acknowledged in a paper that olives and figs grew in southern Germany and that it was warm but denies it was global.
Global Medieval Warm Period.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Michael Mann et al
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/medclimopt.pdf

aaron

(For the other graph, it’s the yellow area which is limited by the top and bottom of the page.)

@dak at 2:31 pm
I have a friend who pulls tons of CO2 out of thin air every week and then sells it as dry ice. But it is very, very expensive……”””””
I guess your friend is liquifying oxygen and nitrogen and getting dry ice as a byproduct. As george e smith said, it is a lot cheaper to start off with a 100% CO2 gas stream.
But at $1.50 / pound or $3.30 / kg CO2 (retail) that would work out to be $1000 / ton Carbon in dry ice. Compare that to about $15/ton of carbon in Wyoming coal, or $30/ton in wood ($13/ton wood pulp at 50% carbon weight percent) Growng forests would make far more sense than dry ice sequestration.
Once on US287 in West Texas, I met up with a truck driver pulling a “Liquid Helium” tanker. I asked how much liquid helium he was carrying, thinking about what the cargo might be worth. I think he said, “about 1000 liters.” I gave him a puzzled look and looked back at the tank, estimating it to be half the size of a 7000 gal gasoliine truck. It seems a very small amount. “Its mostly liquid nitrogen back there. Its a small liquid helium tank inside a big liquid nitrogen tank.”

RichardLH

One by one they fail. Not only is Mann’s evidence refuted, it is also true that Hansen’s Scenario C is the one temperatures are tracking. Now how can that and CAGW be true?
http://snag.gy/FeWzn.jpg:

Jimbo

And to what purpose? As pointed out many times, CO2 is beneficial for agriculture. As a natural fertilizer, it accelerates the growth of crops.

Backed up by the science literature HERE [2013]

Jimbo

In the United States, requirements are being set up to capture CO2 from smoke stacks of power plants and store it underground. Carbon Capture and Sequestration is a difficult and costly undertaking, and has never been demonstrated on a commercial scale.

All I know is that BIG OIL COMPANIES have been pumping CO2 into old oil wells to suck out residual oil. Mr. Pachauri was so concerned that he set up a residual oil extraction company called Glorioil – while still head of the IPCC! We can’t let a little residual oil stay in the ground now can we. The irony ins amazing.

clipe

Robert A. Taylor says:
January 21, 2014 at 3:39 pm
Typo: “It not disagrees not only with . . . ” Omit first “not”.
clipe says:
January 21, 2014 at 2:42 pm
It not disagrees not only…
One not too many. /quibble

“The Australian Academy of Science has announced their 2014 HONORIFIC AWARDS FOR SCIENTIFIC EXCELLENCE”
I beat you to it by 67mins Robert.

Janice Moore

@ Aaron (3:37pm) — LOL.
@ JIMBO! — thank you for continuing to share so much great information with us. Don’t ever stop. You are a one-man army for truth.
(and don’t worry about repeating — we need to be reminded and, also, there are new readers all the time)

Jimbo

But perhaps this level of population control is what the climate fanatics are really after.

Backed up here. See quotes.
http://green-agenda.com/

Mike’s Nature Trick is explained by Steve McIntyre here: http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/20/mike’s-nature-trick/ and in many other posts on climateaudit.org
Basically, Michael Mann spliced the recent thermometer record onto the proxy record AND removed that part of the proxy record which diverged from the thermometer record so that it wasn’t obvious that the proxy record was completely useless. Phil Jones’s email “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick ..” suggests that the trick was used more than once. Hopefully science will one day recover from this abuse.
aaron (Jan 21 3:37pm) – nice!

Jimbo

They have always maintained that the Earth suffers from over-population and that the number of people needs to be reduced to protect natural values –a truly misanthropic scheme.

The climate campaigner and environmentalist David Suzuki has only FIVE CHILDREN. He also has at least 2 homes (some say 4). Al Gore has 4 kids and 2 mansions with the co2 footprint of King Kong and Godzilla combined! Forget his Medieval carbon indulgences.

Janice Moore

lol, Clipe, good for you. That kind of thing happens to me (on more substantial content, too) ALL the time. Someone posts an hour or whatever later (when one’s post was never invisible due to moderation happening) and says what one already said (at length, usually!) as if one is either invisible or beneath the dignity of that later poster take the time to read.
At first, for a brief moment, I get a little ticked off (but, NOT if they quickly catch their mistake and apologize — just when they NEVER return to say, “ooops”) — (and, on a bad day, a little sad) — then…. I just figure they were lazy and didn’t read ANY-one’s comments. Meh. Whatever, huh? I’ve probably done it to someone myself!
Just a little WUWT camaraderie and empathy for you, there.

Jimbo

Janice Moore says:
January 21, 2014 at 4:05 pm
……………
(and don’t worry about repeating — we need to be reminded and, also, there are new readers all the time)

New readers is exactly why I repeat. 😉 Many missed these shocking facts as they have been fed garbage and lies for many years.

SIG INT Ex

Mann is chaos, situation perfect.
[snicker]

Leon Brozyna

The only person on the planet who takes Mr. M. Mann seriously is Mr. M. Mann.

Jimbo

Rob aka Flatlander says:
January 21, 2014 at 2:49 pm
There’s a group testing industrial size CO2 scrubbers here in Calgary. It’s not imposible and perhaps it can be done for a lower cost than originally calculated, but the point is why?

Is that Calgary Canada? If yes are they using nuclear power, wind, wave, geothermal or sunlight to power the scrubbers?

clipe

Janice, luckily I work for a major airline company so should be able to collect my Australian prize if non-rev seats are available.

Jimbo

In all our excitement we have to try and be kind to the failed and utterly useless Calamatologist called Mr. Michael Mann. He has worked hard and we should be kind.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/5/14/the-ascent-of-mann.html
http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/did-a-secret-climate-deal-launch-the-hockey-stick-fakery/

Janice Moore

LOL, — Go, Clipe! (smile)
(and Jimbo! — and re: Calamatology — lol, good one)

davidmhoffer

Jimbo;
All I know is that BIG OIL COMPANIES have been pumping CO2 into old oil wells to suck out residual oil.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well yeah. It is one of the (many) reasons they are just fine with the whole CAGW thing. They’re angling to get revenue from the tax payer for carbon sequestration which currently they are doing for free.

Larry Hamlin

The real issue here is the fact that the New York Times is so [desperate] trying to push its failing message of climate fear propaganda that it turns to a completely discredited individual that no rational person could take seriously in any scientific debate on this issue.

Jimbo

Why do so many people get so stuck up about how best to suck co2 out of the air. No need for hard work here, just plant more trees and protect the soil. In fact the Earth is doing the ‘planting’ all by itself. Shocking!
On a serious note: Environmentalists have spend many years expending huge amounts of time on co2 reduction. This has failed while real environmental problems grow. Go back to your roots and give up on fighting co2 fertilization. You are fighting against greening for goodness sakes! You are fighting against warmer winters (or is that colder?), you are fighting against an increase in Antarctic sea ice extent (or is that Peninsula warmer?), you are fighting against malaria spreading while it is in decline. What are you really fighting for?

Jimbo

davidmhoffer says:
January 21, 2014 at 4:41 pm
Jimbo;
All I know is that BIG OIL COMPANIES have been pumping CO2 into old oil wells to suck out residual oil.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well yeah. It is one of the (many) reasons they are just fine with the whole CAGW thing. They’re angling to get revenue from the tax payer for carbon sequestration which currently they are doing for free.

Thank you. I am aware of this con job that I have highlighted in bold. I have said before: Why not get paid for something you already do? The whole this is disgusting.

Bart

Stephen Rasey says:
January 21, 2014 at 3:51 pm
It hardly needs to be pointed out that the dry ice has to be stored somewhere in a refrigerated vault, or it will sublimate back into the atmosphere. Or, we could fire it off in rocket ships to the Kuiper belt. Or, something equally preposterous.