A baseless Mann UVa email – claims by Mann spliced and diced

MBH98-tempchart-hockey-stick

Richard S. Courtney writes in comments on the Mann and misrepresentations thread…

Anthony:

In the same week as MBH98 was published I wrote an email on the ‘ClimateSkeptics’ circulation list. That email objected to the ‘hockeystick’ graph because the graph had an overlay of ‘thermometer’ data over the plotted ‘proxy’ data. This overlay was – I said – misleading because it was an ‘apples and oranges’ comparison: of course, I was not then aware of the ‘hide the decline’ (aka “Mike’s Nature trick”) issue.

Unknown to me, somebody copied my email to Michael Mann and he replied.

‘Climategate’ revealed that email from Michael Mann and it can be read here:

http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=3046.txt&search=medieval

Mann’s response consists solely of personal abuse against me and, importantly, it does not address the issue which I had raised immediately upon seeing the ‘hockeystick’ graph. Hence, I am certain that the graphical malpractice of the ‘hockeystick’ was both witting and deliberate.

I’ve reproduced the email below, the redactions were in the linked content that Courtney cites. Mann’s claims about dataset splicing are laughable, as even the Muir Russell investigation (for the later version which appeared in the IPCC TAR) labeled it as such, as McIntyre notes:

Here are Muir Russell’s comments on the IPCC 2001 incident (of which Mann was Lead Author), which they somewhat conflated with the WMO 1999 incident of the “trick” email:

In relation to “hide the decline” we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the TAR), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading in not describing that one of the series was truncated post 1960 for the figure, and in not being clear on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain – ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text.

Here is the email Courtney speaks of:

date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 16:41:12 +010 ???

from: Phil Jones <???@uea.ac.uk>

subject: Re: Global Surface Record Must Be Wrong

to: ???@uea.ac.uk,???@uea.ac.uk

>X-Sender: ???@holocene.evsc.virginia.edu

>Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 10:29:15 -0400

>To: ???@lanl.gov

>From: “Michael E. Mann” <???@virginia.edu>

>Subject: Re: Global Surface Record Must Be Wrong

>Cc: ???@geo.umass.edu, ???@uea.ac.uk

>

>Chick,

>

>This guys email is intentional deceipt. Our method, as you know, doesn’t

>include any “splicing of two different datasets”-this is a myth perptuated

>by Singer and his band of hired guns, who haven’t bothered to read our

>papers or the captions of the figures they like to mis-represent…

>

>Phil Jones, Ray Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes dispelled much of the mythology

>expressed below years ago.

>

>This is intentional misrepresentation. For his sake, I hope does not go

>public w/ such comments!

>

>mike

>

>>Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:38:35 +0100 ???(BST)

>>X-Envelope-From: ???@courtney01.cix.co.uk

>>X-Sender: ???@mail.compulink.co.uk

>>To: Chick Keller <???@lanl.gov>

>>From: COURTNEY <???@courtney01.cix.co.uk>

>>Subject: Re: Global Surface Record Must Be Wrong

>>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by

>holocene.evsc.virginia.edu id DAA27832

>>

>>Dear Chick:

>>

>>Your past performance demonstrates that your recent piece to Peter Dietze is

>>unworthy of you. Smears and inuendoes are not adequate substitutes for

>>evidence and reasoned argument. You say;

>>”As to Michael Mann’s “hocky stick” paleo-temperature graph, I realize why

>>many attack it for it puts the nail in the coffen of the argument that

>>recent natural variability is as large as what has been observed in the 20th

>>century.”

>>

>>No ! People attack the ‘hockey stick’ because it is uses an improper

>>procedure to assess inadequate data as a method to provide a desired result.

>>I have defended Mann et al. from accusations of scientific “fraud” because I

>>am willing to accept that this was done in naive stupidity, but I am not

>>willing to accept that is good science. As you say, “people like Mann,

>>Briffa, Jones, etc.” have conducted “careful work”, but doing the wrong

>>thing carefully does not make it right.

>>

>>The ‘hockey stick’ is obtained by splicing two different data sets. Similar

>>data to the earlier data set exists for up to near the present and could

>>have been spliced on, but this would not show the ‘hockey stick’ and was not

>>done.

>>

>>Also, it is not true to say, as you have;

>>”But, it’s going to take more than rhetoric about Europe’s Little Ice Age

>>and Medieval Warming to get around the careful work of people like Mann,

>>Briffa, Jones, etc.”

>>Nobody in their right mind is going to place more trust in the proxy data of

>>”Mann, Briffa, Jones, etc.” than in the careful – and taxed – tabulations in

>>the Doomesday Book. The Medieval Warm Period is documented from places

>>distributed around the globe, and it is not adequate to assert that it was

>>”not global” because it did not happen everywhere at exactly the same time:

>>the claimed present day global warming is not happening everywhere at the

>>exactly the same time. Indeed, you say;

>>”recent temperature anomalies show that, while the tropics is cooler than

>>usual due to La Niña, the rest of the world is pretty much still as warm as

>>in 1998.”

>>

>>It is historical revisionism to assert that the Little Ice Age and Medieval

>>Warming did not happen or were not globally significant. It will take much,

>>much more than analyses of sparse and debatable proxy data to achieve such a

>>dramatic overturning of all the historical and archaelogical evidence for

>>the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Those who wish to make

>>such assertions should explain why all the historical and archaelogical

>>evidence is wrong or – failing that – they should expect to be ridiculed.

>>

>>All the best

>>

>>Richard

>>

>>>Dear Peter,

>>>

>>>In a recent message to Tom Wigley you wrote:

>>>

>>>>”Nowadays, what is measured is mostly quite correct. This holds for the

>>>>counts of frogs, butterflies and for the MSU measurements as well as for

>>>>the ground station readings. What is seriously flawed, are the biased

>>>>*interpretations*. So the surface record may be not wrong at all and

>>>>part of the warming is indeed anthropogenic. Wrong is only the paradigm

>>>>that ground warming is mostly caused by CO2 – and that this warming has

>>>>to show up in the lower troposphere as well. It is striking how the

>>>>ground warming grid pattern coincides with winter heating (Vincent Gray)

>>>>- if the warming was caused by CO2 it should rather be evenly

>>>>distributed over the globe, MSU-detected and only being modified by

>>>>meteorological conditions. Note that this energy caused warming only

>>>>depends on our energy demand and does hardly increase with CO2

>>>>concentration. So this warming should neither be allocated to the CO2

>>>>increment nor be misused with future CO2 projections.”

>>>

>>>I have been looking at NCDC plots of global temperature anomalis divided

>>>into three regions- tropics (20N–20S) and the rest of the

>>>globe–(20N–90N) and (20S–90S). When looked at that way, recent

>>>temperature anomalies show that, while the tropics is cooler than usual due

>>>to La Niña, the rest of the world is pretty much still as warm as in 1998.

>>>This is particularly true of northern subtropics and southern subtropical

>>>oceans. The most recent data in fact show the following: for the period

>>>March-May 2000, the northern subtropics are the warmest march-may ever, and

>>>the southern subtropics are essentially as warm as in 1998. Note that this

>>>is not in the winter for either hemisphere. Thus, it would seem to be

>>>important not to make too much of the winter-only observations.

>>>

>>>As to Michael Mann’s “hocky stick” paleo-temperature graph, I realize why

>>>many attack it for it puts the nail in the coffen of the argument that

>>>recent natural variability is as large as what has been observed in the

>>>20th century. Gene Parker in the most recent Physics Today just pushed

>>>that point of view citing 20 year-old work as his only support. But, it’s

>>>going to take more than rhetoric about Europe’s Little Ice Age and Medieval

>>>Warming to get around the careful work of people like Mann, Briffa, Jones,

>>>etc. And more recently , Tom Crowley’s article in last week’s Science!!!

>>>Their work includes those acknowledged regional events (LIA and MWP) and

>>>still shows the 20th cent. to be anomalous. (I might add here that it also

>>>calls into question suggestions that solar variability has an additional

>>>indirect forcing amplification since that should have come out of the data.

>>>Instead most published studies show a significant solar influence but a

>>>moderate one.) And so the only way around recent thousand year paleo

>>>studies is for more comprehensive hemispheric and global studies that fill

>>>in acknowledged gaps and in addition show that climate variability is

>>>larger than recent studies show.

>>>

>>> Perhaps a more fruitful approach would be to ask what the magnitude

>>>of regional variations has been in the past 150 years. If there are no

>>>regions whose temperature variations were very far from the global average,

>>>then one could legitimately ask how clear anomalies such as the little ice

>>>age could have been sustained in the face of the larger hemispheric

>>>climate. As one example I might cite the eastern United States and perhaps

>>>a large region to the north east since 1940. It clearly has not

>>>participated in the global trend, so much so that urban heat island fans

>>>cite it as an example of how good records (the US) don’t show as much

>>>warming as bad records (the rest of the world).

>>>

>>>Regards,

>>>Charles. “Chick” F. Keller,

>>>Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics/University of California

>>>Mail Stop MS C-305

>>>Los Alamos National Laboratory

>>>Los Alamos, New Mexico, 87545

>>>???@lanl.gov

>>>Phone: (505)???

>>>FAX: (505)???

>>>http://www.igpp.lanl.gov/climate.html

>>>

>>>Every thoughtful man who hopes for the creation of a contemporary culture

>>>knows that this hinges on one central problem: to find a coherent relation

>>>between science and the humanities. –Jacob Bronowski

>>>

>>>

>>

>>

>>

>_________________________________________

>                    Professor Michael E. Mann

>         Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall

>                     University of Virginia

>                     Charlottesville, VA 22903

>_________________________________________

>e-mail: ???@virginia.edu Phone: (804)??? FAX: (804)???

>         http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.html

>

>

Prof. Phil Jones

Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 ???

School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 ???

University of East Anglia

Norwich                         Email    ???@uea.ac.uk

NR4 7TJ

UK

============================================================

UPDATE: Steve McIntyre responded in comments, saying he didn’t think the “splicing” issue in MBH98 was a substantial issue for him,  and I responded to him, giving my reasons for why I disagree.

For the sake of completeness to discussing this issue, I’m elevating his comment and my response to the body of the post. – Anthony

Steve McIntyre says:

May 12, 2014 at 7:14 am

Anthony, this post has numerous errors, none of which should be made by people interested in this topic. It is very disappointing to read such material.

In Mann et al 1998 (as Jean S first figured out), to calculate the smooth, Mann padded the MBH98 proxy reconstruction after its 1980 end point with instrumental data. Mann only used the smooth up to 1980. This was “Mike’s Nature trick”. Jean S observed the irony of this procedure, given Mann’s protestations against splicing, but the effect was relatively subtle. Contra Courtney’s conflation of “hide the decline aka Mike’s Nature trick, Mike’s Nature trick applied in Mann et al 1998 had NOTHING to do with “hide the decline” – which was an issue with the Briffa reconstruction.

Further, in Courtney’s 1998 email, he said:

The ‘hockey stick’ is obtained by splicing two different data sets. Similar data to the earlier data set exists for up to near the present and could have been spliced on, but this would not show the ‘hockey stick’ and was not done.

In the Mann et al 1998 diagram criticized in Courtney’s email, the proxy reconstruction and the observed data are distinguished by being plotted in different colors or different line type. In other words, they were not “spliced” in the diagram. In Courtney’s recent email to Anthony, he says that the above email “objected to the ‘hockeystick’ graph because the graph had an overlay of ‘thermometer’ data over the plotted ‘proxy’ data. This overlay was – I said – misleading because it was an ‘apples and oranges’ comparison: of course,” I, for one, would never have guessed that this was the criticism being made in the original email. While Mann’s response was marred by his all-too-typical invective, I can well understand why he rejected the allegation in Courtney’s email.

In Courtney’s recent covering email to Anthony, he now characterizes his earlier objection as an objection to proxy reconstructions being plotted on the same graph as observations as follows:

That email objected to the ‘hockeystick’ graph because the graph had an overlay of ‘thermometer’ data over the plotted ‘proxy’ data. This overlay was – I said – misleading because it was an ‘apples and oranges’ comparison: of course, I was not then aware of the ‘hide the decline’ (aka “Mike’s Nature trick”) issue.

While, as noted above, it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, for a contemporary reader to discern this meaning, this criticism is equally invalid in my opinion. I, for one, absolutely do not take issue with plotting a proxy reconstruction on the same scale as observations. I and others take issue with the “divergence problem” precisely because when one plots the Briffa reconstruction against observed temperatures in the 20th century, the two plots diverge. According to Courtney’s criticism, it would be invalid to do such a plot. This is absurd. This does not mean that I endorse the muddiness of Mann’s graphics or other defects. Only that I, for one, do not take issue with plotting a reconstruction and observations on the same scale. On the contrary, it is something that I’ve done on many occasions. As I said to Courtney at CA on this point, if I’m unconvinced on this issue, I can’t imagine why a judge or jury would be convinced.

In the WMO 1999 graphic, Jones deleted values of the Briffa reconstruction after 1950 or so (the decline), spliced instrumental temperature to the end of the record, smoothed the combination and plotted the spliced version (without peeling back to 1950 as in Mike’s Nature trick.)

Muir Russell criticized the truncation and splicing of data in WMO1999 as follows:

the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading in not describing that one of the series was truncated post 1960 for the figure, and in not being clear on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together.

However, he did not take issue with plotting proxy reconstructions and observations on the same graphic. (Not that Muir Russell would be definitive on this.)

There are important issues in connection with the Mann corpus. This is not one of them. Too often, Mann’s opponents make irrelevant and easily rebutted criticisms. Unfortunately, this makes it easier for Mann to avoid more substantive criticisms. For a full explication of the differences between the various incidents, I refer people to the following CA post: http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/29/keiths-science-trick-mikes-nature-trick-and-phils-combo/

========================================================================

REPLY: Thanks for your opinion and clarifications Steve. Bear in mind that Courtney wrote this before the “trick” and truncation was known. While I often defer to your superior knowledge on the subject of MBH98 it is my respectfully differing opinion that plotting the two datasets together (proxy reconstruction and instrumental temperatures) is indeed problematic and misleading in that both techniques have different samplings and sensitivities to temperature.

Instrumental temperature is much more sensitive than tree ring derived proxy temperature, which has a long time domain and is not exclusively a representation of temperature, due to equal if not greater sensitivity to other variables, as I pointed out here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/28/a-look-at-treemometers-and-tree-ring-growth/

While Courtney’s complaint is most certainly incomplete in today’s perspective, we shouldn’t just say that plotting two dissimilar datasets on the same chart without proper caveats is a proper practice.

An analog to the spliced combination plot of Mann’s MBH98 graph in today’s climate arena might be this: suppose somebody wants to argue that hurricanes in the NH are becoming more frequent, and they are the more frequent now than in the last 1000 years.

One way to do this is to look at historical reports of hurricanes in literature, newspapers, magazines and other historical writings. These would be a “proxy” for the actual frequency of hurricanes in a given year. Suppose that the researcher was able to find enough reports to to make what looks like a viable dataset, but that instead of using historical writings to determine frequency of hurricanes in the 20th century, the actual record of named hurricanes (essentially observations) was used, such as this graph, which has a nice “hockey stick” shape implying that hurricanes frequency had increased dramatically in the late 20th century.

Arguably, that’s incomplete, showing only the Atlantic, but it’s the best I can do on short notice before I head to work this morning.

The combination of the two datasets, historical literature accounts, plus named storms in the north Atlantic might very well look much like Mann’s flat section of the hockey stick up to about 1925…mostly flat, maybe a slight increasing trend. It would likely look a lot like this graph you plotted in the CA discussion of Besonen et al 2008 (which has other issues independent of this discussion, I’m only using it as an example of what such a graph for this discussion might look like).

To the layman and even to some scientists, they might take such a construct of hurricane historical accounts (proxy) and named storms (observations) as being proof that hurricane frequency is indeed dramatically increasing in the 20th century.

But the issue is sampling and sensitivity. As you’ve pointed out many times, low sampling and/or selected sampling of proxies leads to spurious results when extrapolated to a larger scale (regional to global for example).

From a sensitivity standpoint, since human literature is less frequent as a we go back in time, we’d expect any dataset of historical hurricane accounts to have lower sensitivity to the actual number of hurricanes in any given year simply due to population density and the lack of communications. Many storms would go unreported.

Even in the 20th century data, as shown in the Pew graph above, this effect is likely, due to the early part of the century having lower population, and less ability to observe hurricanes due to a lower level of technology. I talk about this effect in the reporting bias of “extreme weather” here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/19/why-it-seems-that-severe-weather-is-getting-worse-when-the-data-shows-otherwise-a-historical-perspective/ So even the Pew graph would almost certainly have a lower representation for named storms in the pre-satellite era.

So, for the purposes of my exercise, knowing that the two datasets for hurricane frequency would have different samplings and sensitivities to actual hurricane frequency in the NH, would it be proper to put these two datasets together into a single graph to argue that hurricane frequency in the NH is the “highest ever” at the endpoint of the graph?

From my viewpoint it would not be, because these two datasets have significantly different samplings and sensitivities to actual hurricanes. The layman doesn’t likely know this, and many of the media that might seize on such a graph probably wouldn’t note this as they often work from press releases. A press release about this hurricane frequency “paper” probably wouldn’t trumpet the fact that the two datasets are greatly dissimilar, and that as you go back in time, the sampling is less, and the sensitivity in the last part of the graph to hurricanes is dramatically higher than any part of the record.

And that’s why I see the splicing in MBH98 as another “trick”. Putting the two dissimilar datasets together implied they have equal sampling and sensitivity to temperature, when they clearly don’t, and the public and the media ran with that visual almost entirely without questioning it, because even though the colors were different, many newspapers back then didn’t reproduce in color, and many people simply take the graph’s “total shape” at face value, without realizing the differences between the two datasets.

(added, here is what a newsprint version of MBH98 might look like…note the dataset delineations disappear, laymen and politicians certainly wouldn’t be able to see beyond the total graph shape in B&W))

To me, that’s just as wrong as the truncation and the overlay issues.

Plotting/splicing two similar datasets of equal sampling and sensitivity in my mind is not an issue. Plotting two greatly dissimilar datasets with unequal sampling and sensitivity, is an issue.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
hunter

It is interesting to see how the rationalization and self-deception of the AGW hype machine formed. This series of emails implies heavily that somewhere out there are older emails by Mann & gang that could give us more insights on how climate science was morphed into the focal point of a social madness.

Great catch for year 2000 Richard.
Best, Allan
Published circa 2006:
More on “the Divergence Problem”, “Mike’s Nature Trick” and “Hide the Decline”:
It took eight years before the “Divergence Problem” was revealed, also in testimony. Mann grafted modern surface temperature data onto earlier tree ring temperature proxies to produce his upward-sloping “hockey stick” graph. Grafting together two different datasets is usually NOT good scientific practice.
Why did Mann do this? Because if he had exclusively used tree-ring data, the blade of the hockey stick, instead of showing very-scary warming in the last decades of the 20th Century, would have shown COOLING.
The correct scientific conclusion, in my opinion, is that using tree rings as a proxy for temperatures is not sufficiently accurate for the major conclusions that were drawn from the Mann studies.
Mann and the IPCC were clearly wrong about the hockey stick – the only remaining question is not one of error, it is one of fraud.
For more on the public revelation of the Divergence Problem in 2006, see
http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/07/darrigo-making-cherry-pie/
“The discrepancy between the forecast and the actual caught Cuffey’s eye and he asked D’Arrigo about it. She said “Oh that’s the “Divergence Problem”‘?. Cuffey wanted to know exactly how you could rely on tree ring proxies to register past warm periods if they weren’t picking up modern warmth “questions dear to the heart of any climateaudit reader”.”
– Allan

Charles Nelson

Climategate 3….please.

I think they are putting the nail in their own hysterical coffin. They seek to suppress any dissent with what amounts to smoke and mirrors. Arguing against one thing at one time (MWP being global because not all parts warmed simultaneously), then arguing the current warm period (CWP) is universal when even their own data does not show universal warming.
And Richard was both kind and generous when he attributed their error to stupidity. It is clear that regardless of how the error was originated (stupidity or malfeasance), the “coverup” was pure malfeasance.
Steyn is going to have a field day with this type of shenanigans. And Steyn is now Mann’s tar baby. Mann could have quietly dropped the suit against the others before discovery took place, but when Steyn countered sued, it is no longer his choice.

Jared

People should apply “climate science” to football records. Use a 50 year ‘smoothing average’ for the win totals for the Alabama Crimson Tide from 1880-2006, then splice on their win totals using a 1 year ‘smoothing average’ from 2007-2014. Wala! A Hockey Stick is the result. Hockey Sticks are easy to create with any data when you use long “smoothing averages” for past data and short “smoothing averages” for the most recent data. People like Mann know this, but are too “evil” to care that they are distorting the truth.

David, UK

Twice in Mann’s email response he accuses Courtney of “deliberate” deceit or misrepresentation. What a hypocrite. Or is it just that old projection again?

I responded to Richard in that thread as follows.
——— ——— ——–
This is a graphic from one of my recent articles here at WUWT. It graphically illustrates your apples and oranges points.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/clip_image0041.jpg
Paleo proxy is a very coarse sieve through which annual and decadal real world instrumental data easily falls through.
As can be seen, the instrumental temperature is all over the place. However the 50 year centred paleo material dies not even pick up the extreme cold of the LIA that were measured by the instruments. So of course splicing an instrumental record onto a paleo record is going to show a dramatic variation -as it has done in the past-for example see 1690 to 1740.
Phil Jones examined this period and came to the conclusion that natural variability was much greater than he had hitherto believed.
tonyb

ttfn

“This is intentional misrepresentation. For his sake, I hope does not go
public w/ such comments!” — ruh roh

michael hart

I think that’s a good way to show it, tonyb, actually showing the overlap between the ‘apples’ and and the ‘oranges’. A suggestion, if I may: I think the meaning could be better conveyed to a lay audience by a simpler graph with fewer lines on it.

Jaakko Kateenkorva
Coldish

Richard: “In the same week as MBH98 was published…”. Was that 1998 e-mail the same as the 2000 one you quote above?

richardscourtney

Coldish:
At May 12, 2014 at 5:40 am you ask me

Richard:

“In the same week as MBH98 was published…”.

Was that 1998 e-mail the same as the 2000 one you quote above?

The original 1998 email was not the email linked and quoted above. Following that original email there was email discussion of the matter over several years but the ‘ClimateSkeptics Group’ archive does not include material from that far back. My 2000 email (which Mann disputes in the above quotation and link) was part of that email discussion.
However, the 2000 email made the same point as my original 1998 email; viz. the MBH98 hockey stick graph was improper because it spliced parts of two different data sets which could not be considered to be directly comparable (i.e. my ‘apples and oranges’ point which is clearly demonstrated by tonyb in this and the previous thread).
I hope this answer is adequate.
Richard

Grown men in a full bore panic.
Panic sets in and it rules over these men.
Men who lie and get caught often panic.
Panic has them now, it will not let go.
Enjoy.

Michael
Try figure 4 or 5 from my article here.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/16/historic-variations-in-temperature-number-four-the-hockey-stick/
Figure 5 shows the best historic context but I am working on ways to graphically express glacier movements better, but unfortunately the latest cheque from Big Oil has not arrived yet and I have had to stand down my large research team 🙂
tonyb

richardscourtney

Coldish:
I have provided a direct reply to your question to me. This addendum is deliberately separated from the direct answer to ensure that nobody thinks it is an obfuscation.
I consider the ‘apples and oranges’ splice to be – by far – the most egregious fault of the MBH, Briffa, and et al. ‘hockey stick’ graphs. In my opinion, it is a worse fault than the hidden file of unused data. My reason for this opinion is as follows.
Parts of two different items were selected then spliced together and supplied to the scientific community with a view to providing a misleading scientific indication. Thus, in principle, the MBH ‘hockey sticks’ are the same scientific malpractice as the Piltdown Man.
The importance of the cited email from Mann is that it shows Mann wanted to suppress knowledge of the splicing and, therefore, as I said I am certain that the graphical malpractice of the ‘hockeystick’ was both witting and deliberate.
Richard

Orson

Steve at climateaudit did not see fit to let this intriguing side story be pursued there. Therefore, Anthony, thank you for fleshing out the details and airing them here.
Richard’s early encounter with “The Mann’s” retributive character on display so early after MBH is…most illuminating. To know him is not to love Him.

Err.
Why dilute the excellent attacks that mcintyre makes
On mann and his years of devotion by giving
Attention to courtney. Read the mail. And his claims about the mail.
Courtney is a distraction. He doesnt even make a cogent case.
Why. Why distract people from mcintyres cogent case
With this self aggrandizing crap from a third rate thinker.

Tom J

I have a couple questions concerning the following copied (yeah, I know, that’s stating the obvious) portion of the above email from Doctor of Catastrophology, Michael Mann:
‘>This guys email is intentional deceipt. Our method, as you know, doesn’t
>include any “splicing of two different datasets”-this is a myth perptuated
>by Singer and his band of hired guns, who haven’t bothered to read our
>papers or the captions of the figures they like to mis-represent…’
Ok, Mike (is it ok if I call you Mike?-actually I could care less), can you graciously inform me what is an ‘intentional deceipt’? Now, I’m going to guess it’s different than an unintentional deceipt but since I don’t know what a deceipt is I can’t possibly know the difference between an intentional version and an unintentional version.
My second question, Mike, is, what is a myth that’s ‘perptuated’? Now, I’m guessing that it’s different than a myth that has not been perptuated but since I don’t have a sliver of a clue (since I’m not as smart as you guys) as to what perptuated actually means I obviously would not know the difference between the two.
Now, I realize, Mike, that the answers to my two (there’s two more I could ask but I won’t) foregoing questions may be above my simple ability to comprehend. And, if so, that would be a clear representation why multi-trillion dollar policy prescriptions (as Obama is currently engaged in) should be directed by your input and not mine, as a voter.

John S

I am thinking of joining the alarmist side. There are just too many advantages. (1)You get large government grants to do “research”. (2)Your research is rubber stamped as “peer reviewed” whether it is crock or not. (3)You don’t have to show your complete methodologies. (4)You don’t have to give your supporting data. (5)If you get busted for doing a “Jerry Sandusky” on the data, there will be plenty of people who will have your back. (6)You can call detractors idiots and tools of the oil companies. For someone with a vivid out-of-the-box imagination like me, I just could have a lot of fun. Here is the title of my next climate paper, “How Climate Change Will Keep the Dallas Cowboys Out of the Super Bowl Indefinitely”. Or this paper, “How Climate Change May Prevent England from Ever Winning a World Cup Again”. Look for these papers soon in “Nature”. The alarmists peer review process is quite “stream-lined”>

“Our method, as you know, doesn’t
>include any “splicing of two different datasets”

Uh, maybe your “method” didn’t include “splicing of two different datasets” but the “manner” in which you displayed and portrayed your “method” clearly implies that is what you’ve done.
Even worse, you’ve removed the part of your data set that didn’t reflect what you want displayed while showing it may have also led to doubt regarding the accuracy of your “method”.
Regarding a “method”, It appears there has been a method to your deceit.

JimS

I am really dumb ya know, but how could the hockey stick chart be created with anything other than spliced data? We are joining proxy data with thermometer data.

Steve McIntyre

Anthony, this post has numerous errors, none of which should be made by people interested in this topic. It is very disappointing to read such material.
In Mann et al 1998 (as Jean S first figured out), to calculate the smooth, Mann padded the MBH98 proxy reconstruction after its 1980 end point with instrumental data. Mann only used the smooth up to 1980. This was “Mike’s Nature trick”. Jean S observed the irony of this procedure, given Mann’s protestations against splicing, but the effect was relatively subtle. Contra Courtney’s conflation of “hide the decline aka Mike’s Nature trick, Mike’s Nature trick applied in Mann et al 1998 had NOTHING to do with “hide the decline” – which was an issue with the Briffa reconstruction.
Further, in Courtney’s 1998 email, he said:

The ‘hockey stick’ is obtained by splicing two different data sets. Similar data to the earlier data set exists for up to near the present and could have been spliced on, but this would not show the ‘hockey stick’ and was not done.

In the Mann et al 1998 diagram criticized in Courtney’s email, the proxy reconstruction and the observed data are distinguished by being plotted in different colors or different line type. In other words, they were not “spliced” in the diagram. In Courtney’s recent email to Anthony, he says that the above email “objected to the ‘hockeystick’ graph because the graph had an overlay of ‘thermometer’ data over the plotted ‘proxy’ data. This overlay was – I said – misleading because it was an ‘apples and oranges’ comparison: of course,” I, for one, would never have guessed that this was the criticism being made in the original email. While Mann’s response was marred by his all-too-typical invective, I can well understand why he rejected the allegation in Courtney’s email.
In Courtney’s recent covering email to Anthony, he now characterizes his earlier objection as an objection to proxy reconstructions being plotted on the same graph as observations as follows:

That email objected to the ‘hockeystick’ graph because the graph had an overlay of ‘thermometer’ data over the plotted ‘proxy’ data. This overlay was – I said – misleading because it was an ‘apples and oranges’ comparison: of course, I was not then aware of the ‘hide the decline’ (aka “Mike’s Nature trick”) issue.

While, as noted above, it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, for a contemporary reader to discern this meaning, this criticism is equally invalid in my opinion. I, for one, absolutely do not take issue with plotting a proxy reconstruction on the same scale as observations. I and others take issue with the “divergence problem” precisely because when one plots the Briffa reconstruction against observed temperatures in the 20th century, the two plots diverge. According to Courtney’s criticism, it would be invalid to do such a plot. This is absurd. This does not mean that I endorse the muddiness of Mann’s graphics or other defects. Only that I, for one, do not take issue with plotting a reconstruction and observations on the same scale. On the contrary, it is something that I’ve done on many occasions. As I said to Courtney at CA on this point, if I’m unconvinced on this issue, I can’t imagine why a judge or jury would be convinced.
In the WMO 1999 graphic, Jones deleted values of the Briffa reconstruction after 1950 or so (the decline), spliced instrumental temperature to the end of the record, smoothed the combination and plotted the spliced version (without peeling back to 1950 as in Mike’s Nature trick.)
Muir Russell criticized the truncation and splicing of data in WMO1999 as follows:

the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading in not describing that one of the series was truncated post 1960 for the figure, and in not being clear on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together.

However, he did not take issue with plotting proxy reconstructions and observations on the same graphic. (Not that Muir Russell would be definitive on this.)
There are important issues in connection with the Mann corpus. This is not one of them. Too often, Mann’s opponents make irrelevant and easily rebutted criticisms. Unfortunately, this makes it easier for Mann to avoid more substantive criticisms. For a full explication of the differences between the various incidents, I refer people to the following CA post: http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/29/keiths-science-trick-mikes-nature-trick-and-phils-combo/
======================================================================================================
REPLY: Thanks for your opinion and clarifications Steve. Bear in mind that Courtney wrote this before the “trick” and truncation was known. While I often defer to your superior knowledge on the subject of MBH98 it is my respectfully differing opinion that plotting the two datasets together (proxy reconstruction and instrumental temperatures) is indeed problematic and misleading in that both techniques have different samplings and sensitivities to temperature.
Instrumental temperature is much more sensitive than tree ring derived proxy temperature, which has a long time domain and is not exclusively a representation of temperature, due to equal if not greater sensitivity to other variables, as I pointed out here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/28/a-look-at-treemometers-and-tree-ring-growth/
While Courtney’s complaint is most certainly incomplete in today’s perspective, we shouldn’t just say that plotting two dissimilar datasets on the same chart without proper caveats is a proper practice.
An analog to the spliced combination plot of Mann’s MBH98 graph in today’s climate arena might be this: suppose somebody wants to argue that hurricanes in the NH are becoming more frequent, and they are the more frequent now than in the last 1000 years.
One way to do this is to look at historical reports of hurricanes in literature, newspapers, magazines and other historical writings. These would be a “proxy” for the actual frequency of hurricanes in a given year. Suppose that the researcher was able to find enough reports to to make what looks like a viable dataset, but that instead of using historical writings to determine frequency of hurricanes in the 20th century, the actual record of named hurricanes (essentially observations) was used, such as this graph, which has a nice “hockey stick” shape implying that hurricanes frequency had increased dramatically in the late 20th century.

Arguably, that’s incomplete, showing only the Atlantic, but it’s the best I can do on short notice before I head to work this morning.
The combination of the two datasets, historical literature accounts, plus named storms in the north Atlantic might very well look much like Mann’s flat section of the hockey stick up to about 1925…mostly flat, maybe a slight increasing trend. It would likely look a lot like this graph you plotted in the CA discussion of Besonen et al 2008 (which has other issues independent of this discussion, I’m only using it as an example of what such a graph for this discussion might look like).

To the layman and even to some scientists, they might take such a construct of hurricane historical accounts (proxy) and named storms (observations) as being proof that hurricane frequency is indeed dramatically increasing in the 20th century.
But the issue is sampling and sensitivity. As you’ve pointed out many times, low sampling and/or selected sampling of proxies leads to spurious results when extrapolated to a larger scale (regional to global for example).
From a sensitivity standpoint, since human literature is less frequent as a we go back in time, we’d expect any dataset of historical hurricane accounts to have lower sensitivity to the actual number of hurricanes in any given year simply due to population density and the lack of communications. Many storms would go unreported.
Even in the 20th century data, as shown in the Pew graph above, this effect is likely, due to the early part of the century having lower population, and less ability to observe hurricanes due to a lower level of technology. I talk about this effect in the reporting bias of “extreme weather” here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/19/why-it-seems-that-severe-weather-is-getting-worse-when-the-data-shows-otherwise-a-historical-perspective/ So even the Pew graph would almost certainly have a lower representation for named storms in the pre-satellite era.
So, for the purposes of my exercise, knowing that the two datasets for hurricane frequency would have different samplings and sensitivities to actual hurricane frequency in the NH, would it be proper to put these two datasets together into a single graph to argue that hurricane frequency in the NH is the “highest ever” at the endpoint of the graph?
From my viewpoint it would not be, because these two datasets have significantly different samplings and sensitivities to actual hurricanes. The layman doesn’t likely know this, and many of the media that might seize on such a graph probably wouldn’t note this as they often work from press releases. A press release about this hurricane frequency “paper” probably wouldn’t trumpet the fact that the two datasets are greatly dissimilar, and that as you go back in time, the sampling is less, and the sensitivity in the last part of the graph to hurricanes is dramatically higher than any part of the record.
And that’s why I see the splicing in MBH98 as another “trick”. Putting the two dissimilar datasets together implied they have equal sampling and sensitivity to temperature, when they clearly don’t, and the public and the media ran with that visual almost entirely without questioning it, becuase even though the colors were different, many newspapers back then didn’t reproduce in color, and many people simply take the graph’s “total shape” at face value, without realizing the differences between the two datasets.
(added, here is what a newsprint version of MBH98 might look like…note the dataset delineations disappear, laymen and politicians certainly wouldn’t be able to see beyond the total graph shape in B&W))

To me, that’s just as wrong as the truncation and the overlay issues.
Plotting/splicing two similar datasets of equal sampling and sensitivity in my mind is not an issue. Plotting two greatly dissimilar datasets with unequal sampling and sensitivity, is an issue.

pottereaton

@ JimS
May 12, 2014 at 7:09 am
The problem is that the actual proxy data diverges from the thermometer data.

ferdberple

Mann: Our method, as you know, doesn’t include any “splicing of two different datasets”
============
Muir: not being clear on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together.
============
1. one of these statements must be false, by contradiction.
2. the authors had firsthand knowledge of the facts.
3. thus, the falsehood must be deliberate, with intent.

TheLastDemocrat

Has anyone done this MBH98 1000-year analysis with annual tree ring data up to the present?

Jeff Alberts

Tom J says:
May 12, 2014 at 6:52 am
Ok, Mike (is it ok if I call you Mike?-actually I could care less), can you graciously inform me what is an ‘intentional deceipt’? Now, I’m going to guess it’s different than an unintentional deceipt but since I don’t know what a deceipt is I can’t possibly know the difference between an intentional version and an unintentional version.

Pot, kettle, black…
[Now, now – no more distracting arguments.
An intentional deceipt is obviously the automatically printed copy received from the teller (complete with name, address, and date of purchase) of the lie.
An unintentional deceipt happens when you rewrite over the carbon copy of the original deceipt. Mod]

richardscourtney

Steven Mosher:
Thankyou for your comment at May 12, 2014 at 6:45 am.
If you had an argument other than your assertion of me being a “third-rate thinker” then you would have made it. So, to be vilified by the likes of you – and in the manner you have – is the highest acclaim which demonstrates I have a good case.
Thankyou.
Richard

“the graph had an overlay of ‘thermometer’ data over the plotted ‘proxy’ data. This overlay was – I said – misleading because it was an ‘apples and oranges’ comparison”
Aren’t there similar issues with recent headlines that CO2 of 400ppm (via Mauna Loa) was higher than the last X hundred thousand years (via ice cores)?

coalsoffire

Mosh,
How low and stupid can you get? Pretty low and stupid judging by your comment. You entirely miss the point of the email exchange. It’s not the elegance of Richard’s criticism that matters here. It’s Mann’s ridiculous response. His denial does not weaken the evidence of deceit, it very plainly adds to it.

JimS

@pottereaton
Thanks.

coalsoffire

Mosh, (the master of more snark than light)
Further of interest in Mann’s response (beyond the projection of deceit) is the implied threat against any who criticize. Better not “go public” with that or there will be consequences. Not an empty threat at all, as subsequent events and other emails would show.
I guess I’d better put the words stupid and low into this post as well so it goes into moderation and doesn’t get out of sequence with my last one.

Edim

Joshua, yes imo. The CO2 hockey stick is even worse than the temperature one. That so many people believe it, even many skeptics, is mindboggling.

richardscourtney

ferdberple and John Who:
I refer you to the original publication of MBH98 and its caption which can be seen here.
The caption of the Figure says

Panels, (top to bottom) as follows. ‘NH’, reconstructed NH temperature series from 1610–1980, updated with instrumental data from 1981–95.

So, the Figure caption says the two data series were spliced and the Figure shows the splice.
In my email to Keller I wrote

The ‘hockey stick’ is obtained by splicing two different data sets. Similar data to the earlier data set exists for up to near the present and could have been spliced on, but this would not show the ‘hockey stick’ and was not done.

That is true.
But Mann’s reply to Keller says

This guys email is intentional deceipt. Our method, as you know, doesn’t include any “splicing of two different datasets”-this is a myth perptuated by Singer and his band of hired guns, who haven’t bothered to read our papers or the captions of the figures they like to mis-represent…

That is a series of falsehoods which can only be deliberate because Mann was the Lead Author of the paper which includes the ‘hockey stick’ graph.
I provided no “deceipt” (intentional or otherwise),
the Figure shows splicing of two different datasets,
the “caption” of the figure says the two data sets were spliced, and
the figure identifies which data is from which data set.
I think Steyn’s lawyers would find this series of falsehoods from Mann to be pertinent to legal consideration of Steyn’s description of the Figure which Mann disputes.
Richard

ffohnad

I don’t know if, as Richard says it was a dumb mistake, incompetent scientist, or intention deceit, but I suspect the latter. What it did do was show the world the underside of the CAGW rock, and thus caused many to enhance their skeptical POV for that I am grateful.
Once the deceit was exposed, a nominally intelligent person would have said oops,sorry, and craft a more undetectable lie.
I read recently that nearly 80% of those in congress took only the required minimum science credits. This could explain why perhaps our leaders are even more ignorant of climate that the average person . What easy targets for deceitful scientist.
After the cost of this farce in money and lives, the greatest damage is that done to all science in the perception of the public. As my father told me” One Aw S**t whips out a hundred atta boys” . We will all be tarnished by those who have prostituted science to this power grab, and I for one am very angry.
Doug

As Steven mentioned, this post seems rather confused. Mann by-and-large did not splice the instrumental record together with the proxy record (they are plotted with separate colors and lines in his figures). He also did not use the Briffa series whose decline was “hidden” on the WMO report cover.

Zeke Hausfather says:
May 12, 2014 at 8:25 am
As Steven mentioned, this post seems rather confused. Mann by-and-large did not splice the instrumental record together with the proxy record (they are plotted with separate colors and lines in his figures).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In such a manner as a casual observer would not have noticed the transition. It gave a false impression to all but the most astute and detailed of observers.

davidmhoffer,
I agree that the original figure could have been better and more clearly differentiated: http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/hockey_stick1998.gif
But that may have had more to do with poor digital graphic creation techniques back in the dark ages of 1998 than any intend to deceive.

Gary Pearse

Steven Mosher says:
May 12, 2014 at 6:45 am
“Err.
Why dilute the excellent attacks that mcintyre makes
On mann and his years of devotion by giving
Attention to courtney. Read the mail. And his claims about the mail.
Courtney is a distraction. He doesnt even make a cogent case.
Why. Why distract people from mcintyres cogent case
With this self aggrandizing crap from a third rate thinker.”
This is a luddish and un-self aggrandizing remark. Also, Steve McIntyre’s hair-splitting response re splicing or non-splicing. Courtney copies the M98 figure caption which shows it to be a splice in Mann’s eyes and Courtney also makes the remark that had M98 continued the tree proxy, it would not have showed the hockey stick so they left it off.
Gentlemen, without the benefit of Climategate emails, do you not think it was a remarkable contemporary coup of M98 by Courtney? Don’t you think this early critique deserves a place in the story? After-all, even if there were some aspects (not revealed at the time) he basically criticized the very representation that became such a hallmark of McIntyre’s more punctilious dissection. It seems it is a bit like criticizing Newton in light of Einstein’s more fundamental erudition.
Richard, you are a pioneer in this battle for truth in climate science.

Zeke Hausfather;
But that may have had more to do with poor digital graphic creation techniques back in the dark ages of 1998 than any intend to deceive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That’s a pretty weak defense. Crayons still worked in 1998 for gawd’s sake. Had the full instrumental temperature record been plotted clearly and apart from the full proxy record, the divergence problem would have been starkly visible, and the trust worthiness of tree ring proxies cast into serious doubt. I ascribe to the notion that one should never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. So you are free to take your pick, malice or incompetence. In this case though, malice must seriously be considered, and your defense does nothing to deter me from that conclusion.

Bart

richardscourtney says:
May 12, 2014 at 7:37 am
Don’t let it ruffle your feathers too much. It’s just his usual drive-by MO. If you are third rate, then second and first rate do not even exist, and Mosher doesn’t even make the list.

richardscourtney

Steve McIntyre:
I take exception to your misrepresentations in your post at May 12, 2014 at 7:14 am which is here.
Your post begins saying

Anth0ny, this post has numerous errors, none of which should be made by people interested in this topic. It is very disappointing to read such material.

I agree that your post does contain “numerous errors”.
The first such “error” is when you write

Contra Courtney’s conflation of “hide the decline aka Mike’s Nature trick, Mike’s Nature trick applied in Mann et al 1998 had NOTHING to do with “hide the decline” – which was an issue with the Briffa reconstruction

But I did NOT “conflate” those issues.
On the contrary, I said

In the same week as MBH98 was published I wrote an email on the ‘ClimateSkeptics’ circulation list. That email objected to the ‘hockeystick’ graph because the graph had an overlay of ‘thermometer’ data over the plotted ‘proxy’ data. This overlay was – I said – misleading because it was an ‘apples and oranges’ comparison: of course, I was not then aware of the ‘hide the decline’ (aka “Mike’s Nature trick”) issue.

I could not “conflate” something of which I was not aware.
However, as I said, my ‘apples and oranges’ point was later shown to have great importance when the ‘divergence problem’ became known.
You say

In the Mann et al 1998 diagram criticized in Courtney’s email, the proxy reconstruction and the observed data are distinguished by being plotted in different colors or different line type. In other words, they were not “spliced” in the diagram.

Yes, but so what?
As I have repeatedly said (for example here
Where I wrote

As you say

There is a splice but there is also use of a dotted line to indicate it.

So, the Mann deliberately lied when he wrote

This guys email is intentional deceipt. Our method, as you know, doesn’t include any “splicing of two different datasets”-this is a myth perptuated by Singer and his band of hired guns, who haven’t bothered to read our papers or the captions of the figures they like to mis-represent…<

All the spliced ‘thermometer’ data is above the ‘proxy’ data. This implies that the recent temperatures were higher than the temperatures at times of the proxy data. However, we now know that implication was false and resulted from difference between the two methods whose results were spliced (i.e. the ‘divergence problem’).

And please note that the addition in parenthesis does not “conflate” anything; it points to the fact that evidence later came to light which showed the implication was false for the reason which any unbiased person would have known to be a possibility.
But you say of that

While, as noted above, it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, for a contemporary reader to discern this meaning, this criticism is equally invalid in my opinion.

Say what!?
My original email to Keller said

The ‘hockey stick’ is obtained by splicing two different data sets. Similar data to the earlier data set exists for up to near the present and could have been spliced on, but this would not show the ‘hockey stick’ and was not done.

I fail to understand how you have failed to discern this meaning.
And you go on to say

I and others take issue with the “divergence problem” precisely because when one plots the Briffa reconstruction against observed temperatures in the 20th century, the two plots diverge. According to Courtney’s criticism, it would be invalid to do such a plot. This is absurd.

Yes, your misrepresentation of my statements is “absurd”.
You are conflating my objection to splicing ‘apples and oranges’ with the ‘divergence problem’. I have made no such conflation but you complain that I have while doing it yourself!
Of course different data sets can be plotted on the same graph for comparison.
BUT
That is NOT the same as taking selected parts of two data sets and splicing them together which is what MBH98 does and I complained about.

And you add

As I said to Courtney at CA on this point, if I’m unconvinced on this issue, I can’t imagine why a judge or jury would be convinced.

It is because you have not understood what I have written and you have asserted I have written other things.
A judge or jury would see the clear falsehood stated by Mann in his email quoted above. The two data sets were spliced and he wrote that the method did not splice them. This goes to the crux of Mann’s credibility about the method which generated the graph: why did Mann lie about the method if the method he did use could be defended by telling the truth?
You follow that with irrelevance about the ‘divergence problem’ and the work of Briffa before concluding

There are important issues in connection with the Mann corpus. This is not one of them. Too often, Mann’s opponents make irrelevant and easily rebutted criticisms. Unfortunately, this makes it easier for Mann to avoid more substantive criticisms. For a full explication of the differences between the various incidents, I refer people to the following CA post: http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/29/keiths-science-trick-mikes-nature-trick-and-phils-combo/

Yes, you have done – and you continue to do – much good work on this subject: I have often cited it. But the interests of others in the subject are not irrelevant because they predate your work and/or because they address issues other than those of your work.
Richard

Mark Bofill

Steven Mosher says:

…With this self aggrandizing crap from a third rate thinker.

Pros: ??
Cons: Diminishes your point, makes it easier to dismiss / ignore, and weakens your overall brand. I don’t have to admit to being a silent little lamb, I can ignore you because of the baggage.
Course, I don’t rate as a thinker at all, so perhaps the impact is insignificant.

hunter

There appears to be some manifestations of behind the scenes tension in this thread.
Courtney’s points seem to be pretty well documented and straight forward: Mann was splicing two very different records and claiming the resulting over lays are valid to draw conclusions from. These points do not seem to be that far removed from what Mosher/McIntyre are saying. Nor does Courtney seem to be making claims wildly divergent from the record.
Yet there is an antagonism between the various parties I find interesting. Perhaps a way to see some good in this is that thension prevents an echo chamber from forming, which is fundamental to the health of any honest inquiry.

richardscourtney

Bart:
Thanks for your post at May 12, 2014 at 8:54 am.
Mosher’s post did not “ruffle my feathers”.
I did not know of Mann’s email until it was released as part of climategate. But somebody thought it was of sufficient interest to save, to collate and to leak as part of climategate.
Clearly, Mosher thinks Mann’s email is of sufficient importance for him to try to deflect from consideration of it. As I said, my decision to draw attention to Mann’s email was confirmed as being right by Mosher’s silly post.
Richard

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Yogyakarta

“And Richard was both kind and generous when he attributed their error to stupidity. It is clear that regardless of how the error was originated (stupidity or malfeasance), the “coverup” was pure malfeasance.”
Well said! The question of what people knew and when they knew it is important. The response by Mann is clear: he knew what he did, he did it deliberately and knowingly and with malice of forethought – malice against the true temperature record.
The number of people who have covered up since: looks like there was someone inside Science who was a ‘team member’. That person should be identified to see what articles they approved and which they spiked in those days in order to support the a graph they seem to have known was faked. It is unbelievable that they didn’t know about it.
I do not think the number was all that large – but it grew over the years. For a book on how use a few people carefully placed to use ‘the spike’ at a place like ‘Science’ to conduct a wide-scale manipulation of public opinion, read the novel by the same name http://www.amazon.com/The-Spike-Arnaud-De-Borchgrave/dp/0517536242

Jeff Norman

Further to Tom J’s comment…
Dr. Mann sez in his e-mail:
“Phil Jones, Ray Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes dispelled much of the mythology expressed below years ago.”
Given his response was written in 2000 about a criticism written in 1998 about a paper published in 1998 I am not clear on the reference to “years ago”.

Gary Hladik

Anthony Watts says (May 12, 2014 at 9:14 am): “Zeke and others, see my inline reply to McIntyre in his comment.”
To Anthony and moderators: Since Steve M’s comment adds considerable “meat” to Richard’s article, perhaps an “Updated” link in the article could point to the McIntyre comment and responses to it by Anthony and Richard.

Hunter said
‘Courtney’s points seem to be pretty well documented and straight forward: Mann was splicing two very different records and claiming the resulting over lays are valid to draw conclusions from. These points do not seem to be that far removed from what Mosher/McIntyre are saying. Nor does Courtney seem to be making claims wildly divergent from the record.
Yet there is an antagonism between the various parties I find interesting. Perhaps a way to see some good in this is that the tension prevents an echo chamber from forming, which is fundamental to the health of any honest inquiry.’
This seems a reasonable summation and Anthony has amplified it. Quite why Mosh thought that level of unpleasantness he displayed was necessary was beyond me. He is better than this and his increasing levels of snark make me uncomfortable.
tonyb

PiperPaul

“…but doing the wrong
thing carefully does not make it right.”

Similar to the difference between ‘precision’ and ‘accuracy’.