National Review gives Michael Mann the ****stick

Not just a Hockeystick, but borrowing from official CNN language last week, this appears to be the legal equivalent of a f***stick. It is quite a read.

McIntrye, McKittrick, Christy, and Andrew Montford among others are referenced.

Excerpts: 

Critics of the hockey-stick graph have focused on what they believe to be four serious flaws in its underlying methodology.

First, they have questioned the reliability of the graph’s underlying data. Because there are no thermometer records before the middle of the 19th century, the bulk of the hockey stick is composed of so-called “proxy” data, such as ancient tree rings, sedimentary pollen levels, and oxygen isotopes frozen in polar ice caps. Dr. Mann argues that these proxy data can be interpreted to provide an accurate record of global temperatures going back more than a thousand years. Some critics disagree. They argue, for example, that tree-ring formations cannot provide an accurate measure of global historical temperature trends — in part because temperatures fluctuate unevenly in different parts of the world, and in part because the relevant tree-ring characteristics are influenced not only by temperature changes but also by variable growth factors such as sunlight, water, and soil nutrients. In the eyes of critics, any statistical model that uses such data to reconstruct centuries of historical temperature trends is fundamentally flawed and misleading.

Second, critics have argued that the hockey stick relies on flawed statistical techniques, including a skewed Principal Components Analysis (“PCA”), producing an erroneous and misleading interpretation of the underlying data. For example, according to Professor David Hand, the former President of the Royal Statistical Society in Great Britain, “The particular technique [used by Dr. Mann and his co-authors] exaggerated the size of the blade at the end of the hockey stick. Had they used an appropriate technique the size of the blade of the hockey stick would have been smaller.”

If one uses a better statistical method, “[t]he change in temperature is not as great over the 20th century compared to the past as suggested by the Mann paper.” Id.

Third, critics have argued that the hockey stick is misleading because it splices together two different types of data without highlighting the change: For roughly the first nine centuries after the year 1000 A.D., the graph shows temperature levels that have been inferred solely from tree-ring samples and other “proxy” data. But from about 1900 onward, the graph relies on readings from modern instruments such as thermometers. In the words of one review conducted by a panel of independent scientists, many consider it “regrettable” that temperature reconstructions “by the IPCC and others” neglected to emphasize “the discrepancy between instrumental and tree-based proxy reconstructions of temperature during the late 20th century.” J.A. 370.

Fourth, critics have contended that the hockey stick is misleading because it omits certain

tree-ring data after the year 1960 that show a decline in global temperatures, and instead relies more heavily on thermometer readings that show an increase in temperatures during that period. The omission of these data gained widespread public attention after the leak of multiple e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (“CRU”), prompting an uproar popularly known as “Climategate.” In one particularly controversial e-mail, CRU scientist Phil Jones wrote to Dr. Mann and two other scientists: “I’ve just completed Mike’s [i.e., Dr. Mann’s] Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) [and] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Dr. Mann himself has not denied the omission of certain proxy data after the year 1960, but has argued that the omission is legitimate: “[T]hese data should not be used to represent temperatures after 1960,” he explains, because “the density of wood exhibits an enigmatic decline in response to temperature after about 1960.”

In other words, because temperature measurements from modern instruments show that these data points are not reliable, Mann contends that it is legitimate “not to show those data during the unreliable post-1960 period.” Id.

Critics disagree, arguing that the hockey stick should have included the post-1960 proxy data to give a more full and accurate picture: since modern instruments have shown tree-ring proxies to be inaccurate after 1960, they say, this also calls into question the reliability of the proxy data from earlier years, where no thermometer readings are available to provide an independent check.

Based on these four separate criticisms, Dr. Mann and his detractors have engaged in a long-running public debate over the validity of the hockey stick and its underlying methodology. Dr. Mann and his defenders characterize the hockey stick as methodologically sound, contending that it gives an accurate picture of the dire threat global warming poses. Critics of the hockey stick characterize it as badly flawed, contending that its reliance on questionable statistical techniques and its method of data presentation render it false and misleading.

In testimony before the United States Congress, Professor John Christy summarized the critical view by stating that “evidence nowindicates . . . that an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) amputating another’s result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data.”

The tone of the debate

Given the strong differences of opinion, the tone of the hockey-stick debate has been intense and at times vituperative, with both sides indulging in caustic rhetoric. Dr. Mann himselfhas harshly condemned hi

s critics, branding them as “climate deniers,” and denouncing them as liarsand frauds. In 2005, for example, Dr. Mann wrote an e-mail to a New York Times reporter asserting that “[t]he McIntyre and McKitrick paper is pure scientific fraud,” and that “[a]number of us are . . .very surprised that Nature is publishing it.”

 …

ARGUMENT

I. The D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act Applies To Dr. Mann’s Attempt To Silence His Critics

II. Criticism Of The Hockey Stick Is Not Actionable Under The First Amendment

A. The First Amendment Protects Vigorous Criticism on Matters of Political and Scientific Controversy

1. Scientific controversy must be resolved through free and open debate,not through litigation.

2.The First Amendment protects rhetorical hyperbole on matters of public controversy.

3. Protecting free speech requires substantive and procedural safeguards

B. The Lower Court Failed to Enforce the First Amendment’s Substantive and Procedural Protection for Speech on Matters of Public Controversy

C. Under a Proper Application of the First Amendment, the Commentary Published by National Review Was Core Protected Speech

…the commentary was part of the heated public debate over the hockey-stick graph, where caustic criticism and hyperbolic rhetoric are the coin of the realm. Dr. Mann himself has set the tone of the debate, accusing his intellectual opponents of “pure scientific fraud,” “the fraudulent denial of climate change,” making “fraudulent” claims, “t[aking] corporate payoffs for knowingly lying about the threat climate change pose[s] to humanity,” “willfully . . . le[a]d[ing] the public andpolicy makers astray,” being “anti-science,” and deliberately seeking to “mislead” people through “deceptive . . . report[s]” that “regurgitate[]” “denialist myths.”See supra at 6-7 & nn. 9-13. Since Dr. Mann’s references to “fraud” and “knowingly lying” reflect the linguistic reality of the global-warming debate, it cannot be seriously suggested that Dr. Mann can unilaterally punish his critics for similar rhetoric.

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

Read the whole thing here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/sites/default/files/NR_Opening-Brief.pdf

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Wouldn’t even touch him your yours let alone mine.

Better get going on “copy editing” this script. Has enough flaws to hurt the presentation.

mpainter

No mention of upside down Tiljander.

Max Hugoson says:
August 4, 2014 at 4:47 pm
It would be helpful if you pointed out your favorite ten or twenty.

H Grouse

Gee, I thought this lawsuit was about “defamation.”
The “science” is not at issue in the case.

Latitude

mpainter says:
August 4, 2014 at 4:54 pm
No mention of upside down Tiljander
====
…which is the absolute deal breaker….and is never mentioned

Jimbo

Mann’s tree rings are wonderful water gauges.

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/

The Hokey Schtick is a fabrication of Climastrology.

H Grouse

Jimbo says:
August 4, 2014 at 5:08 pm
….
“The Hokey Schtick is a fabrication of Climastrology.”

Didn’t other scientists confirm Mann’s work with subsequent studies using different proxies and methodologies?

Jimbo

Here is an interesting article about the pitfalls of Mann. There are so many issues with Mann’s tree rings it’s a joke. All this effort to within 1C? So much can and must have gone wrong. I think he picked the best cherry trees and not Bristlecone pines.

Possible Pitfalls of Tree Rings as a Proxy
One way in which the presentation of data can be misleading is to combine data derived from a proxy source with observed data. In Figure 6 we show data for Dimmie in Scotland. This site is near to Edinburgh which has a two-century-long temperature record. The graph has calculated data up 1975 and observed data (plotted as 5-year moving average) from then onward. This appears to show little variation in temperature until the end of the 20th century: the classic “hockey stick” shape. Figure 7 shows the same data but with the observed data for the whole period superimposed on the calculated data. As can be seen, the calculated data has much less variance than the observed data, though still with an increase toward the end. This demonstrates a principle we have adhered to throughout this site: wherever possible we have presented all the data and where we have used data from different sources they are shown differently. In some cases, for example in comparing records of very different lengths, we have not plotted the whole record but in most cases the all the files we have created are available as separate downloads.
The final two graphs (Figure 8 and Figure 9)are for Bristlecone Pines from the USA. This record is very long – 2000 years – and therefore potentially very valuable for temperature reconstruction. However it shows a particular characteristic, that is there is a very marked increase in growth of tree rings from the late 19th century onward (above left). The next chart (above right) compares the Bristlecone Pines with the average of 10 other US sites. These do not exhibit the same characteristic. This singular increase was originally ascribed to carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere. Another theory is that as the trees get old they become very twisted and this may lead to relaxation of the fibres and an apparent growth in ring size.
http://www.climatedata.info/Proxy/Proxy/treerings_introduction.html

Doug Proctor

You should be able to sue. But if you sue, you should have to IMMEDIATELY pony-up, provide your evidence of wrong-doing AND submit to disclosure as the defendant requires.
When you say you have been wronged, there is no reason to take a long time to determine exactly in what way you have been wronged and stand before a jury and explain how you were wronged. It is legitimate that the defendant asks for more time – if innocent, he has no forwarning of a problem, and if there is an error of understanding by the plaintiff, it may take time for the defendant to figure out where the error is. But the defendant should in no way be allowed to drag out the case. Something bad happened to him, he recognized the bad and is complaining. Shouldn’t be any more complicated than that to go to court.
Mann is using the system to better his political, social and professional ends more than to address a personal wrong.
Do I have to add IMHO or this is my interpretation? Perhaps, so read the previous words as a statement rather than a question.
In the land of the bully, all are victims or potential victims.

Glen Livingston

NR is just the junior varsity team. Pretty clear NR just wants to go home. Reading their brief enlightens (for me anyway) why Mark Steyn went his own way. I am guessing that Mark is going to bring the hammer down if the “Mann” does not back down. Mark has counter-sued to make sure he has his day in court and will do all to discredit the “Mann” and his stick. No need for NR to get into the “bad science” details……let Mark get him on the stand and hammer away. I loaded up on Boy Scout popcorn….hope it is enough.

“hide the decline” comes to mind……the tree rings show COOLING, switch to thermometers at that time to “hide the decline”…….more recently the observations show slight cooling over 17 years, “hide the decline” deep in the oceans this time was one suggestion.

Jimbo

H Grouse says:
August 4, 2014 at 5:16 pm

Jimbo says:
August 4, 2014 at 5:08 pm
….
“The Hokey Schtick is a fabrication of Climastrology.”


Didn’t other scientists confirm Mann’s work with subsequent studies using different proxies and methodologies?

What else can they do? It’s called confirmation bias, and it’s worse than we thought.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends upon his not understanding it”.
Upton Sinclair

clipe

H Grouse says:
August 4, 2014 at 4:56 pm
Gee, I thought this lawsuit was about “defamation.”
The “science” is not at issue in the case.
If the “hockeystick” proves to be junk science then there is no “defamation”.

Latitude

Jimbo says:
August 4, 2014 at 5:08 pm
====
things grow in their sweet spot…too cold, nope….too hot, nope
When someone can prove to me that they can tell the difference between something not growing because it’s too hot, or too cold….
…then I will start believing in paleoclimatology

H Grouse

Jimbo says:
August 4, 2014 at 5:21 pm
“It’s called confirmation bias”

I’m sure there are countless other reconstructions that show different results.

Can you name a few?

H Grouse

clipe says:
August 4, 2014 at 5:23 pm
“If the “hockeystick” proves to be junk science”
If if the science is “junk” hat does not justify the comparison to Sandusky

It is only going to get worse for Mann. He was looking to use Soros’ deep pockets to silence the critics. He never intended it to go to discovery as evidenced by his refusal to allow discovery with Steyn.

Jimbo

H Grouse says:
August 4, 2014 at 5:28 pm
Jimbo says:
August 4, 2014 at 5:21 pm
“It’s called confirmation bias”

I’m sure there are countless other reconstructions that show different results.

Can you name a few?

But you already said:

Didn’t other scientists confirm Mann’s work with subsequent studies using different proxies and methodologies?

Did you name them? You see, you want me to go looking, which I can, but you made the first move, so you find those “other scientists” first.

H Grouse

Argument number 4 from the NRO is the most telling of their brief….
“National Review Cannot Be Held Liable For Third Party Statements On Its Website”
.

Jimbo

By the way H Grouse, Mann’s reconstruction stopped in 1960. The rest is THERMOMETER history. I can pick trees that confirm my beliefs. Yamal et al.

Michael 2

H Grouse says: “Didn’t other scientists confirm Mann’s work with subsequent studies using different proxies and methodologies?”
While “didn’t” questions are ambiguous, the article itself states that the blade would not be as pronounced — it will still be there and hardly anyone denies that *some* warming has taken place since 1970, just as some cooling preceeded 1970 back to 1930’s which were warm (dust bowl days), then cool again, and so on.
The real argument is one of magnitude and whether the human race faces catastrophe that only global socialism can fix versus some mixture of natural and human causes which greatly limit the effectiveness of global socialism. Inasmuch as I am opposed to global socialism I will “lean” away from global warming just as advocates of socialism see this as a tool to bring it about and consequently exaggerate it.
Think about it — the sea could be some feet higher by the year 2100, but will there still be any nation on Earth that is now constituted as presently constituted? The United States has been a nation for little over 200 years. Many nations will come and go before the sea does whatever it is going to do.

ossqss

The day we see justice come to the global policy setting fraud of the mann, will be the day we hear a Cello play an AD/DC song.
Oh wait!

Rud Istvan

H grouse, there was no direct comparison to Sandusky by Steyn. Read Mann’s own complaint. And then please explain his false pleadings in both the original court filing (#2 I am a Nobel prize winner) and amended complaint concerning exonerations (eviscerated by S. McIntyre re e.g. Oxbridge).
You must presume we ‘deniers’ are mentally or memory challenged. You only proved that either you are, or that you continue to willingly and deliberately distort established published facts. thanks for posting more indelible evidence of your failed positions, and probable mendacity.

clipe

“If if the science is “junk” hat does not justify the comparison to Sandusky”
Depends on how you look at what was written and who wrote it.

H Grouse

Michael 2 says:
August 4, 2014 at 5:45 pm
“The real argument is one of magnitude”

Are you saying that no other reconstruction has invalidated the shape of the graph ?
Are you saying that the subsequent reconstructions have not invalidated Mann’s work?
Or can you point to a subsequent reconstruction that show no up tick in the 20th century?

H Grouse

clipe says:
August 4, 2014 at 5:47 pm
‘Depends on how you look at what was written and who wrote it.”
Two different judges have already determined the case has merit. When it comes to lawsuits, I do believe you need to recognize the authority of judges.

JohnB

H Grouse, you might want to look closely at the FULL author list of those “confirming” papers. (And consider the dictionary meaning of the word “Independent” and whether it applies.) 😉

Tom In Indy

Has anyone compared the modern tree ring data to the raw modern temperature record? If the post 1960 tree ring data shows a decline, and the raw thermometer data shows a decline, then it seems like further reason not to believe the current methods used to adjust the raw data.

H Grouse

JohnB says:
August 4, 2014 at 5:51 pm

” FULL author list”

Do you, or do you not have a published reconstruction that invalidates the shape of the “hockey stick?”

milodonharlani

Piltdown Mann.

Latitude

H Grouse says:
August 4, 2014 at 5:49 pm
Or can you point to a subsequent reconstruction that show no up tick in the 20th century?
===========
nope…..
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo3.png

milodonharlani

H Grouse says:
August 4, 2014 at 5:55 pm
I do. Those by all reputable scientists, not by charlatans.

H Grouse;
Are you saying that no other reconstruction has invalidated the shape of the graph ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Starting with your original question, yes there have been other studies that corroborate the hockey stick, most notably Keith Briffa’s. Since his own hockey stick graph was published though, Briffa has since published new studies that restore the Medieval Warming Period, which is entirely missing from Mann’s work. There was a more recent study corroborating Mann (I’ve forgotten the author’s name) but it was so badly shredded that the author himself admitted that it didn’t corroborate the hockey stick. As for other studies, there are many that undermine the hockey stick and show that the MWP was indeed global. In fact, there are rather a large number of them:
http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html
However, context is also important. Early science fiction movies used close up shots of insects to portray horrid aliens from space. Magnified, they look rather scary. Back up to a realistic distance though, and a monstrous fly becomes… just a harmless fly. This graphic helps stand back from the cloe up shot and puts things in perspective:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif

H Grouse

Latitude says:
August 4, 2014 at 5:57 pm
“nope…..”
Note that my pretty picture has labels, so you know what it means. Whereas your picture….says ?????
http://ichart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=^DJI&t=5d&q=l&l=on&z=l&p=s&a=v&p=s

James Strom

There always seems to be a surprise. Here, they’ve got Mann saying that Briffa’s trees exhibit an “enigmatic” decline in response to temperature, which somehow I hadn’t seen before. Priceless.

H Grouse

davidmhoffer says:
August 4, 2014 at 6:06 pm
“However, context is also important. ”
Yes it is, and as your graphic illustrates very well, one geographical point cannot be used to infer the global trend. ( Greenland ice core)

Thank you for that.

Gary Pearse

Hasn’t the hockey stick blade now bent and headed back down again, essentially since M’s paper was published in 1998? I guess you could flip the new stick over and use the new blade for shooting the puck, although the shaft would have a kink
downwards in it. “________________
\
\________”
O
It’s a bit like the Al Gore Effect. As soon as he publishes, the temps bent back down again. Well at least my stick has the Tiljander series right side up after all these years.

Douglas Proctor

Daily ‘Climate Science’ Predictions:
Taurus – An unexpected bill will overshadow an otherwise bright sunny day.

Gary Pearse

Darn, my hockey stick didn’t come out right, I’ll try again: _______________
\
\
\___________

mpainter

H Grouse@5:51pm
You say two judges have ruled on the merit of the suit; if you mean Mann’s suit I believe that his was tossed out as without basis. Steyn has countersued and that is now being litigated as I understand.

H Grouse;
“However, context is also important. ”
Yes it is, and as your graphic illustrates very well, one geographical point cannot be used to infer the global trend. ( Greenland ice core)

Thank you for that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You nicely side stepped the 200+ studies I linked to that invalidate Mann’s hockey stick. Nice try.

NikFromNYC

Rehashing old history reveals a pacifist lack of testosterone towards advancing simple whistleblowing about last year hockey stick history, you idiot baffoon “skeptics”.
What is this, a back patting little insider social club? The soft jazz soft rock riccoco classical retirement home of righteousness?
EXPOSE FRAUD ALREADY:
http://s6.postimg.org/jb6qe15rl/Marcott_2013_Eye_Candy.jpg
Get that on the news.
There is no philosophy in it.
There is no debate here.
It’s a CRIME.
Focus on contemporary fraud or you are old history you careerist hobbiest “skeptics.”
A power play has been played AGAINST you.
So you fill a blog?

Gaylon

H Grouse says:
August 4, 2014 at 5:55 pm
Go here and read (link below)…the hockey stick has been invalidated. The North and Wegman congressional reports are in agree, as do other analysis’: bad samples, bad statistics, bad science.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/403256/global-warming-bombshell/
See ‘Latitudes’ graph at 5:57pm. It was shown that based on Mann’s statistical maths hockeysticks would be formed if the data was left out altogether and substituted with red noise..
What is your point btw?

H Grouse

mpainter says:
August 4, 2014 at 6:20 pm
No, Mann’s suit has not been tossed. The refusal to dismiss the SLAPP motions have been appealed. The issue is if the dismissal is immediately appealable, or if the appeal of the dismissal of defendants motion to dismiss (NRO, CEI, & Steyn) should wait until after trial.

Latitude

H Grouse says:
August 4, 2014 at 6:09 pm
Note that my pretty picture has labels, so you know what it means. Whereas your picture….says ?????
=====
sorry…didn’t realize I was dealing with a n00b………..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

H Grouse

Gaylon says:
August 4, 2014 at 6:23 pm
“The North and Wegman congressional reports ”
….
Wow, I didn’t know congressional reports are peer reviewed scientific papers…
Gee, you learn something new every day on this site !!!!

Evan Jones

For that matter, Mann (2008) pretty well contradicts his own Hockey Stick. I wonder if the attorneys know that?

H Grouse

Latitude says:
August 4, 2014 at 6:27 pm
,,,,,,,,,,
“sorry…didn’t realize I was dealing ”
…..
With someone that thinks one ice core from Greenland reflects the ENTIRE GLOBE !!!!!!!!