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:
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.
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.
Gee, I thought this lawsuit was about “defamation.”
The “science” is not at issue in the case.
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
Mann’s tree rings are wonderful water gauges.
The Hokey Schtick is a fabrication of Climastrology.
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?
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.
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.
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.
What else can they do? It’s called confirmation bias, and it’s worse than we thought.
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”.
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
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?
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.
But you already said:
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.
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”
.
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.
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.
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!
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.
“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.
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?
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.
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.) 😉
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.
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?”
Piltdown Mann.
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
Some background.
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/17/mann-and-the-oxburgh-panel/
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/24/mann-misrepresents-the-uk-commons-committee/
http://climateaudit.org/2014/05/09/mann-misrepresents-the-epa-part-1/
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Daily ‘Climate Science’ Predictions:
Taurus – An unexpected bill will overshadow an otherwise bright sunny day.
Darn, my hockey stick didn’t come out right, I’ll try again: _______________
\
\
\___________
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.
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?
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?
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.
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/
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 !!!!
For that matter, Mann (2008) pretty well contradicts his own Hockey Stick. I wonder if the attorneys know that?
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 !!!!!!!!
For H Grouse;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/
An excellent write up of Briffa’s paper that invalidates Mann’s work and Briffa’s ow previous work purported to support Mann.
I note you continue to side step the issue of the 200+ other studies I provided you with which also invalidate Mann. As for your quip about Wegman and North congressional reports not being peer reviewed scientific papers, if that is the limit of your criticism of them, then you stand looking pretty silly. Find a flaw in their evidence or their logic, and you may have a leg to stand upon. Your credibility is fast circling the drain otherwise.
davidmhoffer says:
August 4, 2014 at 6:35 pm
“the e 200+ other studies I provided you with which also invalidate Mann. ”
….
…
Most of the “200+” have a timescale that is not relevant.
Try again .
davidmhoffer,
“H Grouse” writes suspiciously like a site pest by the name of ‘chuck’. Maybe he’s the same, maybe not. But if he is, he will not argue in good faith. Rather, he will argue incessantly even when he is shown to be flat wrong — which happened to ‘chuck’ several times.
Anyway, there are numerous papers and charts debunking Mann’s Hokey Stick chart. Here is one, here is another. And another instance of diddling with the data.
Next, this is what Mann tried to hide.
Then there was the rare Corregendum that Nature was forced to publish. In short, it said that there were serious errors in Mann’s paper and chart.
Mann is also infamous for trying to “hide the decline“.
And there were even books written about Mann’s dishonesty, like this one.
There is a reason that Mann hides out from any fair, moderated debate: his science is bogus, and he knows he would get destroyed. So he takes his pot shots from the safety of carefully scripted venues, and he depends on a small army of sycophants to carry his water. If Mann really believed in what he’s selling, he wouldn’t be afraid to defend it.
H Grouse says:
August 4, 2014 at 6:31 pm
With someone that thinks one ice core from Greenland reflects the ENTIRE GLOBE !!!!!!!!
===========
ROTFL….with a n00b!
You wanted to see a hockey stick…didn’t even know one of the most obvious ice core…and there’s a hockey stick…..looks ridiculous in perspective don’t it?
Why is it the mention of Michael Mann’s name…brings out the loons?
H Grouse;
Most of the “200+” have a timescale that is not relevant.
Try again .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I see. No matter how much evidence is provided to you, you simply skip over it. Yes some of the papers are much different time scales. Guess what? They corroborate the ice core data that you just finished poo pooing because it was only a single location. But you in your mind, that allows you to skip over all the studies in the list that ARE on an appropriate time scale?
You asked if there had been corroborating papers or not. You’ve been supplied with long lists of papers that invalidate Mann, including papers by his own co-author which Mann hasn’t even tried to refute. You haven’t shown any papers of your own in support of his work, you just natter away about what is wrong with criticisms of it by ignoring the facts in front of you, or that tired worn out quip, “but it isn’t peer reviewed”.
You know what I wish H Grouse? I wish that once, just once, a troll like you would actually show up and add something to the discussion. Just once I’d like to see a troll like you bring up a fact, or point out some reasoning, some logic chain, some data, that actually made me go “hmmm… I have to rethink my beliefs”. Just ONCE H Grouse. All you’ve done so far is mutter the same old excuses and ignored valid facts provided to you.
But here’s the real fork in the eye moment for you H Grouse. If we assume than Mann 98 and Mann 99 are completely correct, then the warming would have continued since then, and the earth would be melting by now. But it didn’t and it isn’t.
Latitude;
Why is it the mention of Michael Mann’s name…brings out the loons?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’ve noticed the same. Negative press on Mann and out come the trolls. They’ve been a rare breed on WUWT for a long time now, the weight of evidence against the CAGW meme has become too much for them I suppose.
H Grouse says:
With someone that thinks one ice core from Greenland reflects the ENTIRE GLOBE !!!!!!!!
Actually, it does reflect the entire globe. “H Grouse” is the noob here, since he does not understand that basic fact. To educate Mr “Grouse”:
The ice core data from Greenland [GISP-2], the Arctic, and the Antarctic [Vostok] all show temperatures rising and falling in unison. They fully corroborate each other. Therefore, they are excellent proxies for global T.
=========================
davidmhoffer says:
I see. No matter how much evidence is provided to you, you simply skip over it.
I see that, too. “H Grouse” does not debate in good faith. Whenever he is shown to be wrong, he just moves the goal posts, or cherry-picks another factoid. That makes him a troll.
H Grouse says:”
The IPCC reports except the one that published mann’s graph all have graphs that now(as in the new reports) or did(as in reports before mann) all counter mann’s graphs. If you wish to see them a simple google search and then read the IPCC reports.
Though I have a feeling you have little interest in doing any real reading on this topic.
Did you think you would live long enough to see people get this excited about 1 degree?…..
…even if it were true
woops…was talking to David
H Grouse:
I thought that the SLAPP motions had been denied and that was being appealed. Steyn wants to sue but not NR.
“H Grouse” says:
Didn’t other scientists confirm Mann’s work with subsequent studies using different proxies and methodologies?
Mann has never disclosed his methodologies, or his complete data, or his methods or metadata like any honest scientist would. So no, Mann’s fabrications have not been “confirmed”.
When Mann invented his hockey stick, he hid conflicting data in an ftp site labeled “censored“. It was only sleuthing by McIntyre and McKittrick that located it. Had Mann used that data, there would have been no hockey stick. So he hid it.
Mann also used a corrupted proxy by a PhD undergrad named Tiljander. Ms Tiljander had informed Mann before he published that her sediments had been contaminated by road and bridge building. The sediments had been overturned, so that the older layers were on the top, and the more recent layers were under them.
When Mann was caught using Tiljander’s upside down proxy, he tried to excuse it by claiming that it didn’t affect his results. Oh, really? Then why did he use it? The answer is, he used the upside down proxy because it gave him his coveted hockey stick shape.
“H Grouse” either doesn’t know those things, in which, if he were a stand up guy instead of a troll, he would acknowledge and admit that he was wrong. Or, he knew about them, and he is just trolling as usual.
We will see if “H Grouse” admits now that Mann is a scoundrel and pseudo-scientist, or if Grouse acts like his usual trolling self.
Latitude says:
August 4, 2014 at 7:15 pm
Did you think you would live long enough to see people get this excited about 1 degree?…..
…even if it were true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LOL. My goal is to live long enough for the whole debacle to make it into the history books as the biggest scam of history. I’m in my 50’s. Sadly, I don’t think I’m going to make it. The story has still got a lot of legs.
HGrouse,
Would you kindly reply to jimbo’s comment?
Please.
.
Jimbo says:
August 4, 2014 at 5:36 pm
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.
if anyone is in touch with the legal team which wrote this document, there appears to be a serious mistake (though the correct meaning should be obvious) on pp. 14-15:
In the three uses of the word “defendant” the second reference is not to the defendant, is it??
It is NOT the defendant who is trying “to prove the tort” — the defendant is denying that a tort has been committed!!?!
[note: IANAL and I don’t even play one on TV]
ossqss says:
August 4, 2014 at 5:45 pm
—
Magnifico
Getting back on topic, I read the brief itself. As you get deeper into it, it seems to me the excerpt published by Anthony above is not the main thrust of NR’s position. It is only there to put their position in context. The main thrust of their argument seems to be that the court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the previous anti-SLAPP judgements, should do so, and should reverse the previous rulings.
The courts are a tangled web, this will take years is my guess. But NR’s strategy at this point isn’t to debate the science, only to argue that they are protected by anti-SLAPP and the rest of the debate is just background. I have to agree with them. If one can be successfully sued for the kind of sarcastic rhetoric employed by Steyn in his NR post, then freedom of speech in the US is dead for the commoners, it is reserved only for those who have the billions to protect themselves.
A statement is not actionable when it is “not the character but the ideas” of the plaintiff that are at stake.
Dilworth v. Dudley Surely this is Dilbert V Dilbert.
Appreciate your feelings Anthony but with such a clear exposition of the defense I would change your summary to **** instead of f***,
No need when you are winning and below your high standards.
enigmatic, enigma, puzzle….
Michael Mann admitting in a careless moment (he has so many of those), “we really don’t know WTF this means.” An enigma to be hand-waved aside without rigorous analysis …. this is scientific ineptitude, Mr. Mann (who does not merit the honorific of “Dr.” or “Professor”).
As others point out periodically, the “decline” in Briffa’s tree ring proxy temps. and the conflict with instrumental records is not some minor technical debate about post-1960 tree rings.
If the tree ring proxies are not reliable post-1960, how can they be ASSUMED to be reliable for the previous 1,000 years??
If the tree ring data get flaky at just the point when we are supposed to have more reliable instrumental data, then it is INCOMPETENT (“fraudulent”) to ass-ume that tree ring proxy alleged temperature records are precise and accurate across 10-12 centuries.
p.s. There is a lot of excellent material in this document, but it needs some rigorous proof-reading. No, I do not have time to be their proof-reader right now, but they do need one. This is meant as a constructive comment for this context (initial reactions). I have given one example above which jumped out at me. No one is perfect but a legal doc like this one needs more careful scrutiny imho.
The “enigmatic” Mann.
“the density of wood exhibits an enigmatic decline in response to temperature after about 1960.”
So the enigmatic Mann hid the enigmatic decline and then (and only then) everything became clear: Hockey Stick! Hot Dog!
H. Grouse,
Enough with the sophistry! The four points mentioned in the brief remain valid. Perhaps you would be so kind at to try and refute a single one? With regard to Mann’s claim that other papers support the Hockey Stick; put on your thinking cap for a moment and consider two important points. First, if Mann’s paper uses; unreliable tree ring data, flawed statistical methods, secretly splices out inconvenient data, and deliberately omits inconvenient data; are we to believe that corroborating papers are accurate…come on man, it defies common sense. Second, (as others have rightly pointed out) there are a number of papers that indicate there is nothing particularly novel in the current global temperature.
Mann is a sleaze bag and affront to Science…you’re backing the wrong horse man!
I am not a “fool”. Something went awry in the Firefox, and gave a very fractured…broken up display of the text. Looked as though very bad “typesetting” so to speak.
I’m looking at the article now…in the I.E. Exploder used by AOL, and the display appears perfect.
Obviously in the future I’ll try more than one browser to see if the problem is in the browser scripting.
Sorry…
Marcott
H Grouse is all over the map here.
1) He seems to think he has a stopper with his question: “Do you, or do you not have a published reconstruction that invalidates the shape of the “hockey stick?”
Mann’s critcs are under no obligation whatsoever to produce a counter reconstruction. It is entirely legitimate and sufficient to show that Mann’s methodology is seriously deficient. That makes it junk science regardless of any other consideration. For instance, perhaps temperature proxies are inherently too deficient to provide a reconstruction with as little uncertainty as Mann claimed. I.e., no reconstruction of the type Mann claimed may even be possible. Many of those who’ve looked at available temperature proxies believe that to be the case.
2) “I thought this lawsuit was about ‘defamation’. The science is not at issue in the case.”
Clipe responded correctly: If the “hockeystick” proves to be junk science then there is no “defamation”.
3) “Didn’t other scientists confirm Mann’s work with subsequent studies using different proxies and methodologies?”
Steve McIntyre has written on this point many times. He calls Mann’s collaborators and peer group the “Hockey Stick Team”. Essentially all of the so-called independent studies use a strongly overlapping set of proxies, share many authors in common. The methodology in nearly every case is built around the highly dubious idea of weighting the chronologies according to their degree of agreement with the instrumental period. This simple fact GUARANTEES that a blade will result, even beginning with RANDOM data. They’ve selected for what they are instead supposed to be proving. If one averages together a bunch of random walk chronologies that have been selected for their blades, the rest (the shaft) will average into “sphaghetti”. Hey presto, “confirmation” of Mann.
4) “If if the science is ‘junk’ hat does not justify the comparison to Sandusky”.
There is this little thing called the First Amendment to the Constitution. Mann himself has used vicious rhetoric for decades against everyone who does not immediately fall into line. If he can dish it out, he ought to be able to take it. Besides, the Sandusky business was a reference to the so-called “exoneration” of Mann by Penn State. Despite Mann’s claim otherwise, this “investigation” is the ONLY “exoneration” of Mann, and the guys behind this “exoneration” were the same ones who concealed Sandusky’s behavior. That was Sindberg and Steyn’s point. Stop boasting about being “exonerated” by Penn State. People are laughing.
rogerknights says:
August 4, 2014 at 9:15 pm
Marcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks Roger. I put “Marcott” into the WUWT search bar to find a representative take down of his science…. and well, there’s just SO many of them. That paper was really a gong show and even Marcott himself admitted it until his adviser stepped in and told him to STF up.
So it’s ok to use enigmatic data to restructure the world’s economy?.
The original stick didn’t include Tiljander at all, that paper hadn’t been created yet. The real deal breaker was the gross overweighting of bristlecones by 391 times over other proxies, if memory serves. Had bristlecones been weighted the same as everything else, no blade.
looney mooney revives the bill weir ****sticks:
4 Aug: Motherjones: Chris Mooney: Meet the CNN Anchor Who Called Fox News “Ignorant Fucksticks” Over Climate Change
Bill Weir’s ill-advised tweet lit up the internet. Here’s why he seems to care so much about science.
But why was Weir so upset? A look back at his past coverage, mainly at ABC (he only moved to CNN in late 2013), suggests that he’s a journalist who covers climate change well, and really cares about science and technology…
Weir appears to be a pretty big science aficionado. When he was cohost of ABC’s Good Morning America weekend edition back in 2008, he fronted this stunning love song segment on science (titled “Science Rocks!”), which included Weir saying that “science is the new sexy” and describing how New York’s World Science Festival is striving to turn “geek chic.” Watch it:…
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/08/cnn-bill-weir-fox-news-climate
It’s not even necessary to treat this as gently as the authors do here. There is only one possible way that tree ring data could be considered an accurate proxy (that is, a substitute) for instrumental observations. That is if, during significant periods of time when both types of data were available, there is a very close correlation between the two types of data. If that correlation is not there, then no honest scientist could claim that the alleged “proxy” data had any meaning at all when it comes to the past. As a scientist myself, I can’t even begin to express what a gross abuse of scientific integrity is required to make the argument that Mann is making. In my line of work, you go to jail for pulling stunts like this.
THE HOCKEY STICK
There was a crooked Mann
Who played a crooked trick
And had a crooked plan
To make a crooked stick
By using crooked math
That favored crooked lines
Lysenko’s crooked path
Led through the crooked pines
And all his crooked friends
Applaud what crooked seems
But all that crooked ends
Derives from crooked means
Eugene WR Gallun
“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.” ”
Meltdown Mann….
Dr. Mann made his name with the claims to the AMO (Atlantic Mutidecadal Oscillation), or more accurately Mann claims he named the N.A. SST quasi-periodic variability ‘the oscillation’.
Dr.Mann also produced an AMO reconstruction from various proxies, which wasn’t too bad until year 2000 when apparently North Atlantic ‘boiled over’ .
To Dr. Mann and warm-ites faitfull army of followers, this makes a perfect sense, since the North Atlantic overheating made the Pacific ‘freeze over’ blocking that ‘orrible super El Nino, as now we know, ‘the cause of the pause’, all of course predicted by the Dr. Mann’s reconstruction.
jimbo said
‘The Hokey Schtick is a fabrication of Climastrology.’
Surely you meant ‘Climacatastrophe’
tonyb
H, Grouse asked if anyone could name reconstruction that showed different results to Mann’s hockey stick graph. No one has yet been able to do so.
Dbstealy : the graphs you refer to have no provenance. They could be squiggles drawn by a 5 year old child as far as the scientific world is concerned.
DavidmHoffer, you refer to a collection of geological records in the hope that someone may find something remotely resembling evidence of present day temperature changes if they bother to plough through them. You should know by now that ice-core records say nothing about the present day. Which of your graphs would you say provided evidence?
Reconstructions different to Mann’s have been published this century, showing the existence of the medieval warm period and the little ice age. Papers have also been published by statisticians refuting Mann’s statistical approach. It’s shameful that those claiming to rebut H. Grouse are unable to name any of them. Instead, out of their frustration, they call him a troll and resort to Ad Hominem. That is not Science.
Come on gentlemen, do some research.
MikeB
Fair point.
I am reconstructing CET from its instrumental date of 1659 back to 1000AD using observations, crop records, science papers etc. I am currently back to 1538 but am currently working on the period 1200 to 1350 where the first blip towards the LIA can be seen.
As a guide I am examining both Dr Mann’s reconstructions and that of Hubert Lamb.
CET is significant in as much it is seen by many scientists as well as organisations such as the Met office as being a reasonable proxy for a global or NH situation.
Dr Mann -and spaghetti derivatives-miss out on the fine grain of very substantial annual and decadal variability as the method of using novel proxies such as tree rings does not pick up the real world day to day and year on year variability and as such largely smmoths out climate related events such as the LIA.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
There are hundreds of references.
tonyb
Dr. Hockey Stick Mann reminds me of the Inquisition. The Church had to torture and kill to silence those who contradict its dogma. When Mann resorted to legal threats, it is a sure sign this is not about science but an attempt to enforce a scientifically untenable position.
“… 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.”
Someone once said that a judge is just a law student who grades his own papers.
@MarkStoval
In their courtroom, they are god.
thingadonta says August 4, 2014 at 9:40 pm
That, IMHO, having read all the comments so far, is the comment of the thread.
BTW: WRT H Grouse: In the UK there was a wonderful sit-com based on Slade prison called Porridge. It starred the brilliant Ronnie Barker as Fletcher and many here will have enjoyed it. In that comedy the ‘godfather’ of the prisoners, who enjoyed all sorts of privileges and fawning obeisance from the warders and prisoners alike was one ‘Arry Grout. He was always bested by the redoubtable Fletcher. As a result, whenever I come across a comment from H Grouse I see a pompous old lag having to put up with doing time.
Quit feeding the troll. Grouse is an adolescent who is simply delighting in poking the debate to see if it reacts. He neither understands, nor cares about the substance of the discussion. Don’t waste your time with such a trivial person. There are MANY more important issues going on in the world right now that need focus more than entertaining adolescents who need to grow up.
Gee, while I was skimming through grouse’s dogged trolling, I realized one thing. This person actually seems to think that refuting the fraudulent hockey stick would require an alternate reconstruction.
However, since everyone else on the PLANET except mann realizes that trees are not thermometers, what fool would actually attempt to create some sort of alternate tree-derived reconstruction? ANY tree-derived temperature reconstruction would be wrong, because you can’t determine past temperatures from trees. You can’t even determine CURRENT temperatures from trees. Unless your tree has a thermometer nailed to it.
One problem here is that people do feed trolls, because it’s not always obvious when you’re dealing with an obstinate and ignorant troll or someone who is genuinely seeking knowledge. From my observation, EVERY intelligent person who genuinely seeks climate knowledge rapidly stops believing in the myth of manmade (catastrophic) climate change. Without exception.
spot on paul, the schools are on holiday at the moment .when h.grouse goes back to school the comments will cease .
anytime you see support for the hockey stick you know a troll is involved as the entire climate science community distanced themselves from mann a long time ago.
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?
====================================
You tell us.
H Grouse says:
August 4, 2014 at 5:29 pm
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
==============================================================
Oh dear. Nobody compared Mann to Sandusky. Rather, the behaviour of Penn State regarding how they dealt with Mann was compared to how they dealt with Sandusky.,I.E. Brushed it under the carpet.
Your’s struggling, aren’t you? You ask others to produce citations, yet offer none yourself. Don’t you have anything better to do with your time than troll?
There you go again replying to Grouse just like Mosher, Zeke, Rhamsdorf, Connolley ect The best is simply not to reply to their statements. They will get bored and go away, but by all means allow them to say what they wish here.
Evidence that the MWP happened is overwhelming. On the other hand, any attempt at an accurate global temperature reconstruction is going to be futile. The best we can do is a rough approximation.
co2science.org has a really good compendium of research that provides evidence of the MWP. link The reconstruction they present on that page (from an early ipcc report) may be as good as it gets.
MikeB:
Your censorious comment scarcely adds to the thread. Why did you not produce some of those sources yourself? You simply are demonstrating the fault that you accuse in others
H Grouse says:
August 4, 2014 at 5:16 pm
Didn’t other scientists confirm Mann’s work with subsequent studies using different proxies and methodologies?
Yes H Grouse, Dr. Gergis did. She used the proven methodology of the science to do so.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/josh_seives_sticks.jpg
It is all detailed in a peer reviewed paper…
Oh wait!
(I think Grouse has go back to hiding under the bridge).
Here’s a good read:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676
H Grouse on 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?
_____
Take the whole calibrated tree ring data base – you get a hockey stick?
brg Hans
One does not need perfect proof in science to in good faith think that some study or method is flawed. For example, I have plenty of reasons to suspect the studies that say coffee (wine, oatmeal, olive oil….) is good for you then bad for you then good for you. In the Mann debate, my two papers provide sufficient reason by themselves to justify Steyn’s views, which is all that is necessary to undermine a defamation case:
Loehle, C. and Hu McCulloch. 2008. Correction to: A 2000 Year Global Temperature Reconstruction based on Non-Treering Proxy Data. Energy & Environment 19:93-100.
Loehle, C. 2009. A Mathematical Analysis of the Divergence Problem in Dendroclimatology. Climatic Change 94:233-245.
In the first, I show that using non-treering proxies yields a different result than using treerings, and in the second I show that the problem of determining temperature from treerings suffers from non-unique inverses (is unsolvable) due to upside down parabolic temperature response of tree growth to temperature.
Global MWP
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod1024x768.html
New paper finds Medieval Warm Period was global & significantly warmer than the present, rejects Mann’s hockey stick
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/new-paper-finds-medieval-warm-period.html
A new paper examines 258 worldwide temperature proxy datasets and finds “the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomenon significantly warmer than the recent warm period.” The paper also corroborates other papers including by McIntyre, McKitrick, Soon, Baliunas, et al, refuting Michael Mann’s erroneous statistical methods which generate hockey sticks from random numbers, among other atrocities.
Abstract excerpt:
As a result, the estimated temperature breaks and peaks suggest widespread rejection of the hockey-stick hypothesis since they are mostly centered in the Medieval Warm Period.
To quell the grousing; I have looking at climate reconstructions for well over 50 years now. Mann’s HS is a fantasy fabrication that ignored every prior reconstruction. Even the IPCC, furnished this in 1990 that agreed with everything I saw up to that time.
http://i39.tinypic.com/dcxzwh.jpg
Nat’l Geo, when they still did science: http://i44.tinypic.com/vzbzag.jpg
Mohberg and Loehle’s respectively: http://i46.tinypic.com/2lcvct1.jpg
Loehle’s with Mann’s Limp Stick in purple: http://i39.tinypic.com/2q3arlw.jpg
I see I took too long to get this together, Craig Loehle has chimed in above.
H Grouse says:
August 4, 2014 at 5:29 pm
If if the science is “junk” hat does not justify the comparison to Sandusky
There was no “comparison”. That is just a convenient lie that liar-Mann and his slimeball lawyers are using.
The offending quote was:
“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”
It’s an anology, not a “comparison”.
Learn the difference.
Point of order! Point of order gentleman!
Neither I nor anyone else needs to create an alternative reconstruction to refute Mann. Likewise, we don’t have to create our own climate models to refute the GCMs used by the IPCC or others.
Myself, I’m from a small town in Missouri and I don’t need to step in manure to know it’s bullshit.
Thank you
MikeB;
DavidmHoffer, you refer to a collection of geological records in the hope that someone may find something remotely resembling evidence of present day temperature changes if they bother to plough through them. You should know by now that ice-core records say nothing about the present day. Which of your graphs would you say provided evidence?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh pish. The very first link I provided the troll was in regard to Briffa 2012 which completely destroys MBH 98 and all its derivative works. Briffa was a co-author of MBH so his corrections to the original work carry considerably more weight, and as I pointed out, Mann has not even attempted to refute them. I then provided the ice core data to put the hockey stick in appropriate context which the troll complained was a single location. Then I provided a list of papers, some of which corroborate the ice core data from many location around the world showing that the original context of the ice core data is in fact relevant, and some of which are on the same timeline as MBH and refute it.
All relevant information was carefully ignored by the troll. What more would you have me do? Read selected passages out loud to him? Stopping frequently to ask if he knows what certain words mean? Digging up dictionary and text book definitions for him when he doesn’t know? Should I be prepared to let him drink from a sippy cup and spoon pablum into his mouth so that he stays fed and hydrated during the process?
If you think you can do better, by all means, jump into the fray and respond to him yourself. If you have a question about something I’ve presented, by all means ask. But if you’re just going to sit and snipe from the sidelines and make accusations that are falsified by my very FIRST response to the troll…. I’ll leave it at that.
“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.”
The article misses the obvious… Mann admits that the tree rings are a horribly unreliable proxy for temperature, which draws into question all of the historical proxy temperatures based on tree rings, which Mann asserts are good, but has absolutely no way to validate since we don’t have thermometer readings 3000 years ago.
This is from History Magazine, an article about the sailboat found under the site of the new World Trade Center. Lamont-Doherty scientists should be called by Steyn and Natonal Review to tell the court what an idiot Mann is.
“Since trees add tighter rings in dry years and wider rings in wet years, they carry unique fingerprints of the particular climates and times in which they live. By examining slices of the ship’s timber and comparing them to other archaeological samples, tree-ring scientists from Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York,”
I take issue with how you caste the issues with proxies such as tree rings. It is accuracy of the reconstructed record that is at issue. No one has proven the tree ring data has had all other factors but temperature removed. Therefore the error bars on each data point are on the order of 2-5° C (estimated). Given how we cannot de-link the other factors this not unreasonable, but also can be verified in the lab and in the field. Any region in the US with good records going back 100-150 years with tree rings can show how rings respond in cool dry, hot dry, cool wet and hot wet years. And what you will find is water (and nutrients and disease) have stronger influence on rings that temp
That means the entire proxy-based temperature record is only accurate to within a range of about +/- 3° C. Which means Mann has no way of proving if current climate is warmer or colder than the past. It is not that the statistics is misleading, it is the statistical methodology is wrong and inconclusive (not misleading). Mann has no clue what the global temperature was 200-1200 years ago, and neither does anyone else.
Eliza:
At August 5, 2014 at 4:56 am you write
True, and your list is not complete: it could include Oldberg, Finn, etc..
But you are assuming everyone knows who the trolls are. New readers don’t.
So, the first response to a troll needs to be to refute its nonsense so new onlookers are informed of why it is nonsense. After that a troll may be ignored.
And there can be a problem with a first response. As David M Hoffer has discovered in this thread, an effective troll (e.g. Grouse, the seemingly insane chuck, etc.) can dangle new variations on its theme which each require refutation.
In conclusion, your idea is good in theory but in practice not so much.
Richard
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?”
ROFLMAO! You could literally fill a bookshelf with the publications that found the MWP, LIA, and earlier Holocene climate fluctuations were very real and worldwide phenomena. Sure, there were areas that were not impacted by these fluctuations as much as Western Europe and elsewhere where it was very evident, but the exact same is observed for the Modern Warm Period, e.g. Winter-to-spring temperature dynamics in Turkey derived from tree rings since AD 1125, Heinrich et al. 2013. How can an objective scientist argue that the MWP was not global by cherry-picking certain areas that did not experience significant warming yet raise the alarm about the Modern Warm Period when it is known through direct observation that it has not affected the temperature or weather of all regions on Earth. I’ll take biases in science for $500 Alex.
Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?
Wallace S. Broecker, 2001
That’s a good place to start if you actually want to learn the “consensus” on the the MWP and LIA instead of just trolling on message boards.
“If if the science is “junk” hat does not justify the comparison to Sandusky”
Grouse,
It would be nice if you actually read what Steyn wrote (you can find the transcripts on his site). Steyn compared Penn State’s investigation of Sandusky with the investigation that they did on Dr Mann. Steyn’s point was simple: How could we expect the Penn St President to do a valid investigation of Mann after his cover-up of Sandusky. The same investigator who gave Sandusky a pass, did the same with Mann.
MikeB says:
H, Grouse asked if anyone could name reconstruction that showed different results to Mann’s hockey stick graph. No one has yet been able to do so.
Dbstealy : the graphs you refer to have no provenance. They could be squiggles drawn by a 5 year old child as far as the scientific world is concerned.
MikeB, the graph you wish to censor was taken from ClimateAudit. You might want to get up to speed on Mann’s shenanigans, and there are few better places to start than CA.
If you think that graph is wrong, then post exactly where it is in error. Otherwise, you are simply complaining about the fact that Mann’s work has been debunked. Anyone can baselessly complain, and that puts you into the same class of commenter as the site pest ‘H Grouse’.
Hey Craig you spoil it. Your corrected paper was on my list. But I don’t think any other of these so-called sceptics noticed the significance of your comment.
MikeB says:
August 5, 2014 at 11:29 am
Hey Craig you spoil it. Your corrected paper was on my list. But I don’t think any other of these so-called sceptics noticed the significance of your comment.
I think we’re seeing the emergence of a new variety of troll.
Somebody with a horticultural or forestry background help me out here. Do trees grow year-round? Do trees in the areas where Mann’s data was collected grow year round, or is Mann’s data really limited to the growing season? How about the specific species involved?
Is seems to me that an area could have an average growing season, but a brutally cold winter. How would the tree ring data show that? How would the tree ring data show a warm non-growing season? The winter climate could be above average, but still too cold for the trees to show any growth.
Can anybody with expertise answer these questions?
Thank you
Grouse, the Blade of the graph isn’t the question. After all, it’s almost all thermometer records. The magnitude is arguable, but it’s not questionable. The issue is the older records, the stick itself. Mann’s flat-thousand-years is sheer nonsense as shown by thousands of separate papers that document the existence and magnitude of the Medivial and Roman Warm Periods as being close to if not warmer than current temperatures.
You’re hammering on the wrong point, and quite frankly I think you know it and are either being willfully ignorant or deliberately deceptive.
JP says:
August 5, 2014 at 11:20 am
“It would be nice if…”
Steyn (writing in NRO) got this comparison from an article by Rand Simberg in the CEI’s blog,.who called Mann “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science ”
That explains why the lawsuit involves three defendants.
more soylent green! asked about what trees do over the year. Trees do NOT grow during winter in cold climates, but they may in warmer places such as Spain depending on rainfall. In seasonal locations such as the US Pacific Northwest, trees may grow in both spring and fall but be pretty dormant during dry summers. In places like US Midwest which may dry out toward late summer, the growth is mainly in April through june/july and may cease if it dries out. During these cold or dry periods the tree rings say nothing about temperature. During dry years, trees are limited by water, not temperature. The theory used is that by picking trees in cold places such as Siberia that the trees are only limited by temperature, but these places can be dry also (think about the cold/dry location for Bristlecone pines!) so the assumption is not necessarily valid.
Jimbo says: August 4, 2014 at 5:08 pm
Mann’s tree rings are wonderful water gauges.
___________________________________
Indeed.
And as I have said before – if tree rings are local water gauges, pest gauges, sunlight guauges and competition guauges, then the whole of dendrochronology becomes pseudo-science of the first order.
Ralph
BenOfHouston says:
Grouse… You’re… either being willfully ignorant or deliberately deceptive.
Exactly.
“McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape! That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.”
“The net result: the principal component will have a hockey stick shape even if most of the data do not.”
By Richard Muller http://www.technologyreview.com/news/403256/global-warming-bombshell/
Mr. Grouse, do you know what the other authors of the paleo studies said about Mann’s work which you defend? Cook says all the climate hockey team could get together and produce their best proxy paper, and still they got nothing….
Ed Cook #3253
the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about 100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know fuck-all).
He went on to suggest they should publish and retire, and talked about Mike “defending the indefensible
Bo Christiansen – On Hockey stick reconstructions
All methods strongly underestimates the amplitude of low-frequency variability and trends. This means that it is almost impossible to conclude from reconstruction studies that the present period is warmer than any period in the reconstructed period.
Mr Grouse, we can go on and on, but you should give up the ghost…
BenOfHouston says:
August 5, 2014 at 12:46 pm
…
“You’re hammering on the wrong point”
…
The science is not at issue in the legal proceedings. At issue is “defamation”
H Grouse claims: “The science is not at issue in the legal proceedings. At issue is “defamation”” but if someone is making scientific claims which you think are invalid (especially grossly invalid), and say so, you should not be able to be sued for defamation, yet that is what has happened. Anti-SLAPP should have stopped it but did not. So the science (not the details necessarily) IS relevant.
Are we allowed to say that recovered memories are bogus? How about claims that trace levels of chemicals in our food are killing us? How about the claim that vaccines cause autism? Can we not call out such idiocy?
H Grouse says:
August 5, 2014 at 12:56 pm
=================================================
See: http://faculty.fgcu.edu/twimberley/EnviroPol/EnviroPhilo/Glacial.pdf
Most have never heard of Grove or Switsur or their paper, and most of the credulous could read their paper, take note of its date, and dismiss it as outdated. The more perceptive will see it as glaciological rebuttal to Bradley and Jones’ attempts in 1992 to eliminate the MWP (which the paper alludes to, p.144 line 4). And it is representative of the view of those who study glaciers: the MWP and LIA were global, and Bradley and Jones are full of crap. So say the silent majority which the fanatics claim are 3% of the whole. –AGF
Craig Loehle says:
August 5, 2014 at 2:24 pm
“scientific claims which you think are invalid ”
…
That isn’t the issue. The defamation included the claim of “fraud”. The defendants didn’t say “invalid”.
agfosterjr says:
August 5, 2014 at 2:32 pm
“3% of the whole.”
Unfortunately, the science is not at issue in the actual case. As much as Steyn et. al wish to put the science on trial, they may try, but it has no relevancy to the defamation issue. The judge will not allow the jury to decide the science, that is beyond the jurisdiction of the court.
How can they say such things about Dr. Professor Mann. After all, he won the Nobel a Prize for science. No wait, it was for peace. He walked away with a piece of the prize. I saw the certificate he gave himself. Looked almost real. What I mean is that he and another guy shared the prize with yet another guy. His critics say that he didn’t receive a medallion as all other winners have, calling into question the legitimacy of the prize. This is because the deniers sabotaged the awards ceremony and hacked the Nobel Committee’s database. The crew of deniers were so good that every mention of Mann was so securely deleted from the Nobel Prize Committees’ records that today not a trace can be found. The deniers are forever pointing to this complete lack of evidence (why do we need evidence when we have models making projections?) as proof that Mann not only didn’t win the Nobel Prize, they claim he was never even short listed.
My last four model runs all show Mann winning the Nobel Prize. My colleagues all agree he won. We have consensus and the argument is settled.
H Grouse@2:58pm:
I believe that the offending comment was made in the context of climate science and more specifically in the context of Mann’s perversion of that. Mann is a scam scientist and a liar and this can be proved in the courtroom. Steyn will be given the chance to demonstrate the truth of his statement to the court and that is why he is so ready to pursue his cause and why he separated his cause from NR. For information on Mann as a liar, see Climate Audit where it discusses Upside Down Tiljander. Then come back and let’s see if you still stick up for Mann.
” H Grouse says:
August 5, 2014 at 2:51 pm
Craig Loehle says:
August 5, 2014 at 2:24 pm
“scientific claims which you think are invalid ”
…
That isn’t the issue. The defamation included the claim of “fraud”. The defendants didn’t say “invalid”.”
If the science is invalid, then all the alarmist claptrap pushing that agenda is indeed fraudulent.
Michael Mann is rumoured to post on blogs under the pseudonym ‘H Grouse’.
The definition guy:
Well, you have me convinced!
Not so sure about the grouse, though. He argues with everything.
The definition guy says:
August 5, 2014 at 3:13 pm
—
Hilarious!
H Grouse: Steyn (writing in NRO) got this comparison from an article by Rand Simberg in the CEI’s blog,.who called Mann “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science ”
That explains why the lawsuit involves three defendants.
That does explain why the lawsuit involves three defendants, but you ought to quote the whole sentence from which you excerpted a phrase, because you have altered the meaning by truncating..
H Grouse says:
As much as Steyn et. al wish to put the science on trial, they may try, but it has no relevancy to the defamation issue.
Ah, but what about anti-science Mann passed off as honest science? If someone lies about their methodology, which Mann clearly did, is that not fraud? And if this case is about fraud, that would seem to be relevant.
But like the grouse, IANAL, although I can see that the judge is a dipstick. No doubt this will be appealed no matter how it goes. But honest science is taking a hit. When charlatans sue people over hurt feelings, we know they never had real science on their side in the first place. If they did, that would be enough.
H Grouse,
“Steyn (writing in NRO) got this comparison from an article by Rand Simberg in the CEI’s blog,.who called Mann “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science ” ”
You are under the assumption that Mann is a naive, pure scientist, whose only goal in life is discovering the Truth. Defamation suits against pundits and those who write political satire usually do not end well for the Plaintiff. Mann is no such scientist. His public record, especially on the internet will be his undoing. Using Mann’s own methodology, it will be near impossible not to prove that, Doctor Michael Mann is not a rabid partisan, who willingly and gleefully drinks deeply from the partisan waters. His “defamation” against everyone from Judith Curry to Steve McIntyre are well documented. Ergo, his lawyers will have a difficult time saying that he is a Nobel Prizing winning, distinguished scientist. Speaking of his self announced Nobel award….
Furthermore, Mann’s scientific record is on the trial block. For, he cannot tell the court that he is a distinguished scientist without rebuttal. And the rebuttals lead right back to his Hockey Stick, and all of his public commentary (or is it invective?) associated with it. Steyn, is a political satirist. There is a long history in the courts of protecting people who use satire and irony to make their points in news papers and opinion journals (See Al Capp and his parody of Elvis, the Beatles, Frank Sinatra, and most famously, Jo Baez). Steyn, said nothing that any other satirist would have said. And you can bet your paycheck that Mann’s words via the Climategate emails will be entered into the court record. Mann cannot have it both ways. He cannot tell the court that he is a non-partisan scientist in an independent pursuit of the truth, when he is suing Steyn for questioning that alleged fact. The Hockey Stick will be front and center.
I don’t believe that’s correct. The “B” in MBH is for Bradley, Raymond. Perhaps Briffa wasn’t a primary co-author?
Jeff Alberts;
I don’t believe that’s correct. The “B” in MBH is for Bradley, Raymond. Perhaps Briffa wasn’t a primary co-author?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are correct, I was wrong on that point.
Mencken
Re Max Hugoson at August 4, 2014 at 9:05 pm: “…in the I.E. Exploder”
I need a new keyboard.
The Navier Stokes differential equations describe fluid flow with changes in temperature and density. They are nonlinear, chaotic, with sensitive dependence on initial conditions. That means that no finite set of past states can be sufficient to predict a distant future state. This has been known since the 1963 paper by Edward Lorenz “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow”. Anyone who attempts to predict distant future states of a NS system from past data is incompetent. Anyone who asserts that such predictions have meaning is a fraud. Of course climate scientists will assert that they don’t use NS differential equations to make their predictions, as if using the incorrect equations to predict the future distant states would be expected to increase confidence in their work.
Scary,scary night
paint your proxies mauve and green
linked between the Holocene
and somewhere you decided to delete
Like the people you defeat ,
in courts and pages skeptical ,
an entertaining spectacle
of tortured science and gases so supreme,
then slayers swords that lie between,
the warmers and the not so warm,
global warming just stillborn
and cooling now even as we speak.
And they could have loved you
if the lies you told were true
and if the World had just got sick
they would have worshiped your hockey stick
but it ceased to warm enough,
and that was nothing new
and I could have told you Michael
this world was never meant for
one as mendacious as you .
More verses on request (not holding my breath)
@QuixoteNexus – Ditto what agfosterjr said!
More verses!
Predictions: First – Mann will lose at the appeal level – read the document and the logic and case law presented that defends the First Amendment. At the very least NR will be dismissed as a defendant.
Second – since Steyn has countersued, and because the whole point of his satirical rhetoric against Mann was the “science” (or lack thereof) behind the Hockey Stick, Mann will be forced to turn over all of his data and methodology in discovery. He either will turn it over and have the world look at all of it in its’ infamy, or he will not as he did in the case in Canada. Any one taking odds at which course Mann will take?
H Grouse seems to think that was ok for Mann to hide the unsavory methods he used to create a graph simply because other people have kinda drawn a similar graph.
This is pure nonsense. It’s almost as if H Grouse believes that it’s ok to use flawed methods as long as someone else can say that the results are kinda right.
H Grouse says: August 4, 2014 at 4:56 pm
The “science” is not at issue in the case.
What science? AGW junk-science? AGW scientific fraud?
I just cannot understand why this “hockey-stick graph” of Mann has not yet been buried for good.
Why is it not compulsory for Mann, to put up or shut up … put up all his data and methodology up for scrutiny by his peers, or withdraw his paper on the “hockey-stick graph”?
Instead, this issue keeps dragging on and on and on and on … it’s ridiculous or its scientific fraud!
from the “When Pigs Fly” department:
It should be noted that while two past New York Times cases are mentioned in the amici curiae brief, the newspaper itself has not joined the signers.
http://cei.org/sites/default/files/AMICUS%20BRIEF%20of%20Reporters%20Committee%20et%20all%20in%20CEI%20v.%20Mann%208-11-14.pdf
“Why is it not compulsory for Mann, to put up or shut up … put up all his data and methodology up for scrutiny by his peers, (…)”
Have you noticed? The people who insist on the release of the data from the Monsanto GM crop regulatory studies (data that they wouldn’t accept anyway as it comes from Monsanta – or is it Monsatan?), these precautionary principled Green people couldn’t care less about Mann data and Mann made warning.
“H Grouse seems to think that was ok for Mann to hide the unsavory methods he used to create a graph simply because other people have kinda drawn a similar graph.”
Maybe now it’s ok to randomly pick a poor black guy for a crime, jail him, if years later someone else finally comes up with proofs against the poor black guy.
Would liberals be ok with that?