Novice warmist debunks Michael Mann
Guest essay by David Hoffer
For those of us who have followed the climate debate for a long time, the notion that Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick graph might be dead is counter intuitive. For us, the Hockey Stick graph is central to the debate. It’s appearance in one brilliant stroke swept all discussion of the physics of climate change aside, wiped out discussion of sensitivity and natural variability, destroyed in the public’s mind any notion other than climate change was catastrophic and already upon us. Even the climate models played second fiddle to Mann’s tree ring chronology. I submit however, that the Hockey Stick is in fact dead, a symbolic (but important) final blow being struck at WUWT, not by a skeptic, but by a warmist. (Patience, I’ll get to that).
Of course Michael Mann is a major thorn in the side for most skeptics. We gnash our teeth as he takes court action to silence his critics, our blood pressure mounts as he continues to present at major climate conferences, and the increasingly shrill claims he makes drive us batty. But the truth is, the last few years haven’t been t that kind to Michael Mann. No longer does his Hockey Stick graph adorn the front covers of major WMO and IPCC reports. The Nobel Prize committee itself has repudiated his claim to a Nobel Prize. His science has been shredded by Steve McIntyre’s work on Climate Audit, and exposed as flawed in front of the Wegman congressional committee. Even his once comrade in arms, Keith Briffa, has published new tree ring chronologies that restore the Medieval Warm Period that Mann apparently worked so hard to erase. There was a brief moment when Mann thought he would be vindicated and back in the lime light with the publication of Marcott et al, but that paper was savaged almost instantly by McIntyre, Eschenbach and others, to the point that even Marcott admitted that it was not robust enough to draw any conclusions about the modern era. Mann’s presence in the climate debate is a pale shadow of what it once was, though he still shows up at speaking engagements with much the same slides, which it seems he hasn’t bothered to update since 2005. It’s like he isn’t even trying anymore.
But the most cruel blow of all (to date) was dealt to Mann’s Hockey Stick, not by some statistician, or paleo scientist, or physicist or geologist…. But by a warmist who showed up on Sept 3rd on WUWT, going by the screen name JoNovace. Her (I assume it is a “her”) screen name was an obvious play on Jo Nova’s good name, but the twist on the word “novice” turned out to be the very personification of cruel irony. JoNovace in fact exposed herself as a novice, and quite unintentionally, debunked the Hockey Stick in just two sentences.
It started in the November 2nd thread by Dr. Tim Ball titled “IPCC Prediction of Severe Weather Increase Based on Fundamental Error”. JoNovace appeared, making the usual warmist troll assertions. She skipped right into appeal to authority, citing the 97% consensus. She asked who readers would accept advice from for cancer treatment, a survey of football [fans] or from medical professionals. A commenter who pointed out the 18 year hiatus to her was rewarded with her claim that this existed only in the blogosphere and the brain dead. In short, the usual warmist talking points presented in the usual fashion sarcastic fashion. A troll so certain she was right, that anything that came out of the mouth of a skeptic must certainly be wrong. Suddenly, everything went sideways very fast for JoNovace. It started with this comment by Alan Miller which I reproduce in full here in italics:
· Alan Millar
“JoNovace
“…..pontificate that we were actually in a declining temperature period. That is how bonkers your hypothesis is at the moment. ”
I am not as brainy as you guys think you are, I don’t have my own hypothesis plucked out of thin air, I rely on experienced scientist to guide my conclusions”
Ahh so we we have someone who admits that they are just regurgitating someone else’s thoughts and is someone of ‘the Faith’
Well done, very useful!
Perhaps you would like to address my point about the ‘hide the decline’ trees. Mann and others used this paleo record, inter alia, to establish his ‘hockey stick’ As you should know after showing increasing temperatures, in the period from 1960 a period the alarmists are largely basing their AGW hypothesis on the trees actually started to show a sharp decline in temperatures.
They got round this by excising this part of the record and grafting on the actual temperature record. However, even you, in your lack of independent thought, can see that if we looked back at this period from the distant future, without the actual temperature record, you would assume temperatures and the trend were going downwards if you trusted the trees as Mann and his followers have declared they do.
That is why the current hypothesis is bonkers, without actual temperature records for the past, we have no real idea what was happening in such short periods of a few decades a la the period the warmists are currently relying on.
Does that make you think at all or is La La La going off in your brain at the moment?
Alan
And how did JoNovace respond to this well done summary of the “Hide the Decline” debacle? Well, she did so by dispatching Michael Mann and his tree rings to the rubbish heap with just two sentences. Here is her comment in full, in italics, bold mine:
· JoNovace
“….trees actually started to show a sharp decline in temperatures…..”
Tree rings don’t show temperature, what is your source for this? Tree ring may correlate with temperature if other factors are removed.
“1960 a period the alarmists are largely basing their AGW hypothesis on the trees actually started to show a sharp decline in temperatures.”
…but we know the temperatures were rising so this is nonsense. This is why tree rings dont “show temperature” as you put it.
So there you have it. Mann’s tree rings crushed in just two completely logical sentences, the Hockey Stick graph unceremoniously dumped into history’s dust bin by an erstwhile defendant of the CAGW meme itself. Confronted with Michael Mann’s “science” but without the pomp and ceremony and media spin to give it credibility derives from context and appeal to authority, even a novice to the debate could see the truth. Which is why they (apparently) aren’t including the Hockey Stick graph in Warmist Troll 101 classes anymore.
I pointed out JoNovace’s error to her, that she had just debunked giant tracts of CAGW science. To the best of my knowledge, she hasn’t been heard from since on WUWT. Once can only wonder what kind of epiphany this was for her. But as for Mann and his tree rings…. The warmists don’t drag them out to put on display anymore. Even a Novace can see right through them.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Climate “science”, just like vaccinology, just doesn’t add up.
Even a child could see that.
You mean empirically testable repeatable experimental science doesn’t add up in your mind?
Hmmmm, you reveal a lot about yourself and the validity of your scientific beliefs there Simple-Touriste in a much more striking fashion than the subject of this article.
I have said this before, but…..
If tree rings are not recording temperature, but a whole host of other environmental factors (as we know they are), then the whole of dendrochronology dating goes into the same dust bin of history.
If there is not a global or continental climate signature in tree rings, you cannot compare a ship’s beam grown in Spain, with a reference tree grown in California (bristle cones) or in Ireland (bog oaks). And if you cannot compare the two (because the environmental factors that govern growth were completely different in these far-flung regions), then you cannot compare the rings and so you cannot compare the dates.
An El-Nino bringing rains to California (bristle cone reference trees), will bring dry conditions to the US northeast (the sample to be tested). So the bristle cone will have good growth during an El Nino, while the east coast tree will have reduced growth. So how can you compare the northeast timbers with bristle cones, when they will have totally the reverse signature? So how on earth can you derive a date from these transposed tree-ring records? Its impossible.
It would seem to me that dendrochronology is as much of a fraud as climate alarmism – just a convenient bandwagon for ‘scientists’ to jump upon. How many double-blind control tests, were ever done on the dendrochronologists? I have not seen any reference to the testing procedures. There must be many houses in the UK where the age of the timbers are known, back to the 16th century. Were they ever double-blind tested, alongside other control samples? And what were the results of these tests?
Ralph
As Prof Lindzen stated recently climate science, as it is currently organised, favours the mediocre and Dr Mann is the ultimate illustration of mediocrity.
Perhaps it’s time to switch from discussing Mann to discussing what Steyn is going to do with Mann’s money. He certainly won’t win the full $20 million from Mann’s deep-pocketed backers, but it’s interesting to think about what a wickedly satirical man might devise as a monument to tweak the warmists.
Gotcha!
It’s amusing when a supporter of whatever shoots their own argument in the foot, so to speak. Some years back, during the call for a ban on fox hunting here in Britain, we were treated to the cries from the supporters of hunting. Their principle argument was that fox hunting was needed to keep their numbers down, and that without hunting, farms would be overrun with crafty foxes. When questioned about the morality of wilfilly killing an animal in such large numbers, they stated that vehicles kill far more foxes than hunting does…thereby dismantling their core argument for keeping fox hunting! It was extremely funny that they just didn’t see their what would happen when you urinate into the wind.
Anyway, Mann will have the last laugh. He did one measly thing in his life, was paid millions for it and made the A list in Hollywood and he will retire on a large pension. Sure, Mike said when interviewed in 2030, its a crock, but, hey, the timing was right, Jessica and I are still seeing each other, the IPCC is long dead, but here I am. Sorry, can we finish this interview, I have a plane to catch for Jamaica.
I can’t help but think this is rather petulent and childish. Who really cares about some novice troll has to say, let alone thinks that helping them make a fool of themselves says anything about Mann’s hockey stick.
WUWT plays in the big leagues. This is like gloating over a score in a Pop Warner game.
I suggest timg56, that you read a story called “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. The novice in this case is the child, who in complete innocence, points out to the crowd bedazzled by “the story”, the simple truth. The Mann is naked.