Mann tries to revive his dead hockey stick with a press release

From Penn State (via Eurekalert) and the ‘bad science keeps coming back from the dead’ department, comes this laughable PR hack which is disguised as a plug for Dr. Mann’s book. This cartoon from Josh sums it up well.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/game_of_thrones_scr1.jpg?w=700

Public Release: 14-Feb-2015

Iconic graph at center of climate debate

The “Hockey Stick” graph, a simple plot representing temperature over time, led to the center of the larger debate on climate change, and skewed the trajectory of at least one researcher, according to Michael Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology, Penn State.

“The “Hockey Stick” graph became a central icon in the climate wars,” Mann told attendees today (Feb. 11) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “The graph took on a life of its own.”

Mann and his coauthors, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K Hughes, created the graph for a paper, “Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations” which appeared in Geophysical Research Letters in 1999. In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a version of the graph in its report, pushing the hockey stick depiction of temperature trends to the forefront of the climate change discussion.

“There have been dozens of other climate reconstructions, all very similar to ours,” said Mann. “They are based on different data and different approaches, and of course everyone thinks their approach is best, but they all imply that the modern warming spike is unique. And still the Hockey Stick remains the iconic graph.”

The original paper and the IPCC report demonstrated that temperature had risen with the increase in industrialization and use of fossil fuels. The researchers’ conclusion was that worldwide human activity since the industrial age had raised carbon dioxide levels, trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and warming the planet.

But the iconic graph engendered attacks, including calls for into the validity and veracity of the research. Subsequent investigations by the National Academy of Sciences, The National Science Foundation and Penn State all found the research both honest and solid.

Mann is quick to point out that there are two entirely distinct debates taking place when it comes to climate change research. One is the legitimate scientific challenging of research results that is part of the give and take of the scientific method all done in good faith to help advance the forefront of our knowledge. The other consists of bad faith attacks on scientists and the science, intended to advance some agenda — political, religious or economic.

Mann was thrust into a larger-than-life role in the climate debate because of the notoriety of the Hockey Stick Graph. As a scientist he was dragged along with his research to a place most scientists do not go and generally do not want to go.

“I was forced to take on a role very different than the one that I had envisioned,” said Mann.

In 2012, Mann published “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines,” (Columbia University Press) describing his experiences as a reluctant figure in the climate change debate.

“This was not what I envisioned I would be doing when I chose to be a scientist, but over time I have grown to embrace this role,” said Mann. “I feel privileged to be in a position to inform the larger public discourse over what may be the greatest challenge civilization has faced.”

###

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

364 thoughts on “Mann tries to revive his dead hockey stick with a press release

    • Actually, I don’t think Hockey Stick was a particularly well-drawn cartoon, but it was certainly good for a laugh.

    • Brandon Gates, I like Josh’s cartoons.
      They aren’t lewd or violent or intimidating. They are just biting.
      And cartoons have a long tradition in popular science magazines. This website is the 21st century equivalent. So why shouldn’t it have cartoons?
      Je suis…

      • MCourtney,
        lol … well see I too can engage in biting satire. Here I was going for something along the lines of “you lot might be taking yourselves a bit too seriously at times”.

      • Too seriously?
        This is the end of the world!
        There is no more important issue for mankind at the moment.
        Sigh.
        Report to Dana’s 97% blog at the Grauniad for re-education.

      • M. Courtney:
        Correctomundo.
        Only fools would spend enormous amounts of money to prepare for something that has never happened before, and for which there is zero evidence of happening now.
        But that is exactly what the alarmist contingent wants to do.

      • Good one.
        Cook really has no understanding of cost at all, does he?
        Has he ever had a real job or does he live on his rent’s couch.

      • Jimbo,
        That cartoon is quite funny to me since I’ve made those arguments, sans snark, and gotten similar responses. On my better days I often find the ribbing my side takes quite humorous because, well, I see a lot of ridicule-worthy things on my side. Humanity generally amuses me.
        This is not one of my better days. It happens.

      • Is Cook really so thick that he actually fails to understand the much greater cost of “climate change precautions” compared to the “examples” in the last three frames? Or is any lie acceptable when it serves what God has inspired him to know is the Greater Good?
        Science this isn’t.

      • Brandon Gates, I seriously doubt you’ve made those arguments in any valid way and have gotten ‘similar responsens’. Unless you are equally daft as Cook portrays himself by putting this cartoon forward. Maybe you were just laughing at your own shallow understanding of the issues!?

      • Jonas N,

        I seriously doubt you’ve made those arguments in any valid way and have gotten ‘similar responsens’.

        Define “valid”.

        Unless you are equally daft as Cook portrays himself by putting this cartoon forward.

        Intelligence, humor and beauty. All often in the eye of the beholder.

        Maybe you were just laughing at your own shallow understanding of the issues!?

        Maybe you should try me instead of assuming.

      • jdgalt,

        Is Cook really so thick that he actually fails to understand the much greater cost of “climate change precautions” compared to the “examples” in the last three frames?

        Dunno. How much are the precautions gonna run us according to your calculations?

        Or is any lie acceptable when it serves what God has inspired him to know is the Greater Good?

        Hmmm.

        Science this isn’t.

        First frame of the cartoon: “MANAGING RISK”, all caps, in RED.

      • There is a 1/100,000,000,000 chance of my being hit by a meteor…which could be deflected by the structure of a large commercial/industrial building. Therefore I should never leave the mall or the office/shop…etc.
        There is a 1/50,000,000 chance that I could get the “flesh eating” bacteria from the hot tub at my health club. Whoops, no more mid winter hot tubs!
        There is a 1/10,000,000 chance that if I fly EVERY DAY of every week…I’ll die in an air crash. Therefore, nothing but horses for this boy!
        Taking drastic actions, on miniscule (or really, non-existent) threats…is the proper model. The above cartoon misses the point.

      • On auto insurance (US perspective), buying liability is compulsory. Buying collision is optional (assuming you own the car and not the bank).
        Q: Would paying $10,000/year on collision to replace a $30,000 market value car be a smart economic decision?
        Smoking never makes health sense. Even before the US SG’s warnings, people suspected it was bad.
        Q: Where does the girl in orange (in the cartoon above) make the non sequitur about “can’t say is not a good idea”.
        The disconnect that is evident in the logic of the SKS cartoon of course is illogical. No one is arguing lung cancer is good. No one is arguing it is okay to have an auto accident or house burn down, insurance or not. No one is arguing +4ºC/century climate sensitivity is bad. SKS dishonesty is just more “Jon Stewart-like Comedy Central” truth bending (i.e. lying to deceive), that greatly angers me about the whole climate change issue.

        • joelobryan

          Q: Would paying $10,000/year on collision to replace a $30,000 market value car be a smart economic decision?

          But that is not even the “insurance” question!
          The Big Government is demanding you burn your house and settle in their 2 room apartment downtown 23 floors up (to minimize traffic and gasoline use); that you pay 65,000.00 per year on a new insurance policy to protect against a left-handed meteorite hitting the neighbor’s roof, rebounding, and breaking your car door (er, to restrict CO2 production that might some time in the future reduce a temperature rise that isn’t happening now or in the future); and that you give up your job and your children’s job because they don’t like the political donations your company gave (Solydra, GE, Siemens, GM, Chrysler etc. are favored, Ford is rejected, Apple is favored, Microsoft and Google are favored, Duke Energy is favored by FPL is disliked, BP is hated but GE is liked, …

      • Brandon,
        That you’ve seriously made the same arguments as Cook tries in his cartoon doesn’t put you in a good light. That is because the first example lacks something the other three have. Namely data to base a risk analysis on.

      • timg56,

        Namely data to base a risk analysis on.

        When doing risk analysis, if there’s no established base rate all we can do is estimate. That pretty much means doing worst-case scenarios. Climate “alarmists” didn’t invent the precautionary principle and prudent people don’t consider such thinking speaks ill of anyone.
        Chance are your house will not in fact ever burn down. You pay for the insurance because the worst case scenario is that it will. Only difference is that the estimates which go into deteriming your premium are set by actuaries working from historical data. It’s in no way my fault that we don’t have prior experience to draw from. Yes, I know the planet has been warmer in the past. But it wasn’t warmer with our present level of infrastructure and population. And the past measurements are highly uncertain relative to modern observations.

      • “Humanity generally amuses me.”
        Brandon Gates
        Translation, you are the guy who sits in the back at a party watching everyone else have fun. No matter what you tell yourself you are simply too affraid to go up and talk to anyone.

    • How hard does Brandon Gates have to work to become the first comment on an article.
      Just wondering since it is clear BG spends no work or effort on the content of his comment, but I guess you take what you can get and there is some satisfaction in being first.

      • Alx,
        This is the weekend. But I’ve noticed that Gates comments here 24/7 [and that’s when he’s not commenting at Hotwhopper, at SkS, and at many other blogs].
        So the question arises: does that guy ever work?? Really, does he have a productive job? Or does he live off EBT cards? If he has a real job, does his boss know he’s spending all his time blogging throughout the work day?
        Or, maybe he’s being paid to run interference. Since that’s the accusation from a lot of alarmists against skeptics, we cannot rule out projection.
        It’s a real puzzle, isn’t it? Gates’ time stamps show that he’s always posting comments, every day, throughout the work week.
        So if Gates is lurking, I have a question: how can I get a job like that?

      • Dbstealy.

        You should know better.
        ..
        A person cannot “live off of EBT cards”
        ..
        Sheesh……don’t you know you can’t pay rent with them?

        • rodmol@virginmedia.com ( at least now correctly replying to Dbstealy)


          You should know better.
          ..
          A person cannot “live off of EBT cards”
          ..
          Sheesh……don’t you know you can’t pay rent with them?

          A ridiculous off-topic, distracting technique. The federal Big Government sends their welfare voters BOTH EBT (Food Stamps) for daily purchases of food, drink, and all other things on the grocery store shelves; but adds their rent subsidies or housing and utilities subsidies and direct welfare payments to their monthly allotments and social security (er, disability) payments and child credits and free-school-lunch money and free childcare and free phones and free health care and free TV and free …. Then, at the end of the tax year after the rest of us have paid 52% of our salaries to the governments, they get a tax “rebate” from the IRS and states on taxes they didn’t pay!
          Not a bad gig, if you don’t want to live in the world of real poverty overseas.

      • dbstealey,

        So the question arises: does that guy ever work??

        Yes.

        Really, does he have a productive job?

        Define “productive”.

        Or does he live off EBT cards?

        My tax contributions toward feeding the jobless and hungry are comfortably above average. I pay it gladly, and without disparaging them for needing my assistance. After all, how am I to know their personal situation from afar?

        If he has a real job, does his boss know he’s spending all his time blogging throughout the work day?

        Bosses? We don’t neeeeeed no steeeenkin’ BOSSES!

        Or, maybe he’s being paid to run interference. Since that’s the accusation from a lot of alarmists against skeptics, we cannot rule out projection.

        Projection is a psychological condition, not a job description. Drew a bad hand this deal, did you DB? I’d be folding about now if I were you.

        It’s a real puzzle, isn’t it? Gates’ time stamps show that he’s always posting comments, every day, throughout the work week.

        Figured that out all by your lonesome? Impressive.

        So if Gates is lurking, I have a question: how can I get a job like that?

        Odd question for a retiree to be asking. Did an investment go bad or something?

      • “Some folks here could buy you and sell you”
        ..
        Wow, you have some fantastic delusions. Can I have some of what you are smoking?

      • rodmol says:
        A person cannot “live off of EBT cards”
        Which re-confirms his status as the King of the Nitpickers.
        You still aren’t wearing your bigboy pants, Rodney.

      • @RaCook part of your statement: “monthly allotments and social security (er, disability) payments” Be careful I was disabled at work have been for 13 years (thankfully I was insured!). Both my wife (chuckle) and I wish the hell that I could go back to work , like 13 years ago as if the last 13 years had never happened. Social Security is another thing needed for people that are dire straights. Unless you’ve been there don’t knock it! I realize there is abuse of the system but generalization is a mistake.

        • Noted. But the system IS abused. Very often.
          Worst, though it is present for you and your family now; it will either be gone in 20 years, or will have destroyed the country through “good intentions” by some (Let’s expand coverage using a basic Ponzi scheme that will already fail and make it fail faster”) and “bad politics” by most of Washington.

    • Thank you, Brandon. I missed the microsecond trolling.
      Could you please explain this time what it is that you intend to accomplish by your actions? I am honestly curious and await a thoughtful response. Thank you.

      • Brute,

        Thank you, Brandon. I missed the microsecond trolling.

        I prefer one-line quippery myself. Other than that, I’m all too happy to have obliged.

        Could you please explain this time what it is that you intend to accomplish by your actions? I am honestly curious and await a thoughtful response. Thank you.

        Creative outlet, same as I imagine cartooning is for Josh. Trying to get people to think. Yes, sometimes trying to piss people off. Yes, a lot getting pissed off and venting my own spleen. Getting out of my echo chamber to check my own assumptions, liking a good argument and failing that the occasional flame fest. Some hope of influencing opinions, but mostly for the silent non-participants. It’s not an easy balance to find on this topic in this venue, so there’s an aspect of me liking a challenge. A lot of self-education about the science, politics and how I and others handle the inevitable conflicts.

      • That’s good that you are visiting and learning, Brandon. Soon you will be a convert. Mind you, my interest in climate was piqued in 1955 studying the voyages of the Vikings so it may take you some time to come on over. I hope the folks in New England survive their blast of Global Warming (I know, just weather).
        Have a good day. Maybe everyone should take a break from being so serious and watch SNL tonight. 😉

      • Thank you for providing such a candid response, Brandon. I appreciate it.
        If I may, do you honestly think you are accomplishing anything productive? By productive, of course, I mean beyond getting angry yourself and beyond the sadistic element of obtaining pleasure out of causing others to feel distress.

      • Brute,
        If I’m doing any “good” its with people who don’t respond. I have no real way of knowing, though in the grand scheme of things I seriously doubt my words have much influence.
        I’m no sadist, though I’m curious what causes you to think so. Aside from that, I take it as a given that people choose to participate here, same as I do. I think that if anyone here lets some random loudmouth on the Internet distress them, they give that person far too much power.

    • Yeah, it is hard to take the Mann seriously. The whole alarmist thing is one big joke. It’s just not funny.
      Eamon.

      • evanmjones, Murrow and Cronkite were greats, but both a bit before my time. Most talking heads on tee vee these days are not what I’d call proper journalists, more like paid spokespeople. Stewart’s style of entertainment may very well be attached by strings to concerns above his pay grade… my thing is if I’m going to be lied to I’d prefer that it be done with some wit and humor.
        For proper news I read the Economist.

    • Hey Brandon!
      This is some impressive stuff, here! I mean, like, you managed to generate all this comment activity with just a coupla, or so, wiener-head, nothing-booger dumb-jibes. And so, like, you’ve really gotten me intently scratchin’ my head, Brandon, and tryin’ to figure out just how you did it, guy!
      All of which has left me sorta provisionally thinkin’ that the secret of your amazing, trollery success, achieved despite the lame-brain limitations of your basic material, is your relentless, nice-guy persona–you know, Brandon, how you come across as a sort of hive-bot version of one of those just-darlin’, spoiled-rotten puppies, you sometimes encounter when you’re invited to someone’s home, for the first time, that just wants to be your doggie-friend, and won’t leave you alone and keeps putting his cutie-pie, wittle wet-nose in your crotch and humpin’ your leg and flippin’ over on his back so that you can scratch his plump, little belly, and everything, and you can’t just shoo the little, proto-fleabag beastie away because everyone is watching you, including your host’s kids, and everyone thinks the pup is just so darn cute, and you just know you’d get tagged with bein’ an ol’ meanie, and all, big time, if you didn’t do the good-sport, right thing and indulge the importunate, little furry-pest. You know, that sort of thing, Brandon.
      Like I said, Brandon, this is some impressive stuff. Indeed, in your own, unique, off-beat way, I’ll even go so far as to propose that you’ve got the makings of a real hive super-star! My compliments.

    • And just what science do you see in that cartoon Brandon?
      Perhaps you’re envious of Manniacal’s hockey matchstick throne?
      Or maybe you’re envious because Josh nails the topic solidly, portraying the players exactly the way they pose?
      Or maybe because your paid climate shill requirements require you to make useless completely unscientific comments?
      WUWT is easily the best science blog site on the web and shines the brightest sharpest science light on those nasty silly assumptions and false claims spouted by the alarmist quacks. Including faux king Manniacal hokeystick quack above.

      • ATheoK,
        Isn’t one of Mann’s most “endearing” qualities his relentless self-promotion? Just askin’.

      • Endearing is not the term that first comes to mind for me, but at least you recognize what has become Dr Mann’s most recognizable trait.

    • Brandon Gates
      February 15, 2015 at 11:10 am
      Oh look, more science by cartoon from the Best Science Website in the World.

      Those in glass houses……….One man’s cartoon is another man’s freedom fighter.

      SkepticalScience – 19 January 2015
      On 7 September 2014, we launched 97 Hours of Consensus. Every hour for 97 consecutive hours, we published a cartoon of a climate scientist with a quote about climate change………If you’re a climate scientist who:………..and would like to be drawn in cartoon form
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/Call-climate-scientists-submit-quote-97-Hours-Consensus-2015.html
      —–
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/t370.jpg
      skepticalscience.com/Christmas-cartoon-on-melting-North-Pole.html
      —–
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/cartoon1.gif
      skepticalscience.com/Cartoon-about-global-warming-alarmism.html

    • Brandon’s confusion about the difference between science and news clarifies much about the thought-processes of alarmists that I’d never before understood.

  1. “This was not what I envisioned I would be doing when I chose to be a scientist, but over time I have grown to embrace this role,” said Mann. “I feel privileged to be in a position to inform the larger public discourse over what may be the greatest challenge civilization has faced.”

    Saving the world – one hockey stick at a time!!! Such humility…

    • Hasn’t Mann been arrested a couple of times at various climate protests?
      If so, he hasn’t exactly been reluctant to thrust himself into “this role”.

      • Naw – that was Hansen getting himself arrested. But then he has the courage of his convictions. Obviously Doctor Mann is a one-trick pony and the “hockey stick graph” (and general abuse) is all that is to be got out of him.
        Oh sorry – forgot upside down data series. Upside down data series and the hockey stick. A two trick pony then…..

    • “what may be the greatest challenge civilization has faced.”
      Can’t argue w that . The 200 States of the world ganging up against rationality and the prosperity of their denizens .

    • Sean,
      I’ve not come across ‘The Wand of Narcissus’ before… I hope you don’t mind my stealing that phrase? I’ve come across a number of interwebz threads where the phrase would be an absolutely perfect fit.

      • @Sean, jmi, me too “The wand of Narcissus”, can I use it? Just about spilled my beer! (but I am careful, not a drop)

  2. from dictionary.search.yahoo.com:
    “iconic: Symbolic, emblematic, or representative.”
    It is interesting that they use this example: “a classroom scene that is iconic of what is wrong with the education system”. Perhaps that is what Dr Mann meant about his hockey stick graph.

      • Brandon Gates – who is this tedious and sad self-opinionated tosser?
        Anthony – why can’t we have a section for tedious and sad self-opinionated tossers to express themselves? I am sure that there might be 2 or 3 people somewhere on our planet who would find comments like Brandon’s to be amusing/witty/interesting.
        As for the rest of us, it would be a relief not to read this tedious BS.
        [Reply: if Anthony says the word, we can have a tosser section. ~mod.]

      • Ah Peter. Brandon provides so much insight into Mannian Physics. I would miss him and the other trolls. Our problem on this side, is we just can’t help feeding them, otherwise they’d likely just disappear. Our feeding of them is on us.

      • Again I reiterate my amazement that I’m not much beloved here simply by virtue of being an insufferably smug know-it-all.

  3. “There have been dozens of other climate reconstructions, all very similar to ours,” said Mann. “They are based on different data and different approaches, and of course everyone thinks their approach is best, but they all imply that the modern warming spike is unique.”
    Since the Mann data was so flawed, how do “other climate reconstructions, all very similar to ours” fare and where are the papers???

    • Those are the ones from his co-authors and other members of the paleo community that Wegman dismissed for using either Mann’s bristlecones or his flawed statistics or both.

      • And – of course – diligent research by the likes of Steve McIntyre has shown that they all use the same flawed proxies anyway….

    • “but they all imply that the modern warming spike is unique.” Sorry, that should have read,
      “but they all imply that MY modern warming spike is unique”. Must have been a momentary lapse

  4. The “British News Media” (BNM) tell us that it does not matter which political party wins the next election. – (Parliamentary elections are soon to be coming up) – They (the political parties) will all work together to combat “Climate Change”. – So yeah, the Hockey Stick may be broken but it still playable. – Or does it, perhaps, only mean that any “Political Green Cards” cannot be successfully played by any politician?

    • British politics: It doesn’t matter. In fact this agreement is a good thing.
      Now AGW is off the table there can’t be a fight over who offers most in the debates.
      No vilification for not subsidising off-shore wind farms from here to Labrador.
      No-one wants to get into that fight so all the main parties have nullified the Green party debate by agreement.
      AGW will eventually die by slow dampening down. It won’t have a denouement that demonstrates who the villain was. The villains will just back away slowly.

      • That’s a very good point, if I may say so.
        Initially, I was seething when I read about this swivel-eyed tri-party agreement to ‘combat climate change’ but, fortunately, it has spiked the guns of the dreaded Green Party.
        Also, it leaves the stage clear for UKIP to advance our realist approach to the matter.

  5. Here is Mann defending the Hockey Stick in a talk less than six months ago.

    What he says is so absurd to anyone with a rational mind. At 38:00
    “Certain types of tree ring data become unreliable after 1960 and don’t depict temperatures properly, they shouldn’t be used.We shouldn’t showing mislead data, an artificial decline, we don’t want to mislead people about modern data trends. ”
    What he is really saying is, since we invented the digital thermometer (in 1970) and could accurately measure temperature to a tenth of a degree we have found out that tree rings are not reliable. So what we are going to is IGNORE THAT FACT and just use the period when we really didn’t know what the temperature was to a 1/10th of a degree and use tree rings to measure temperature to a 1/10th of a degree.
    This is such a confiscation of basic REAL SCIENCE it defies belief that this is what Science in the modern world has now become. It’s ALL a pile of NONSENSE!

    • All his talks are almost identical nowadays. Even the pauses for effect and the quirky attempts at jokes for the all too sympathetic crowd are the same. Allegedly he gets US$ 10.000 for every time. Of taxpayer money of course …

    • “Certain types of tree ring data become unreliable after 1960 and don’t depict temperatures properly, … ”
      It is odd how the tree ring data worked just fine until the temperatures could be checked against modern instrumentation and then they stopped working. Odd indeed.

    • Until you can explain why tree-rings stopped being accurate, you have no means to verify that previous data is actually accurate.

      • Multi-proxy studies can be fine, but only if used consistently. Mixing and matching is cherry and picking and loses all scientific integrity. You cannot say a proxy is good for this time period and not so good for another period. When something is defined as valid and invalid depending on whats needed that is called politics, not science.
        Only a fool or a purposely dishonest scientist would selectively use proxy data in the way Mann has and only the ignorant and gullible would nod their heads up and down like bobble head dolls in agreement when he puts forth absurd rationalizations on his use of proxy data.

      • @ Brandon Gates [That’s one reason for doing multi-proxy studies] Agreed. wouldn’t it have been grand if Mann had used multiple trees instead of just YAD061 from Yamal?

      • Yeah, multi-proxy:
        Upside down Tijander.
        Yad061 sole tree dominance.
        Use bad statistics and awkward coding techniques.
        Cherry pick.
        Apply biased discretion and fill in with actual temperatures into a reconstruction from proxy.
        Oh yeah, them multi-proxy boiled soups are great for pretend science.

      • Alx,

        Multi-proxy studies can be fine, but only if used consistently.

        What does “consistent” mean? Who defines what’s “consistent” in this context? Is every site “consistent”?

        Mixing and matching is cherry and picking and loses all scientific integrity.

        If it were as simple as picking a tree and getting a direct numerical temperature readout, you might have a point. But it’s not. We don’t even get that kind of simplicity from modern thermometers. Yes, against my better judgement, I just went there.

        You cannot say a proxy is good for this time period and not so good for another period.

        One can’t just arbitrarily say that, I agree. dbstealey is picking on “spatio-temporal pattern”, let’s think about what that means. Patterns, or correlations, in both time and space. One major reason for doing multi-proxy studies — which does NOT just mean using multiple trees, it means using other types of proxies — is to detect where and when certain types of proxies, or even certain samples gathered from a particular kind of proxy at a particular site, diverge from trend estimates given by most of the rest which are similarly situated.

        When something is defined as valid and invalid depending on whats needed that is called politics, not science.

        In its purest form, science is the process of trial and error, which significantly means that we do NOT know ahead of time the universally “proper” way to do anything.

        Only a fool or a purposely dishonest scientist would selectively use proxy data in the way Mann has and only the ignorant and gullible would nod their heads up and down like bobble head dolls in agreement when he puts forth absurd rationalizations on his use of proxy data.

        The only way I know how to sort out dueling experts is look to what the bulk of experts say. I’m not exactly happy about that, but I do try to be aware of my limitations.

      • Brandon if you support dueling experts, then understand Mann’s own co-workers called his work “indefensible”.
        Mann’s own colleagues warned Mann about the unreliability of tree rings – this email from Tom Wigley, discussing how his son’s high school project falsified Mann’s research…
        “Also, stationarity is the key. Let me tell you a story. A few years back, my son Eirik did a tree ring science fair project using trees behind NCAR. He found that widths correlated with both temp and precip. However, temp and precip also correlate. There is much other evidence that it is precip that is the driver, and that the temp/width correlation arises via the temp/precip correlation. Interestingly, the temp correlations are much more ephemeral, so the complexities conspire to make this linkage non stationary.”
        Also the supporting proxy studies have similar flaws. As one example, According to McIntyre;
        “The new information shows dramatic failure of the Sheep Mountain chronology as an out-of-sample temperature proxy, as it has a dramatic divergence from NH temperature since 1980, the end of the Mann et al (and many other) reconstructions. While the issue is very severe for the Mann reconstructions, it affects numerous other reconstructions, including PAGES2K.”
        http://climateaudit.org/2014/12/04/sheep-mountain-update/
        Indeed Brandon, these colleagues of Mann, admitted that all the proxy studies show virtually nothing of less then 100 year variability, making comparisons to decadal changes irrelevant. One of them simply stated they would know “fuckall” about less then 100 year variability, and they should publish, and then retire.

      • David A,

        Brandon if you support dueling experts, then understand Mann’s own co-workers called his work “indefensible”.

        Was that Wigley? I don’t see the word “indefensible” in the text you cite.

        Mann’s own colleagues warned Mann about the unreliability of tree rings – this email from Tom Wigley, discussing how his son’s high school project falsified Mann’s research…
        “Also, stationarity is the key. Let me tell you a story. A few years back, my son Eirik did a tree ring science fair project using trees behind NCAR. He found that widths correlated with both temp and precip. However, temp and precip also correlate. There is much other evidence that it is precip that is the driver, and that the temp/width correlation arises via the temp/precip correlation. Interestingly, the temp correlations are much more ephemeral, so the complexities conspire to make this linkage non stationary.”

        Wigley does not say here that Mann’s research is “falsified”. And why did you leave out the final sentence of the email? I have not seen any papers in the literature demonstrating this — but, as you point out Mike, it is a crucial issue. Tom.

        Also the supporting proxy studies have similar flaws. As one example, According to McIntyre;
        “The new information shows dramatic failure of the Sheep Mountain chronology as an out-of-sample temperature proxy, as it has a dramatic divergence from NH temperature since 1980, the end of the Mann et al (and many other) reconstructions. While the issue is very severe for the Mann reconstructions, it affects numerous other reconstructions, including PAGES2K.”
        http://climateaudit.org/2014/12/04/sheep-mountain-update/

        The same Steve McIntyre who can’t get most of his stuff on this topic past peer review so resorts to publishing it on his blog. One guy with a blog. Thousands of papers in peer-reviewed journals. In a duel of experts, I go with the majority. My standard of success is passing peer review and getting published. I have to rely on this heuristic because I am not an expert myself, and DO NOT pretend to be one. Which means I do not say things like, “this [not even fully quoted] email falsifies Mann’s research on the basis of my [pretend expert] interpretation.”

        Indeed Brandon, these colleagues of Mann, admitted that all the proxy studies show virtually nothing of less then 100 year variability, making comparisons to decadal changes irrelevant. One of them simply stated they would know “fuckall” about less then 100 year variability, and they should publish, and then retire.

        I may have read that one too, can’t remember. Ray Bradley’s “excuse me while I puke” is one I remember better because it gets a lot of airplay. Whether or not Mann’s science is any good is determined by what is written in literature. Whether you or his colleagues thinks he’s a vomitous narcissist has no bearing. By way of literature, Mann’s peers have NOT thrown his research under the bus. That’s the currency which counts in ANY science — by necessity, because not even professional scientists can be expert at all things. Formalized vetting processes like peer review saves everyone the trouble of having to chase down minutiae and makes the process of doing science more efficient.
        Emphasis on doing science. As opposed to sitting on the bench pretending to be in the game. Know the difference.

      • Gates says:
        The same Steve McIntyre who can’t get most of his stuff on this topic past peer review so resorts to publishing it on his blog.
        Amusing. McIntyre and McKittrick singlehandedly destroyed Mann’s statistical nonsense by doing “real science”. That’s why Mann HATES those two. He cannot even bring himself to write their names, referring to them instead as “M&M”.
        One guy with a blog. Thousands of papers in peer-reviewed journals. In a duel of experts, I go with the majority.
        Unthinking people go with the majority. Anthony is also “one guy with a blog”. But Gates is here every day, desperately trying to keep the water of truth from breaking through the dyke. He is failing.
        ‘One guy with a blog’ can make a huge difference, as McIntyre and Anthony have proven. If not for them, Mann would be home free. But he’s not. The Nobel Prize phony is going down, and we’re watching it in real time.

      • dbstealey,

        McIntyre and McKittrick singlehandedly destroyed Mann’s statistical nonsense by doing “real science”.

        AFAIK, their seminal work was rejected by Nature but they managed to get it published in E&E. IIRC, Nature did publish a corrigidum for MBH98 … ah yes:
        http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MBH98-corrigendum04.pdf
        Nature did not retract the original paper. Mann, Bradley and Hughes have continued to have successful research and publishing careers whose work consistently makes it into high-impact journals. McIntyre mostly writes a blog, though I count him as author on seven papers which passed peer review and were published, three in quite decent journals (Journal of Climate, GRL and PNAS). I think were it not for his blogging and near maniacal fixation on MBH98 he might have been able to offer constructive critiques via literature that might have had some impact. As it is, he’s made it pretty clear that he’s mostly interested in trying to destroy reputations, which is laughable because his targets’ careers are still intact and their work is still being accepted.
        I don’t know much about McKittrick. But it’s pretty clear to me that the two of them haven’t destroyed much of anything except in the collective minds of a bunch of self-declared “victors”.

    • When Mann talks about the IPCC report at about 13:20 one of the things he said is:
      “In fact, if you read the technical chapters of the IPCC report, what you’ll actually find is that human factors, or greenhouse gasses in particular, are likely responsible for more than 100% of the warming.”
      So humans aren’t only responsible for the warming, they’re responsible for *more* than 100% of the warming? Is that possible? He says that’s because our polution also cooled certain areas before the Clean Air Act, and despite that cooling the earth has still warmed.
      How do we contribute more than 100%? I’m no math genius but that doesn’t sound right. Can someone explain? Thanks.

      • NancyG22, it is possible that mankind is responsible for more than 100% of the warming.
        M Mann is asserting that the world is entering an ice-age and that CO2 is rescuing us.
        Unfortunately he hasn’t any evidence for this as we can’t distinguish the effects of CO2 from the unknown natural changes that happen anyway.
        But if he wasn’t just guessing he would actually be more “Sceptic” than most Sceptics.

  6. Mann is quick to point out that there are two entirely distinct debates taking place when it comes to climate change research. One is the legitimate scientific challenging of research results that is part of the give and take of the scientific method all done in good faith to help advance the forefront of our knowledge.

    He forgot to add that he’ll sue, via the big pockets of his backers, anyone who says he was mistaken. Whether that objection is based on science or not. To say or imply that he is not the King of the Hockey Ring is unforgivable.

    The other consists of bad faith attacks on scientists and the science, intended to advance some agenda — political, religious or economic.

    Perhaps he should check in with Al Gore or Obama as regards advances in personal economic gains or political agendas.
    As far as questioning his “the science”, “He forgot to add that he’ll sue, via the big pockets of his backers, anyone who says he was mistaken. Whether that objection is based on science or not. To say or imply that he is not the King of the Hockey Ring is unforgivable.”

    • Many humble, honest and great scientist and inventors went back to the drawing board when they realized they were wrong. They then came up with something of value.
      There may be hope for Dr. Mann…but not till he first realizes something.

    • He forgot the ‘bad faith science intended to advance some agenda – political, religious or economic’.

  7. “This was not what I envisioned I would be doing when I chose to be a scientist, but over time I have grown to embrace this role,” said Mann. “I feel privileged to be in a position to inform the larger public discourse over what may be the greatest challenge civilization has faced.”
    Did he once again throw himself under the bus in the Stein lawsuit? I mean he just admitted he’s a public figure which changes the proof needed to for a libel suit.

    • I read (some non-memorable news piece in past week) that Penn State exonerated him on 3 of 4 counts of whatever, but would continue INTERNALLY to question some academic process line of academe . . . it kind of wandered off from there. Some drivel about a guy is entitled to his own beliefs??
      We know how good Penn State is with internal inquiry so should work out fine.

  8. “One is the legitimate scientific challenging of research results that is part of the give and take of the scientific method all done in good faith to help advance the forefront of our knowledge. The other consists of bad faith attacks on scientists and the science, intended to advance some agenda — political, religious or economic.”
    Mann for once speaks the truth. He only fails to point out that he is in the SECOND camp.As far as I can tell and in my opinion (pay heed, all ye fair and tender lawyers) Mann’s attacks on McIntyre, in particular, have ALWAYS been made in bad faith, based on lies, to advance his agenda of self-aggrandizement, gain personal fame (“Nobel Prize winning/sharing), promote his political party and views in areas unrelated to his expertise (if any) and enjoy the economic tangible perquisites of travel, lodging, meals and leisure accorded to “elites” at conferences of elites around the world. I note in particular that Mann’s critics do NOT get wined and dined, flown in and lime-lighted, paid and be-prized, in any fashion comparable to the benefits Mann has enjoyed in his own career. In my opinion, the person who so often uses the words “fraud” and “shill” is ten times as guilty as any of the persons he verbally targets.

  9. “Subsequent investigations by the National Academy of Sciences, The National Science Foundation and Penn State all found the research both honest and solid.”
    Not surprising that Mann won’t quote chapter and verse of the claimed exonerations.

    • Anonymous

      “Subsequent investigations by the National Academy of Sciences, The National Science Foundation and Penn State all found the research both honest and solid.”

      And, just a few days after Penn State “exonerated” the whitewash blended by Mann, Penn State received some 3.0 million dollars to “research” (yet again) the impact of global warming on mosquito populations and disease … to be given to the Penn State insect and Disease studies group.
      Credited sponsor of the 3.0 million dollar grant to Penn State? Mann.
      Source of the money that Mann got for Penn State?
      From the same Big Government that is sponsoring Mann’s justification of Big Government’s 1.3 trillion dollar tax revenue scheme, and Big Finance’s 30.0 trillion dollar carbon trading futures contracts.
      No. No conflict of interest at all there, is there. How many liberal democrat-voting Penn State administrators can you buy for 1.3 trillion in tax money for a democrat party Big Government?

      • RACookPE1978

        Attempting to link the exoneration to a grant is correlation, not causation.
        You’ll need better evidence to prove causation.

      • rodmol@virginmedia.com
        February 15, 2015 at 12:42 pm
        RACookPE1978

        Attempting to link the exoneration to a grant is correlation, not causation.
        You’ll need better evidence to prove causation.

        Sandusky. Football money.
        Many of the names are the same.

        • rodmol@virginmedia.com
          February 15, 2015 at 12:42 pm
          Rodmol, responding to RACookPE1978

          Attempting to link the exoneration to a grant is correlation, not causation.
          You’ll need better evidence to prove causation.

          To convict a criminal to prison by circumstantial evidence only requires “Method, Motive, and Opportunity.”
          That much is available and already in the public knowledge.
          To that, however, in the real world you need to add “Morals, Management, and Money”.
          Thus, a “Moral” person will not commit the crime, even if Method, Motive, and Opportunity are present.
          Mann has no morals, and – by his hysteria and continual post-hockey stick responses to criticism and correction, he has NOT learned any “lessons” either, Thus, can be also convicted of “Refusing to Admit Any Culpability”, “Refusal to Admit He Was Wrong”, and “Refusal to Learn Any Lessons” .
          The entire CAGW group-think and moral justification – that Mann STILL admits in his sentences above! – means actually that HE admits HE is “morally Right” in promoting anything and doing anything to “stop global warming” … Like Pilate, can we not wash out hands and just claim “He admits it.” To Mann, this has become a moral fight, and to the CAGW community, “The ends (cutting CO2 emissions) justifies any Means (Hansen’s protests, Hansen’s arrests, Holdren’s desire to kill people, etc.)
          Mann HAS USED Money to coverup his errors, to further his errors and his miscalculations, and has used much money to “Promote his points” before, during, and after his errors. Further, Mann has NOT admitted the sources of his money (his Big Lawyer fees used in his subsequent lawsuits, his money used to “lawyer up” in front of Big Academia at Penn State and Big Government testimonials and THOSE attacks on his critics, and the Big Finance money used by his supporters to attack his “enemies” and promote his friends, and to be promoted (and accepted) BY his “friends” in the CAGW publishing and editorial positions. Thus, the “Peer Review” of the close-knit group of fellow authors detailed in The Hockey Stick books of the subsequent papers does not add to his credibility, but eliminates what credibility might have remained untarnished around Mann.
          Management? Well, an honest “management” at the Big Science Government-Academia Complex of Penn State, NAS, NASA, GISS, NOAA, NSIDC and others certainly proved THEY were as guilty by the same circumstantial evidence, and THEIR refusal to admit any Mann’s numerous errors while accepting every excuse and whitewash.
          So, to Opportunity (actual lists of the authors and their funding in each subsequent papers how the spiderweb of cross-pollenization of deceit between EVERY subsequent Hockey-Stick “review paper”),
          Method,
          Motive,
          Material,
          Money,
          Management,
          Morals,
          Media,
          Manipulation
          should we add
          Politics,
          Power,
          Positions,
          Promotion,
          Papers,
          Publishing,
          Praise,
          Promises,
          Privilege,
          People,
          Privacy and
          Peer-Review (who did the Peer-review on the subsequent papers, who contacted the People in Power at NAS, NASA, GISS, NOAA, and Penn State?)

      • rodmol@virginmedia.com, quite right. No conviction can be made.
        But while correlation isn’t proof it is suggestive.
        Most honest people want to avoid even the suggestion of impropriety. Penn State do not.
        If your spouse sees you winking at an attractive co-worker and you graciously receiving a playful response – there is no proof you are having an affair.
        But don’t try it.

      • RACookPE1978 –
        “How many liberal democrat-voting Penn State administrators can you buy for 1.3 trillion in tax money for a democrat party Big Government”?
        Is that one of those light bulb questions?

      • Gunga Din…….
        Sandusky. Football money.
        Many of the names are the same.
        Again, I’ll ask for evidence…..both correlation and guilt by association don’t cut it

      • RACookPE1978

        To your statement, “To convict a criminal to prison by circumstantial evidence only requires….”
        ..
        Please add “beyond a reasonable doubt”
        ..
        So, again, how about some evidence that dispels doubt?

      • Rodney sez:
        Please add “beyond a reasonable doubt”
        If you’re American, that’s a given. It is understood. So please, stop the endless nitpicking. You’re not scoring any points.

      • Actually dbstealey, when trying to convict based solely on circumstantial evidence, the bar is even higher than with direct evidence. You should know that.

        • rodmol@virginmedia.com
          (attempting to quote RACooK, but wrongly responding to dbstealey)

          Actually dbstealey, when trying to convict based solely on circumstantial evidence, the bar is even higher than with direct evidence. You should know that.

          Yes. We know. And that level of proof and conviction by circumstantial evidence against Mann has been well-met in all regards. Except by an administration who – when faced with a radical Islamic nation preparing nuclear weapons for immediate use against ourselves and our allies and the rest of the world – has stated that ‘Climate Change” (a 24 inch rise in sea level in 85 years) is the most immediate national threat we face.

      • Actually, Rodney, that’s a given. Readers here are above average in intelligence; you don’t have to explain such basic concepts.
        You are truly the King of the Nitpickers, aren’t you?

        • rodmol@virginmedia.com

          (actually quoting dbstealey, but we will ignore that)

          “Readers here are above average in intelligence;


          ..
          You think so?

          Compared to their critics quoted in the compliant ABCNNBCBS/ABBC national press corpses who only quote the sources that Big Finance and Big Government demands? Yes.
          Compared to the average Big Government employee? Yes.
          Compared to the average Big Science employee who is paid by Big Government? A few in Big Science do get “big Test Scores” when graded by tests and papers administered by Big Science and Big Government. But, on average? I have never seen any degree of intelligence and common sense and real-world knowledge in the average employee of Big Government. And ALL of Big Science is paid by Big Government for Big Government’s interests.
          Compared to the average of the world? Yes.
          Compared to their critics on this site? I have no doubts. Measurements? No. Doubts? None either.
          Business, on the other hand, does have some people of limited ability, and half of the people employed by business are below average. But their failures are punished (they are fired, their business goes bankrupt – unless bailed out by Big Government!) when a failure is discovered in business and industry.

      • “has been well-met in all regards” except the most important one of all………failure to convince a jury.
        ..
        “Except by an administration who – when faced with a radical Islamic nation preparing nuclear weapons for immediate use against ourselves” ….. ??????……I don’t think the administration of Penn State is much concerned with foreign countries.

      • RACookPE1978
        Compared to…..
        Compared to ….
        Compared to ….
        …..
        I see that these are your opinions, however, do you have any evidence to back them up?

      • rodmol@virginmedia.com February 15, 2015 at 2:22 pm
        “Readers here are above average in intelligence; ”
        ..
        You think so?
        —————————–
        Now we see the explanation for rodmol’s presence here;
        he’s lowering the average intelligence of visitors to the site!

        • mebbe, replying to rodmol@virginmedia.com earlier sarcastic comment

          “Readers here are above average in intelligence; ”
          ..
          You think so?

          Now we see the explanation for rodmol’s presence here;
          he’s lowering the average intelligence of visitors to the site!

          Technically, both you and rodmol may have been correct. As an informed reader of this site, your presence raises the average intelligence of this site over that of many hundred thousand, if not millions of other sites. however, by acting as a (very distracting and unhelpful) writer on this site, rodmol is also working very hard to reduce the average intelligence of the writers of this site.

      • I have to agree with RACook and mebbe. rodmol definitely lowers the average intelligence of this site.
        I’m not trying to just pile on here. I really believe that to be the case.

    • no…you are simply incorrect…it has been established that one of the investigations you cite found what you claim they did…one has to ask: have you read the investigative summaries?
      [which “one” ? Or should that be “none of the investigations” ? .mod]

  10. Ha ha Mann thinks it is now politic to downplay the hockey stick. “Took on a life of its own” he sez, as if it were something far from him. Me no hockey stick.

  11. “There have been dozens of other climate reconstructions, all very similar to ours,”

    Name them.
    Marcott got a lot of attention because it looked like it might be similar to Mann’s Hockey stick. Unfortunately for Marcott as it tuned out.
    Name these “robust” dozens of other climate reconstructions that are similar to Mann’s and let’s discuss them.
    There’s nothing left to discuss about Mann’s cartoon.

      • That’s what I love about the internet. Proving a negative is impossible but the internet is so large that it is possible to prove that something tends towards a negative.
        I asked,

        Name these “robust” dozens of other climate reconstructions that are similar to Mann’s and let’s discuss them”

        I got “Moberg 2005.”
        But as dbstealey shows below it isn’t actually similar.
        There are a lot of people here on this ‘multiple science blog of the year’ winner. Yet no-one can back that statement up. The first try was a fail.
        We can’t prove a negative but we can prove that only a sucker would bet it is so.

      • Moberg got taken apart at Climate Audit, which see.
        After that, nobody could put it back together again. Like Mann’s, like Gergis et al, 1912, like all the others.

        • Gates
          but truly “debunked” and “disgraced” researchers typically don’t continue being able to publish in prestige journals … who have their own reputations to protect.
          But the politicians DO demand that their journals and their societies DO protect the interests of the Big government politicians who RECEIVE all of their funding from Big Government for the benefit of Big Finance and Big Industry and Big Government. The journal editors – ALL of whom received their positions and their salaries and their “respect” and pride and positions based solely on their adherence to the chosen Big Government + Big Science mantra and its tantrums and needs and institutions – follow along because THEY TOO “believe” in the righteous and duty of their “cause” … CAGW left the real world of “science” a long, long time ago.
          Big World propaganda joined it: Did you read ANY ONE laughing at Resident Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize not for what he did (nothing at all at that point towards world peace at ANY level) but instead who he was not – a conservative white male christian capitalist? That missing laughter at the joke of the Nobel Peace prize tells you who the modern world admires, and what it will accept as “truth” and “accuracy” in “science.” Follow the narrative and follow the instructions? You will be rewarded.

      • RACookPE1978,
        Let me guess, and NASA faked the lunar landing to make good on Kennedy’s Cold War propaganda policy goal of beating the Russians to it. And Russia actually beat us there in an oversized Sputnik and confirmed that the regolith is in fact made of Green Cheese, only we’ve never officially admitted to it because if one Big Lie is admitted to, the rest come crashing down in a smouldering heap.
        Is there any modern science you do believe in? When you get sick do you claim a case of having “bad humours” and visit the barber for some bloodletting? Do you only trust homeopathic remedies for the very reason that the Lancet and its corrupt editorial board have gotten so fat sucking on the Big Pharma/Big Gummint teat that they’ve gone and completely thrown scientific integrity out the window, not to mention simple common sense?

        • Brandon Gates (trying to humiliate RACookPE1978)

          Let me guess, and NASA faked the lunar landing to make good on Kennedy’s Cold War propaganda policy goal of beating the Russians to it. And Russia actually beat us there in an oversized Sputnik and confirmed that the regolith is in fact made of Green Cheese, only we’ve never officially admitted to it because if one Big Lie is admitted to, the rest come crashing down in a smouldering heap.
          Is there any modern science you do believe in?

          ????…????
          And what does your question have to do with anything relevant to the discussion?
          I’ve split atoms, handled satellites and moon rocks, seen rockets take off, seen radiation slow down, see it bend and seen it impact things, measured mass loss and calculated Relativity changes in mass and time, heated my shower water from heat after I changed atomic masses, programmed computers and watched stars. (But i don’t like programming computers.) I’ve sat next to nuclear bombs, live bombs, dud bombs and shells, solid shells and hollow shells, chemical bombs, and “could-be-a-bomb-if-I-screw-up-bombs; I do not believe in “Green Cheese” (but only because I hate Green Bay), and have studied the molten messes made in Chernobyl and modeled the dripping stalactites and molten debris in areas under the Japanese K reactors, TMI, and blown out rods landing over the SLR. I’ve melted steel, bent concrete, poured concrete, evaporated metals and condensed metals and watched sea ice and glaciers flow (time lapse -ain’t got time to stand still that long.) I have physically modeled the sun’s path across the skies, and have watched in rise and set at every latitude. I’ve seen the sun reflect off of the Arctic Ocean, and plotted reflections from sea ice and open water in all the world’s oceans at all solar elevation angles under all weather conditions. I’ve watched the sea ice grow, and I’ve watched it melt. I’ve seen the land rise up and the land tilt buildings when massive weights are removed; and watched sea water go up when ground is pumped out, and watched it go down when that water is replaced. I live inside the moving atoms of thermodynamics, fluid flow, magma flow, CFD of other stuff, 3D FEA, 2D FEA, nuclear physics, plasma physics, astrophysics, electrical and mechanical and structural and metallurgical engineering, geology, oceanology, “astroidology” “cometology”, “meteorology”, and “terminology” and metrology (the study of what measures things and how to calibrate them to measure other things) and then how to use that to evaluate the things being measured (statistics). (But I don’t like statistics. I can do it, I just don’t like doing it.)
          There is no technical, scientific, or physical subject I cannot learn, or have not already learned to the degree needed to understand it, criticize it, and discuss it. (But I do hate Green Bay, cooking, and most biology.)
          I’ve see politicians waste trillions, I’ve seen politicians kill millions. I have NO respect for politicians nor the bureaucrats in Big Science and Big Government who enable them. There is evidence of politicians killing millions, real evidence of the politicians (in Big Institutions, Big Science, and Big Government) who are now in charge who want to kill billions. There is no evidence of catastrophic global warming though.

      • MCourtney,
        Right as usual. And as mpainter points out, CA has completely deconstructed Moberg, Mann, and other climate alarmists. Mann hates McIntyre and McKittrick so much that he cannot even bear to say their names. Instead, they are “M&M”. With a HE-RO like Michael Mann, the handful of his acolytes wasting their time here make it fun ‘n’ easy to smack them around. Almost too easy, really. But I like playing Whack-A-Mole. I was always good at that game.
        Then Gates says:
        …truly “debunked” and “disgraced” researchers typically don’t continue being able to publish in prestige journals…
        HaHaHaHa!! But they do! Mann has been thoroughly debunked and disgraced. After Climategate, is there any doubt? After they had to let Mann into his friendly “investigations” to formulate the questions he would be asked, in order to prop him up, is there any doubt? After Mann preposterously claimed to have won the Nobel Prize, is there any doubt? After Mann’s Tiljander lies, is there any doubt that he has been thoroughly disgraced? Not to thinking people.
        Mann is a charlatan who is terrified of any fair, moderated debate. Instead, he depends on his small clique of internet lemmings to run interference for him. They would run interference for Lance Armstrong if it fed their confirmation bias. But as Mr Courtney points out, the internet never forgets. If someone like Lord Monckton had spread the lies and misinformation that Mann constantly publishes from the safety of his tweet account and press releases, he would be pilloried by every skeptic around, and rightly so.
        Oh, and I see someone still doesn’t have his bigboy pants. Well, some day, I suppose… ☺ 

      • “CA has completely deconstructed Moberg, Mann, and other climate alarmists”

        Unfortunately Mr Dbstealey, as you are well aware of, science is not done in blogs. Your science maybe, but not in the real world.

      • @ “Socrates”,
        You make Gates look intelligent.
        If “science is not done on blogs”, then what are you doing here?? Being a pest? Being a failed a grammar Nazi? Or maybe just adding your clueless nonsense to WUWT’s stellar traffic numbers?
        As I explained to you repeatedly: science is, in fact, done on sites like this, and it is far more honest than the pal-reviewed pablum in climate journals. All you are doing is falling back on the discredited Appeal to Authority fallacy. If it were not for the fallacies you post, you wouldn’t have much of anything to say — and certainly nothing original, because you have never posted an original thought.
        WUWT has had many climatologists and scientists writing articles, like Dr. Roy Spencer, Prof. Richard Lindzen, Anthony Watts, Willis Eschenbach, and many, many more — every one of whom has plenty of knowledge to impart. They have all forgotten far more than you will ever learn. So if you wanted to, you could learn a lot from them.
        But with your bad attitude, Socrates, you are incapable of learning from anyone.

      • ” science is, in fact, done on sites like this”
        ..
        No, science is not done here. This site is for news and commentary on the topic of science, but it is a blog, and not doesn’t even have an impact factor.

      • Hey Rod,
        Your blind trust in peer review is touching, but since you’re into childishly proclaiming “victory”, tell us who won this bout, thepeerreviewedliterature or a blog?
        http://retractionwatch.com/2012/06/11/paper-claiming-hottest-60-year-span-in-1000-years-put-on-hold-after-being-published-online/
        How about this one?
        http://retractionwatch.com/2012/07/09/despite-refutation-science-arsenic-life-paper-deserves-retraction-scientist-argues/
        You seem to be here as part of a class assignment or something, and if that’s the case, maybe you can impress your teacher my critically evaluating these two studies.

      • Thank you very much Mr. Dbstealey.

        “has had many climatologists and scientists writing articles
        There is a difference between writing and “article” and publishing research findings.

        Maybe they ought to publish research findings here instead of in a science journal . [snip.]

      • rodmol,
        Since you presume to know so much, why don’t you publish in a journal?
        You are always pontificating on what someone else should do. That’s amusing, coming from a know-nothing.

      • rodmol@virginmedia.com,

        And entertaining.

        Thanks. After the bloodletting on the piggy thread, I find my better humours returning. I’m not proud of it, but it’s undeniable that scapegoating others is an excellently therapeutic outlet for my own moral outrage on this topic.

      • RACookPE1978 February 17, 2015 at 12:26 pm
        Well replied. Thanks for all the real science you´ve done to make life better for so many. IMO Brandon´s idea of modern science is more like post-modern, ie with results arrived at through consensus rather than prediction testing via the tried & true scientific method, as valid now as in AD 1543, the year Copernicus & Vesalius both published.
        My opinion of Green Bay varies with the effect of their success on Seattle.
        I prefer cooking to cleaning.
        I like most biology, unsurprising in a biology grad.

      • [Snip. ad hominem attacks on Lord Monckton are not allowed. ~mod.]

        Rhetorical question, mod: why then are ad hominem attacks allowed on Dr. Michael Mann? Answers along the lines of “because Mann really is a horrible scientist and a pathetic waste of human skin” are not terribly satisfying. Way I see it, that’s just doubling down on the duplicity.
        And yes, since you ask, I do see that “my side” uses the same justifications.

      • May I answer? Thank you:
        Well, for one thing, despite repeated invitations, AFAIK Mann has never posted an article or commented here.
        He did debate once. Got his butt kicked by skeptics.

      • From that silly link:
        To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures…
        Yeah, they’re pretty good at fabricating temperatures. It helps to generate grant money.
        And “to elucidate”?? That should be worth a few more bucks. It looks much fancier than “to explain”.

      • rodmol says:
        I like it when you stalk me in this forum. !!!!
        You’re a fool, Rodney, and that’s easy to prove: if you check the time stamps, you came out of nowhere, personally attacking me for what you wrongly believed was a minor grammar error. Many other readers set you straight, until you tucked tail and ran.
        So as they say: YOU started it. Why you’re fixated on my comments, I can only guess. But one common thread is this: in all your comments, you never discuss scientific facts or evidence. It’s always minor, off-topic, nitpicking comments like the one above. Or attacking a typo error. Or trying to critique my grammar — something you were attacked for yourself, because you were flat wrong.
        Rodney, you are inept. You don’t have what it takes to compete here. You’re just too easy. Really. Leave that to the guys with the big boy pants.

        [Rest. Any and all future “grammatical” distractions by that writer will be trimmed out. .mod]

      • dbstealey,

        Yeah, they’re pretty good at fabricating temperatures.

        Oh, you mean like this fabrication?
        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/clip_image0026.jpg
        Or this completely made up b/s?
        http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
        Everyone knows these books have been cooked:
        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/alternativeinterpretationofgmtfig2.png
        Don’t even get me started on this … 800,000 years of ice core “data” … gimme a break:
        http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Past_740_kyrs_Dome-Concordia_ice_core_temperature_reconstructions.png
        What do all these farcically fabricated falsifications have in common? Let’s see who’s been paying attention AND honest enough to give me the answer to the leading question I’m obviously looking for. Triple-bonus points if you answer it yourself, Stealey.

      • Heh. Funny, M.
        Next: Always avoid alliteration: “…farcically fabricated falsifications…” says the fatuous fool flamer. As we see posted right within most of the graphs [and why not post them all, cherrypicker?], they are based on empirical evidence. They aren’t reconstructed past temperatures that are elucidated on their spatio-temporal pattern. Or some such alarmist mumbo-jumbo.
        One more reminder for the learning impaired: there is still not one measurement of AGW. Therefore, AGW is merely a conjecture. The silly hand-waving over what is nothing but an opinion, is everything the alarmist crowd has. Nothing more.
        Thus, they lose the debate based on having nothing.

      • dbstealey,

        As we see posted right within most of the graphs, they are based on empirical evidence. They aren’t reconstructed past temperatures that are elucidated on their spatio-temporal pattern.

        http://www.climatedata.info/Proxy/Proxy/icecores.html
        Whilst ice cores allow direct measurement of atmospheric gases, like CO2 and Methane, some care is needed in interpreting the results. This is because of the fact that, while the snow is being compressed into ice, gas transfer may occur between the atmosphere and the layers of ice. Indeed, dating information is sometimes given for the “ice age” and “gas age”. Because the gases in the atmosphere are mixed and decay over time this adds another element of uncertainty. In effect, the data represent the average over a period of time, which can be several decades; a corollary of this is that data calculated from ice cores, for temperature of CO2 for example, will have less variation than the measured record.
        Errors in the time of events identified in the ice core records can be in hundreds of years. The following graph shows ice ages estimated for the Vostok ice core by 4 different methods compared with “orbital tuning”. Orbital tuning refers to calibrating the times against the Milankovitch cycles and the associated changes in radiation (Figure 1).
        In the case of temperature no direct measurement is possible. The temperature values are estimated from different isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen. The methodology is based on the assumption that different isotopes evaporate at different rates depending on the temperature. It is generally considered that the best estimate of temperature from ice cores is based on the use of both Oxygen-18 and Deuterium. Another complication is that ice is not stationary, which means that the ice collected at lower layers may not be the ice that was originally underneath the upper layers. Despite all of these limitations, it is generally accepted that ice cores give a good representation of temperature over very long periods. They are able to answer such questions as what drives the cycle of ice ages and warm periods and what is the role of CO2 in long-term climate change.

        http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.full
        Where annual layers are not observed because of depositional or postdepositional effects, by dating is conducted by correlation to other well-dated records, radiometric techniques in favorable circumstances, and by ice-flow modeling if needed.

        The amount of ice between two time lines in a core, corrected for the layer thinning from ice flow, is the snow accumulation (9). The flow corrections range from trivial and highly accurate to difficult and uncertain, depending on the site and its history. Buried snow drifts introduce noise in the records, and sublimation may be important in especially low-accumulation zones, but accumulation typically provides a useful history of atmospheric delivery of snowfall to a site (9).

        Paleothermometry.
        Ice cores are local paleothermometers, telling past temperature where they are (or where the snow fell, if glacier flow has caused ice in a core to have come from a significant distance). The classic paleothermometer is the stable-isotopic composition of water in the ice core (10). Natural waters typically contain a fraction of a percent of isotopically heavy molecules (in which the hydrogen or oxygen contains one or two “extra” neutrons). The vapor pressure of this heavy water is less than for “normal” light water. As an air mass is cooled and precipitates, it preferentially loses heavy water and must increasingly precipitate light water. At very low temperatures, heavy water has been greatly depleted and precipitation is isotopically light. Empirically and theoretically, isotopic composition of precipitation and site temperature are strongly correlated in time and space (10, 11); colder places and colder times have isotopically lighter precipitation.

        Repeated for emphasis: strongly correlated in time and space
        Compare: elucidated on their spatio-temporal pattern

        One more reminder for the learning impaired: there is still not one measurement of AGW.

        So according to you, we know all about past climate change from indirect estimates via ice cores (sometimes using MODELS no less!!!), but are completely incapable of measuring it directly today with modern instrumentation. As well, ice core data are empirical evidence, everything else is “alarmist mumbo-jumbo” for some unknown though likely arbitrary reason. Yes, I see the superiority of your argument.

      • Gates, I read the first sentence, which referred to “interpreting”. Intrepreting is not modeling; everyone interprets all the time.
        I stopped reading your confirmation bias after that. I have better thing to do then to read your cherry-picked nonsense.
        Global warming has stopped. That’s something you can’t handle. And all your pal-reviewes carp means nothing compoared with that fact.

      • dbstealey,

        Gates, I read the first sentence, which referred to “interpreting”. Intrepreting is not modeling; everyone interprets all the time.

        Ahead of the curve I see. The expected stopping point was: Where annual layers are not observed because of depositional or postdepositional effects, by dating is conducted by correlation to other well-dated records, radiometric techniques in favorable circumstances, and by ice-flow modeling if needed.

        I stopped reading your confirmation bias after that. I have better thing to do then to read your cherry-picked nonsense.

        So sorry. I could go back to name calling instead of discussing science if that would make you more comfortable.

        Global warming has stopped. That’s something you can’t handle. And all your pal-reviewes carp means nothing compoared with that fact.

        Oh. Well, this plot …
        http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
        … which you posted as “empirical evidence” supporting your argument is from same guy who wrote the “pal-reviewed carp” and “cherry-picked nonsense” which you see as evidence of my “confirmation bias”. In other words, you should probably stop using that plot, it’s all effectively the same “smoke and mirrors”. Pretty clever those warmists, they even manged to fool you.

      • Gates says:
        Ahead of the curve I see.
        As always.
        Thanx for posting that chart, constructed with ice core data from R.B. Alley. I have lots more charts that show exactly the same thing.
        Now explain why prior Holocene temperatures exceeded current temperatures, when there were no human emissions back then.

      • milodonharlani,
        Yes I have read Lappi’s article on JoNova’s website. What he doesn’t show, which I’ve pointed out to DB several times now, is that the instrumental record shows present temperatures at Greenland Summit nearly as warm as any point in the Holocene:
        http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hksiecM4u3Q/VLYC3ecYOKI/AAAAAAAAAP4/ZsJFpmrxgZo/s1600/GISP2%2BHADCRUT4CW%2BHolocene.png
        That plot uses a decadal mean for the instrumental record to match the resolution from the ice core samples analyzed by Alley (2000). Lappi also leaves out that we’re not due for another ice age for another 3,000 years or so according to this paper: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/full/ngeo1358.html

      • Brandon, you must be aware that Cowtan & Way reconstructed numbers, so their Frankenstein´s monster is not comparable to ice core observations, ie actual data. Your graph is like the HS, with rotten apples grafted onto incomparable oranges.

      • milodonharlani,

        Brandon, you must be aware that Cowtan & Way reconstructed numbers, so their Frankenstein´s monster is not comparable to ice core observations, ie actual data.

        ROFL! Tell you what, let’s just ditch modern thermometers altogether then and use only “actual” ice core data from now on!

        Your graph is like the HS, with rotten apples grafted onto incomparable oranges.

        You do realize that all proxy reconstructions are calibrated against instrumental records in the first place, don’t you? Yes, even ice cores. How do you think we mapped deuterium isotope ratios to temperature to begin with?

      • Gates hasn’t been around long, and by his own admission he’s pretty much a know-nothing. [He doesn’t look that bad though, compared with the über-clueless rodney]. So obviously Gates gets his talking points and misinformation from low-traffic alarmist blogs.
        On the other hand, milodonharlani has been around for a long time, and he knows what he’s talking about. So deciding which one is right, and which one is merely cutting and pasting talking points in order to run interference is easy.

      • dbstealey,

        So obviously Gates gets his talking points and misinformation from low-traffic alarmist blogs.

        My comments to milodonharlani on ice cores are based on information I obtained from primary literature: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/15/mann-tries-to-revive-his-dead-hockey-stick-with-a-press-release/#comment-1860597
        But you wouldn’t know it because your immediate reply to that post clearly spells out that you didn’t read it: Gates, I read the first sentence, which referred to “interpreting”. Intrepreting is not modeling; everyone interprets all the time. I stopped reading your confirmation bias after that. I have better thing to do then to read your cherry-picked nonsense.

        On the other hand, milodonharlani has been around for a long time, and he knows what he’s talking about.

        And there we have it. Citing literature written by domain experts and reviewed by their peers prior to publication is a fallacious appeal to authority, but vetting someone’s arguments on the basis of their relative history of blog commentary is not.
        That is so fantastically bizarre.

      • Brandon,
        If the difference between inferring past temperatures from ice cores & from the instruments & proxies used by Cowtan & Way escapes you, then there´s not much point in continuing.
        In a comment to Bob Tisdale´s recent post, I asked Robert Way about the validity of your graph grafting Cowtan & Way onto Alley´s GRIP data. He was kind enough to reply that he preferred Kobashi´s approach & link to the relevant paper:
        “In my view the Kobashi et al approach seems most appropriate:
        see this study and the more recent ones
        http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf
        In your link to Tzedakis, et al., the abstract predicts 1500 more years should CO2 fall to 240 ppm or lower, not 3000. But in fact no one knows. CO2 likely plays little part, compared to Milankovitch Cycles.
        The issue of probable length of the Holocene has been discussed at length here. It might be a super interglacial lasting tens of thousands of years, like those of 400 Ka (MIS 11) & 800 Ka (MIS 19). The Eemian, the previous interglacial (MIS 5), lasted about 5000 years longer than the Holocene so far, but those of MIS 7 & 9 were shorter. The Eemian was also a lot hotter, without benefit of a Neanderthal industrial age. So were the prior super interglacials, again without fossil fuel burning by H. antecessor or H. heidelbergensis.

      • milodonharlani,

        IMO Brandon´s idea of modern science is more like post-modern, ie with results arrived at through consensus rather than prediction testing via the tried & true scientific method, as valid now as in AD 1543, the year Copernicus & Vesalius both published.

        Your opinion of my ideas is wrong. But speaking of predictive models, if contrarian researchers could produce a CMIP5-beating AOGCM, I’m sure I’m not the only person sitting on the consensus side of the fence who would sit up and take notice. Copernicus and Vesalius both brought original research to the table, yes? Nicolaus didn’t just stand on a soapbox in the public square ranting that geocentrism and its ignorant activist supporters were wrong, he painstakingly gathered data and published them, yes? Somewhat hesitatingly, yes? His work didn’t really gain final acceptance until after his death, due in no small amount to Netwon’s work on laws of motion and his theory of universal gravitation provided a sound theoretical framework from which to model not only the motions of heavenly bodies but the ability to predict the motions of everyday Earthbound objects as well. Kepler and Galilei lent their weight to Copernicus’ hypothesis in the intermission of course, but it was Newton’s work which provided the final theoretical framework leading to wide-spread consensus that heliocentrism was the far more likely correct explanation.
        You’re not a flat-Earther simply on the basis that almost all modern astronomers agree that the planet is in fact an oblate spheroid which cannot rationally be considered to be the center of anything in the Universe except in the sense that we owe our very existences to it and the star around which it orbits. Are you? Of course you aren’t, though by Jove I do sometimes wonder.
        AGW theory contains all the necessary elements of “classic” skeptical scientific research. Empirical observation leading to hypothesis formation and prediction via a mathematical model, a la Svante Arrhenius in 1896. Subsequent development of a theoretical framework way of the more general works of Planck, Boltzmann, Tyndall and Stefan. Theories of prior climate variability already known to geologists by the likes of Milankovitch which help us detect our own signal amongst the numerous, often confounding factors, inherent to the physical nature of the system itself. Robust debates in literature on the particulars, which include often conflicting hypotheses and narratives.
        Yet here you are arguing that simply because most domain experts agree that CO2-driven AGW is real, their agreement constitutes a fallacious bandwagon methodology. What happens if the “skeptics” are right, and by some presently unforeseeable happenstance come up with the Copernican equivalent of climate science? Are you going to bail out when the superior argument finally wins and gains widespread acceptance thereby becoming the new consensus?
        No, I didn’t think so.

      • Brandon Gates, your Copernicus analogy doesn’t work. Copernicus had to gather enough data to show that Ptolomeic Epicycles were less probable. As Ptolomeic Epicycles worked with fiddling he had a problem. He had to show a [simpler] answer.
        But what if Ptolomeic Epicycles predicted the Sun would rise in the West (and it didn’t) or vice versa?
        Then we could reject the idea without another explanation. Because it was already clearly wrong.
        Now, these models keep predicting that there is no pause for the duration we have had but… Lo what light from yonder West-ow breaks?

        • MCourtney (asking Brandon Gates)

          your Copernicus analogy doesn’t work. Copernicus had to gather enough data to show that Ptolomeic Epicycles were less probable. As Ptolomeic Epicycles worked with fiddling he had a problem. He had to show a [simpler] answer.

          Well, its actually worse than that. Copernicus delayed printing his book until he was near-death – apparently because he feared criticism.
          His theory of spheres and circular orbits was wrong, and the proof of his theory was wrong did not take long.
          It was WELL AFTER Copernicus’ Theory was proved wrong by measurements that more detailed work showed that elliptical orbits with the planets swinging around TWO focus points resolved the discrepancies between observation and theory. Copernicus just didn’t want to face the test of his theory. But until elliptical orbit theory was presented and verified, epicycles on epicycles was more accurate.
          Trenberth’s flat earth is still wrong though.

        • MCourtney

          But what if Ptolomeic Epicycles predicted the Sun would rise in the West (and it didn’t) or vice versa?

          Well, when a member of the CAGW religion claims the sun rises in the east, I agree with him (or her.) But then I have to remember:
          It does.
          But only twice a year.
          The other 363/364 days a year, it rises in the southeast and sets in the southwest, or rises in the northeast and sets in the northwest.
          Most of the places on earth. Some places are different, and don’t follow this rule.

      • RACookPE1978, good point in favour of Brandon Gates.
        I had forgotten that Copernicus was wrong (of course) but more exactly – I had forgotten his wrongness was more obvious than Ptolomy.
        It was the simplicity of his answer that appealed. And only a slight perturbation got it exactly right (away from large gravity wells). But that broke his desire for simplicity.
        It could be argued that the climate models – while as wrong as circular orbits – are so simple that they must be true.
        My feeling is that the weather is chaotic and so, No.
        But it is true that seeking simplicity has been an effective strategy for seeking the truth. In everything, simpler is better.

      • milodonharlani,

        If the difference between inferring past temperatures from ice cores & from the instruments & proxies used by Cowtan & Way escapes you, then there´s not much point in continuing.

        Well since you continue on unabated regardless, it so happens that there’s a GHCN station on Greenland which covers nearly the entire period that HADCRUT4 product with the C&W interpolations:
        ANGMAGSSALIK (GREENLAND (DENMARK))
        coordinates: 65.60N, -37.63E, 52.0m (prob: 275m)
        WMO station code: 4360 (get data)
        Rural station
        Terrain: mountain valley WATER
        Station is located at 1km from coast
        Found 119 years with data in 1895-2014

        Being so near the coast, I wouldn’t expect it to show the same temperature variability as the interior of the island, but it compares nicely to the C&W dataset for both the 5-degree grid of the summit itself, better with the C&W dataset when I mask for the entire Greenland land mass. From 1700-present:
        http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-F8_I4QkFDXo/VOPe1oM2IzI/AAAAAAAAAVk/H5_CFHCdxog/s1600/GISP2%2Bvs%2BHAD4CW%2Bvs%2BStations%2B1700%2BCE-Present.png
        From 1600 BC to present:
        http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qSWF9WCGjIc/VOPe1umo10I/AAAAAAAAAVg/vytiUgcjmEc/s1600/GISP2%2Bvs%2BHAD4CW%2Bvs%2BStations%2B1600%2BBCE-Present.png
        1300 BC is roughly tied for the highest Greenland Summit temperature in Holocene as estimated by Alley (2000).

        In a comment to Bob Tisdale´s recent post, I asked Robert Way about the validity of your graph grafting Cowtan & Way onto Alley´s GRIP data. He was kind enough to reply that he preferred Kobashi´s approach & link to the relevant paper:
        “In my view the Kobashi et al approach seems most appropriate:
        see this study and the more recent ones
        http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf”

        Thank-you, I will review the comments and the linked paper.

        The Eemian was also a lot hotter, without benefit of a Neanderthal industrial age. So were the prior super interglacials, again without fossil fuel burning by H. antecessor or H. heidelbergensis.

        With benefit of higher insolation at high northern latitudes as estimated at the June equinox. And IIRC something on the order of 6-8 m higher mean sea level. Milankovitch partially explains timing and amplitude, but not fully. Varying insolation due to orbital parameters do NOT rule out CO2 and methane’s amplifying roles as a feedback to insolation changes. For the life of me I simply cannot understand why the insistence on such either-or arguments.

      • MCourtney,

        I had forgotten that Copernicus was wrong (of course) but more exactly – I had forgotten his wrongness was more obvious than Ptolomy.

        Erm, ok. But Copernicus was less wrong than Ptolemy, by whose model the outer planets actually followed their apparent retrograde motions as they “orbited” the Earth. It’s also interesting to note that Copernicus relied on the observations of his contemporary, Tycho Brahe, who also knew of Copernicus’ work but still asserted a geocentric model. Kepler himself would not have been able to accomplish as much as he did without Brahe’s observations, which he used, even though he did not agree with Brahe’s conclusions. The lessons of that little detail is something I keep in mind when talking to climate contrarians. I’m NOT being disingenuous when say to you guys: do original research and publish in reputable peer-reviewed journals.

        Now, these models keep predicting that there is no pause for the duration we have had but… Lo what light from yonder West-ow breaks?

        We’re not predicting major earthquakes years in advance either. Does that make geologists wrong about their plate tectonics “hypothesis”?

        My feeling is that the weather is chaotic and so, No.

        Reminder: climate is not weather. AGW research aims to figure out the attractor.
        RACookPE1978,

        Trenberth’s flat earth is still wrong though.

        You two do recall that Kevin E. was one of Lorenz’s doctoral students, don’t you? I *seriously* doubt any of we armchair experts would ever be able to tell Trenberth something about chaos theory as it applies to weather and climate that he didn’t learn either from a leader in the field or from his own subsequent work and study since then.

        • Kevin E may have studied under experts. Good. Now he is paid well, and rewarded even more handsomely for his propaganda, not his truth.
          He is still wrong. That ain’t the way heat exchange and radiation physics works up near the poles. It’s not a bad approximation for the equator, but is still wrong.

  12. “Certain types of tree ring data become unreliable after 1960 and don’t depict temperatures properly, they shouldn’t be used.We shouldn’t showing mislead data, an artificial decline, we don’t want to mislead people about modern data trends. ”

    And certain types of trees (*cough* stripbark pines *cough*) shouldn’t be used for temperature reconstructions. And if you DO use them, you shouldn’t give them 391 times more weight statistically than all the other trees that DON’T give you an “abnormal” temperature spike in just the right place.

  13. Holy smokes.
    When you play the Game of Hockey Sticks, you win or die m’lord. There is no middle ground.

  14. “This was not what I envisioned I would be doing when I chose to be a scientist, but over time I have grown to embrace this role,” said Mann. “I feel privileged to be in a position to inform the larger public discourse over what may be the greatest challenge civilization has faced.”

    No, the greatest challenge civilization has faced was the Spanish flue and the Little Ice Age. Global agricultural output up, greening of the biosphere, life expectancy up, general health up and up and up. What a load of utter bull crap!
    Mann can’t accept that his fairy tale graph is now viewed as an embarrassment to Climastrology.

  15. What the post 1960 data tells us is that trees are not responding to global temperature.
    Rather they respond to regional conditions, and what “calibration” does is locate those few trees that by chance match global temperatures, while ignoring the much larger set of trees that are telling you it is all a bunch of statistical hogwash.
    The nonsense is to believe that somehow trees can ignore regional conditions and magically “sense” global condition, and respond to those instead of what is happening locally. The reality is that calibration is statistical nonsense.
    It is “selection on the dependent variable”, a form of circular reasoning that routinely proves whatever you are looking for to be true. While very popular in the social sciences, it remains forbidden in mathematics.

    • Over on Climate Audit there is a review of yet another example of mathematical circular reasoning as popularized by Climate Science (TM). Used this time “prove” that climate models have it right after all. Only what was actually “proven” was that temperature varies very closely with temperature, and the models have almost zero predictive power in forecasting temperature.
      What calibration of tree rings shows is that trees that have been selected by calibration correspond strongly to global temperatures within the calibration period (1860-1960), and do not correspond to global temperatures outside the calibration period. And since climate science does not know the reason they don’t correspond, it must be due to human produced CO2.

    • ferdberple

      What the post 1960 data tells us is that trees are not responding to global temperature.
      Rather they respond to regional conditions, and what “calibration” does is locate those few trees that by chance match global temperatures, while ignoring the much larger set of trees that are telling you it is all a bunch of statistical hogwash.

      To that, Mann has never told us how he “calibrated” his tree ring relationship to the very CO2 BENEFIT he claims most familiar with: A rising CO2 will increase tree growth annually by 15% to 27%, depending on tree species. Thus, even if everything were identical everywhere else in the world and in every local climate – which is obviously impossible in the first place as you point out above! – then “any substantial increase in CO2 since 1950” everywhere in the world’s atmosphere means “every annual tree ring thickness measured since 1950” MUST be corrected by the relative ratio of CO2 (tree ring year)/ CO2 (baseline tree ring thickness).
      and you cannot use an “average tree ring thickness” measured between 1920 and 1950 (for example) since EVERY tree ring everywhere on earth is increasing in thickness proportional to CO2 increase each year since 1850. Thus, while a 1/2% CO2 increase between 1825 and 1850 will increase annual tree ring thickness each year (delta thickness 1825-26, 1826-27, 1827-28, 1828-29 will increase if CO2 increased during those times), it will not change global average temperature anomalies very much between 1825 and 1830. Nevermind that global average temperatures decreased in regular intervals between 1825 and 1910, between 1950 and 1976, etc. CO2 kept increasing the entire time, or so we are told. And thus, tree ring thicknesses kept increasing, despite global average temperature changes.
      So, what IS the tree ring thickness correction function for increased CO2, and how has Mann applied it to each measurement in every paper made between his first and his last?

  16. Temperature trends since the Medieval Warming Period (supposedly eliminated by Mann’s Hockey stick) can be easily seen to be correlated with this plot derived from planetary orbits. Magnetic fields from the planets reach to the Sun and may affect insolation and cosmic ray levels that affect cloud formation on Earth.
    The Ranque Hilsch vortex tube “provides empirical evidence that a force field acting on molecules in flight between collisions causes an interchange of molecular potential energy (relative to that force field) and kinetic energy. This creates a temperature gradient in the plane of the force field because only the kinetic energy component affects temperature. That temperature gradient in a steady force field represents the state of maximum entropy (thermodynamic equilibrium) which the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us will tend to evolve autonomously. We note that specific heat (Cp) appears in the denominator of the temperature gradient, just as it does in expressions for the temperature gradient caused by the force of gravity in all planetary tropospheres.”
    Such temperature gradients continue in sub-surface regions of Earth even down to the core. Because the gradient is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, any additional thermal energy supplied at the ccoler (outer) end will disturb that state. The Second Law tells us a new state will evolve and this obviously entails some thermal energy transfer by conduction or convection towards the warmer regions as explained in our group’s website.
    Therein lies the explanation as to how thermal energy from the Sun makes its way to the core of any planet or satellite moon, including our own Moon where core temperatures are over 1300°C.

  17. Mann’s hockey stick relied on significantly over-weighting these trees. The bristle-cone pine trees. Throw out 90% of the data and just these trees. They are only 10% alive at any one time and the amount that is 10% alive constantly moves around the tree. That is why a reliable tree ring sequence can not be obtained from these trees despite the fact they live for a very long time and that is why the National Academy of Science said they should not be used for climate reconstruction.
    http://www.oceanlight.com/stock-photo/pinus-longaeva-bristlecone-pine-photograph-17475-113050.jpg
    All the other reconstructions that “verify” Mann’s hockey stick contain some similar problem including continuing to rely on these same trees or, in Briffa’s compilation, one single tree, which gets the over-weighting instead.

    • Dear Bill,
      I too found it very enlightening, to google “Bristle cone pines” and look at the images, one can only imagine how many factors might influence the growth pattern of these extreme condition plants beside temperature or CO2! Mann has yet comment in literature on the fact that he used the tiljander proxies upside down.
      Also interesting is his wrong citation of Jolliffe (which he misspelled) to justify his incorrect use of decentered PCA:
      http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/MM-W05-background.pdf
      The second presentation cited by Mann is a Powerpoint presentation on the Internet by Jolliffe (a well
      known statistician):
      “Jollife explains that non-centered PCA is appropriate when the reference means are chosen to have some a priori meaningful interpretation for the problem at hand. In the case of the North American ITRDB data used by MBH98, the reference means were chosen to be the 20th century calibration period climatological means. Use of non-centered PCA thus emphasized, as was desired, changes in past centuries relative to the 20th century calibration period.” ( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=98)
      In fact, Jolliffe says something quite different. Jolliffe’s actual words are:
      “it seems unwise to use uncentered analyses unless the origin is meaningful. Even then, it will be uninformative if all measurements are far from the origin. Standard EOF analysis is (relatively) easy to
      understand –variance maximization. For other techniques it’s less clear what we are optimizing and how to interpret the results. There may be reasons for using no centering or double centering but potential users
      need to understand and explain what they are doing.”
      More on that at CA:
      http://climateaudit.org/2008/09/08/ian-jolliffe-comments-at-tamino/
      Cheers,
      LoN

  18. Well, if Mann and Hansen and Ehrlich and Holdren are right, we all died at least 10 years ago. So who’s left to argue?

  19. ..over time I have grown to embrace this role,” said Mann. “I feel privileged to be in a position to inform the larger public discourse over what may be the greatest challenge civilization has faced.”

    How much more obvious can it be. Yes, we know Mann has embraced the role of propagandist. It pays well and he sucks as a scientist.
    The only questions remaining is how big of an ego is required, how ignorant do you have to be, how much hubris is needed to think you are leading the fight “…over what may be the greatest challenge civilization has faced.”
    And here I was thinking multiple world wars, unending regional wars, mass genocides like the holocaust, the cold war and the brink of nuclear Armageddon, plagues, epidemics, the crusades in Europe, organized crime, mass famines and the like were challenging to civilization. No, not at all, the greatest challenge involves climate scientists creating colorful, simplistic graphs that have little to no real world application.
    Bravo, Michael Mann, you are a hero in your own mind.

  20. For a discussion of the hockey stick see
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
    The shape of the curve of Fig 3(Fig 5 Christiansen) from 1000 – the present should replace the Mann-IPCC hockey stick in the public consciousness as the icon for climate change and a guide to the future i.e. the temperature trends from 1000- 2000 will essentially repeat from 2000- 3000.The post also provides estimates of the coming cooling trend which began in 2003.
    The recurring millennial cycle is seen in the ice core data. Fig 4
    For interested readers this post also reviews the post Mannian proxy reconstructions.
    “Central to any forecast of future cooling is some knowledge of the most important reconstructions of past temperatures after all the infamous hockey stick was instrumental in selling the CAGW meme.
    Here are links to some of the most relevant papers-starting with the hockey stick.
    http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/MannBradleyHughes1998.pdf
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann_99.html
    note Espers comments on the above at
    http://eas8001.eas.gatech.edu/papers/Esper_et_al_Science02.pdf
    and see how Mann’s hockey stick has changed in later publications
    http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252.full
    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf
    an important paper by Berggren et al relating solar activity to climate is
    http://www.eawag.ch/forschung/surf/publikationen/2009/2009_berggren.pdf
    and another showing clearly the correlation of the various climate minima over the last 1000 years to cosmic ray intensities -( note especially Fig 8 C ,D below ) is: Steinhilber et al – 9400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf
    for Holocene climate variability in general there is much valuable data in Mayewski et al :
    http://yly-mac.gps.caltech.edu/AGU/AGU_2008/Zz_Others/Li_agu08/Mayewski2004.pdf
    Of particular interest with regard to the cause of the late 20th century temperature increase is Wang et al:
    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/9581/2012/acp-12-9581-2012.pdf
    A review of candidate proxy data reconstructions and the historical record of climate during the last 2000 years suggests that at this time the most useful reconstruction for identifying temperature trends in the latest important millennial cycle is that of Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012 (Fig 5)
    http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf

    • You seem to have missed a number of analysis at Climate Audit. Any particular reason you would skip such expertise; reasons like bias or falsehoods??
      Many of your links are to sites firmly in the grips of alarmism and swilling the CAGW grant money.
      Which brings us to, after thorough review, dissection and rebuttal at Climate Audit, why have not these sites thought to require corrections and or withdrawal; not forgetting complete posting of relevant data, code and formulas?

      • ATheoK- you seem to gave missed the point I was making showing the importance of the millennial cycle
        in climate forecasting and basically showing that Mann’s original hockey stick is not fit for that purpose and should be replaced by later reconstructions culminating in Fig 3 at
        http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
        which you obviously didn’t look at or didn’t recognize the significance of.
        “The shape of the curve of Fig 3(Fig 5 Christiansen) from 1000 – the present should replace the Mann-IPCC hockey stick in the public consciousness as the icon for climate change and a guide to the future i.e. the temperature trends from 1000- 2000 will essentially repeat from 2000- 3000.The post also provides estimates of the coming cooling trend which began in 2003.”

    • But he had supporters who were willing to debate. They were slightly more confident that than Mann’s men.
      Nostradamus was also villainised for his findings. Like Mann he had no defenders in debate either – just the state authority.
      Because he also was talking quackery, useful quackery.

    • So Pippen what findings? This should be interesting and please check out Bill Illis’s points above about bristle cone pines and weighting , plus even the NAS state they shouldn’t be used for that purpose. Please wake up.

    • Yes, Darwin was attacked by the extreme religious and devout fanatics.
      Sound familiar? Just like the hand waving louts and devouts of CAGW alarmism, fresh from the ‘we wish we was educated’ troll schools.

  21. “I was forced to take on a role very different than the one that I had envisioned,” said Mann.
    True he thought he be lucky to end up teaching at a third rate high school , but thanks to whoring himself to the IPCC as number one guy for BS he hit the ‘big time’
    I have said it a number of times , when he falls we will be surprised to see who lines up to kick him on the way down such is the ‘quality’ of the man.

  22. Interesting coming from a guy who popped a tweet this weekend claiming that the waters off of Cape Cod were 21F ‘below normal’.

    • Good Lord! 21F below normal? We’d better let our SUV’s idle in the driveways 24/7 till there is enough additional CO2 to fix that!

  23. If not for Darwin, people would be victimizing Wallace.
    If not for Mann, people would be victimizing Marcott.
    With science, someone will always come along with the idea, eventually.

    • Are you sure you know what victimizing means? Not one name you list is ‘victimized’.
      Now those scientists that Manniacal sued and then subsequently drags out the court procedures, now those people are victimized! By Manniacal.

    • You dodged my reply to the Darwin issue and started a new thread. I guess this nesting is difficulty to use.
      The point being that Darwin’s science could be defended in debate.
      But no-one has the courage to stand up and defend Mann in debate.
      How is being scientifically indefensible equivalent to being opposed?
      Darwin was a scientist. Mann is a publicist.

  24. It is interesting that Mann has any supporters left. From his use of strip bark pines, to tiljander, to the demonstrated bias his algorithm gave to hockey stick data, there may have been no more debunked science in history. The notion that his work has been exonerated by various investigations is preposterous to anyone who bothered to look at them in any detail. They carefully avoided asking any questions what would lead to a direct examination of the science, then declared him clear of wrong doing. Not having asked any questions related to the accusations against the work, they could of course find nothing wrong with it.
    But the real skewer in the heart of the Hockey Stick debacle is simple observation of the present. When MBH 99 was published, CO2 levels were at 368 ppm, and are now at 398 ppm:
    ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
    So, without even bothering to delve into the many fatal flaws of Mann’s science, or the ridiculous notion that it has been confirmed by other methods (Marcott et al being the most recent, and perhaps the saddest given that in the end it was Marcott himself who debunked it) let’s just ask some rather more obvious questions.
    An increase from 368 ppm to 398 ppm is just over 8%. If we merely assume that the blade of the hockey stick is an accurate reconstruction, AND the the blade is caused by CO2 increases, then there’s no reason not to simply extrapolate it from 1999 to now and compare to current temperatures to see if our assumption is reasonable. If we did that, the divergence from reality would make the IPCC models look absolutely stellar by comparison. (Those would be the same models that are so discredited that the IPCC themselves set aside their “projections” and substituted much lower “expert opinion” instead).
    This departure between the extension of Mann’s Hockey Stick and Reality leaves us with one of only two possible conclusions. Either;
    1. The blade of the hockey stick is completely unrepresentative of temperatures, or, if it is;
    2. That the blade is a consequence of natural variability and temps are insensitive to CO2 increases
    The departure from actual temperature increases since MBH 99 was published is more d*amning for Mann’s work than it is for the climate models. There is I suppose a 3rd possibility, one which I would favour:
    3. The the blade of the hockey stick is unrepresentative of temperatures AND temps are insensitive to CO2.
    But for supporters of Mann, they must choose at least one the first two in order reconcile current temps with current CO2 levels. Like the models, there’s no longer a need to figure out precisely what is wrong with them to show that the sensitivity that they project is simply unreasonable.

    • davidmhoffer,
      Thanx for a very well thought out comment. You say:
      They carefully avoided asking any questions what would lead to a direct examination of the science, then declared him clear of wrong doing.
      It was even worse than that. In at least one of the “investigations”, Mann was allowed to confer with the committee, to formulate what questions he would be asked! And in no “investigation” was there ever an adversarial situation, where Mann could be cross examined.
      The whole ‘exoneration’ game was a Potemkin Village, conducted for no other reason than to give Mann cover for his scientific misconduct.
      This is only a chapter in the Michael Mann saga. Eventually, he will go down. It is inevitable, as the Greeks would have told us 2,300 years ago.

  25. Why does Brandon Gates hate poor people so much that he wants them to be forever in fuel poverty? [trimmed]
    [Trimmed – .mod]

    • Tanya Aardman

      Why does Brandon Gates hate poor people so much that he wants them to be forever in fuel poverty?

      We cannot assume Gates is racist (against poor people who are not of his chosen and admired “class” of useful idiots and fellow travelers inside the global Big Government elite circle). Most who do support CAGW “prevention” within the Big Government/Big Science/Big finance elite liberal class of over-educated Big Government employees do want the deaths of many billion innocents however.

      • RACookPE1978,
        Not sure why I’m getting the benefit of the doubt from you on this one. Bureaucratic big-wig nincompoops are going to accidentally wipe out billions with their hubristic incompetence is an argument I might seriously entertain, but on purpose? Doesn’t make sense, especially at my most cynical: wiping out the Third World would get rid of lots of cheap labor for starters.

        • No, the death of billions is a desired goal – not to be regretted nor criticized at all – by the highest level bureaucrats and leaders of the enviro groups worldwide.

    • Those that hate poor people are the ones that deny the findings of science — since its Science that’s enabled the modern way of life. Now we have the new anti-science crowd who reject what all peer-reviewed science concludes. Dunning-Krueger perhaps?

      • warrenlb, RACook is right and you are wrong, as usual. You are part of the mindless crowd that wants to burn corn in gasoline engines. That starves people. But you can’t even understand that, can you?

  26. Mann obviously hasn’t updated his Hockey Stick from M1998. Ironically, he published after the first year of the zero warming that has ensued. Even if his stick was representative of what happened to 1998, an update would have bent the stick forward as a new horizontal hockey stick blade. One would have to turn the stick upside down to play the puck. It would have a snazzy zig zag to the shaft. It would have the advantage of righting the Tiljander series, though, which he used upside down in his bundle of proxies. Why would he be plugging the stick when it abruptly bent flat again. It seems we have a one trick pony.
    Also, I note the ‘Freudian slip’: “… over what may be the greatest challenge civilization HAS faced.” Use of the past tense is a subliminal sign that he knows it’s all over. This return of the stick is really a historical piece that turned out to not have validity since the point was that this disastrous situation was going to continue. If he wants comfort with his tree proxies, he should put the divergent recent data back in in an update. The decline actually belonged there after all.

    • If Mann wants to regain his reputation as a scientist, he should repudiate Upsidedown Tiljander. That is the first step. There are many more.

  27. I take the disclaimer as a subliminal BS alert.
    I see sensationalism outranking integrity at this media outlet.

  28. When Mann says others have created the same chart, they should be put up one by one. None of those look like hockey sticks. Brandon Gates has helpfully posted Moberg above. That would not have had the political impact of Mann’s graph, and would not have earned the moniker ‘hockey stick’

  29. “The researchers’ conclusion was that worldwide human activity since the industrial age had raised carbon dioxide levels, trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and warming the planet.”
    Please tell me that Mann, et al, weren’t stupid enough to have concluded such boneheaded things:
    1. That CO2 traps greenhouse gases,
    2. That it traps them in a concentration-dependent manner,
    3. That greenhouse gases can be trapped at all,
    4. That they can be trapped in the atmosphere.
    5. That contrary to over 500,000 years of data showing that temperature increases precede increases in atmospheric CO2 by 600-1000 years, they could maintain that human generated CO2 is the cause of contemporary warming.

  30. In the recently published “Climate Change: The Facts,” discussed on a current thread, Chapter 14 by Ross McKitrick beautifully describes the flaws in Mann’s Hockey Stick and the NAS investigation.

  31. @GuarionexSandoval.
    You say:
    “Please tell me that Mann, et al, weren’t stupid enough to have concluded such boneheaded things: ”
    “1. That CO2 traps greenhouse gases,” No, they say CO2 absorbs and re-radiates IR thermal RADIATION from Earth. CO2 doesn’t ‘trap greenhouse gases’. It IS a greenhouse Gas. FAIL #1.
    ” 2. That it traps them in a concentration-dependent manner,” Still wrong.CO2 doesn’t trap any gases. FAIL #2.
    ” 3. That greenhouse gases can be trapped at all,” FAIL #3
    ” 4. That they can be trapped in the atmosphere.” FAIL #4
    ” 5. That contrary to over 500,000 years of data showing that temperature increases precede increases in atmospheric CO2 by 600-1000 years, they could maintain that human generated CO2 is the cause of contemporary warming.” FAIL #5. Shakun (2012) showed that 90% of the Milankovitch cycle temperature increase occurred AFTER the initial CO2 increase from temperature rise. In the modern day, its 100%.
    ALL FAIL.
    So WHO is stupid enough to believe #1 – #5 ??

    • warrenlb, empirical data shows conclusively that changes in Global T precedes changes in CO2. That fact alone debunks your magic gas belief. Just saying, “Shakun (2012)” is just more of your constant and meaningless appeals to authority. Post verifiable, testable data. IF you can.
      I have posted numerous charts reflecting that data, showing that ∆T is the cause of ∆CO2. Perhaps you can post a data-based chart showing that CO2 is the cause of changes in global temperature, on time scales from years, to hundreds of thousands of years. Can you? I don’t think so.
      I’ll wait here, while you scramble back to SkS for some more misinformation.

  32. By coincidence I had Mann’s hickey stock … err … hockey stick waved in my face just today! I was having coffee at my sister’s cafe, and one of the regulars — an engineer in his early 70s — passive-aggressively confronted me, apparently angered by the cartoons on my eponymous website poking fun at warmerers.
    He started a conversation ‘just wondering’ what it is about Tea Party types and their conspiracies, such as not believing in the moon landing, or evolution, and so on. He then zeroed in on why they (meaning I) “deny the science of climate change.”
    “Haven’t they seen the hockey stick?”
    “Don’t they know that 97% of scientists believe in climate change? I just don’t understand science deniers.”
    He got quite a jolt when I told him I was surprised that a man of his station would stoop to the logical fallacies of argumentum ad populum compounded by argumentum ad verecundiam. Two strikes!
    I then asked him why it is that every commercial greenhouse operator on earth, growing from pot to posies, fortifies the greenhouse with 5x the CO2. Hmmm?
    Non-confrontational types hold it all in; he was trembling so hard I thought he was going to have a stroke. (I felt bad afterwards.)
    Thank you Mann. You’ve polluted innocent peoples’ minds. In a just world, your stupid hockey stick would be retired to your penalty box.

  33. A good cartoon needs hardly or no words. Josh’s cartoon has too much text and is reminiscent of someone who tries to explain a joke.

    • Chris: If we take your point a bit further, one could argue that a good scientist needs no flummery or grand job titles. I mean, how many ‘Distinguished Professors’ do you know with that title? Is it a separate pay grade – above standard professors and slightly below God?
      And then there’s this from Mann:

      One is the legitimate scientific challenging of research results that is part of the give and take of the scientific method all done in good faith to help advance the forefront of our knowledge. The other consists of bad faith attacks on scientists and the science, intended to advance some agenda — political, religious or economic.

      What projection! What utter hubris! Have you ever read some of the attacks Mann has made on his fellow scientists? If ever there was anywhere that “needs hardly or no words” it’s in Mann’s own defence of his science/alchemy.

  34. Have to say, when I saw the headline to this article I assumed it was (euphemistically) about impotence. Then I read the article and realised I was right.

  35. started to save the world.
    which didn’t need him, disliked him:
    ended as the leader of a ‘Brandon Gates and the like’ gang.
    tragic. happless, the vaults of non science.
    the remnants of IPCC’s midsummer nights dream.
    “This was not what I envisioned I would be doing when I chose to be a scientist, but over time I have grown to embrace this role,” said Mann.
    Embrace, Mann. The Gates Gang role fits!
    / chose to be a scientist. you know better now! /
    Regards – Hans

      • Warrenlb
        Google 1.3 trillion dollars in new taxes for Big Government, who is the one paying for the dunning of krueger rands from the public using the Big Government money paid to Big Government “scientists”, but only renewed when they reproduce the results desired by Big Government and Big Finance to generate 30 trillion in carbon futures trading.

      • RACookPE1978
        ..
        You seem confused.
        This is a science site.
        However, political science isn’t really a “science”

      • And RACook just exposed the root of his belief system: He REJECTS the findings of Science with respect to AGW, NOT because he’s analyzed the Science, but BECAUSE he fears the Big Government solutions he believes will be necessary.
        I think an apt description of this thought process is indeed ‘Dunning -Krueger’.

      • As long as we’re talking hidden agendas, I think “watermelon” is a better descriptor.
        Do you guys really think only conservatives let their politics guide the “best” policies to pursue?

      • RACook knows what he is talking about.
        But you cannot comprehend warrenlb, rodmol, gates, rooter, flash man, none of you. It’s way over your heads.

      • warrenlb mentions ‘Dunning-Krueger’ so very often that there is no doubt it is based on his psychological projection: imputing his own faults onto others.
        warrenlb plays a lay psychologist here, too, stating that RACook:
        “…REJECTS the findings of Science with respect to AGW, NOT because he’s analyzed the Science, but BECAUSE…”&blah, blah, etc. But how would warrenlb know? Is warrenlb a Psychiatrist or a Psychologist? Or is that comment just more insulting commentary because warrenlb cannot refute what RACook wrote?
        Everything that readers have been saying about warrenlb is turned right around by him, and directed at skeptics. RACook has analyzed these issues far more thoroughly than warrenlb could hope to. Cook reads literally hundreds of relevant papers, both free and paywalled — but when he recently asked warrenlb how many papers warrenlb reads each month, the answer was… *crickets* As usual, warrenlb ignores questions that he can’t or won’t answer.
        Another question that neither warrenlb, nor Rodney Molyneux, nor Gates, nor any other of their ilk can answer is: where are the measurements quantifying AGW?
        That question is central to the entire debate. Because if they cannot answer it [and they can’t], then everything they write is nothing more than conjecture. When push comes to shove, they collectively fall on their faces. All they are doing is trying to rationalize their opinions, without credible facts.
        This site has always had a few good, intelligent warmists who try to support the cAGW conjecture, such as Nick Stokes, Phil., John Finn, Nevin, Joel Shore, Steven Mosher, and others. They are critical thinkers, who never stoop to name-calling, insults, or pejoratives [with the exception of Shore, who routinely labels those he disagrees with as “right-wing ideologues”]. They use facts and testable data. But those were the old days.
        Recently, we have been infested with the likes of warrenlb, rodmol, Gates, and a few others like them, who don’t think. They just stir the pot. They never answer questions, while incessantly asking questions. But when those questions are answered with data and evidence, they either nitpick and cherry-pick — or if the answer is irrefutable, they change the subject. They deflect. Misinformation is their stock in trade. Even more despicable, they constantly bad-mouth our host, and other skeptics here on blogs like Hotwhopper, SkS, and other no-account, censoring venues.
        The original warmists here were always willing to discuss science, without the name-calling. But this new bunch are disciples of Saul Alinsky, who wrote:
        “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it… isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”
        Thus, any article written by Lord Monckton is filled with ad hominem attacks. The alarmists named here cannot refute what he writes, so they play the man, not the ball.
        Speaking for myself, I’ve been called “stupid” recently more times than I can count. I’ve been personally criticized for my grammar — even though the critic [rodmol] was flat wrong, as many other readers showed him. I have been repeatedly labeled “dishonest” as a vicious tactic; posted repeatedly when the Alinsky acolyte cannot refute my facts and evidence.
        Saul Alinsky was right, name-calling is cruel and effective. For one thing, they are trying to goad skeptics into responding the same way. But again speaking for myself, I’m not giving them that. I don’t have to; I have the facts and evidence that they lack. That’s all I need.
        warrenlb has been commenting a lot lately, saying that skeptics are victims of the Dunning-Kreuger effect. He does it again here. That isn’t just nonsense; that is psychological projection, as anyone who understands the DK effect can see.
        If it were not for warrenlb’s projection, and his endless Appeal to Authority fallacies, and the ad hominem fallacies that most alarmists use constantly, warrenlb and the others wouldn’t have much of anything to say. They certainly do not have adequate facts or evidence to back up their arguments. Planet Earth is showing their beliefs to be foolish. The global climate over the past century and a half has been extremely benign. It’s crazy, but they are unhappy about that!
        The old warmists here made people think — a good thing. This new crowd doesn’t do that, because their arguments mostly consist of insults. They are losing the debate, and they know it. But rather than being stand-up guys, they continue to incessantly argue, using pejoratives and fallacies. I won’t copy their name-calling; skeptics generally are not haters like they are. But I will point out the plain fact that they are arguing like that because they cannot refute what skeptics say. Alarmists have lost the debate. They cannot overcome skeptics’ data and reasoning. So they are just being bad losers. But losers, nonetheless.

      • “Planet Earth is showing their beliefs to be foolish.”

        Foolish??????
        In fact 2014 showed pleny.
        Which year before 2014 in the instrumental record was warmer than 2014 ?
        ..
        Which one dbstealey?
        The earth seems to be warming up just like AGW says it should be.

      • rodmol says:
        Which year before 2014 in the instrumental record was warmer than 2014 ?
        Satellite data is the most accurate, so why don’t you count the years that were warmer than 2014:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend
        This was covered just last month:
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/21/2014-among-the-3-percent-coldest-years-in-10000-years
        Even ZeroHedge had an article about the bogus HOTTEST YEAR EVAH!!
        http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-01/hottest-year-record-think-again-meet-seasonally-adjusted-seasons
        Then there is this comparison:
        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/clip_image004_thumb.png
        See? Plenty of recent years were warmer than 2014.
        Here is another debunking of the “Hottest year EVAH!!
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/20/2014-the-most-dishonest-year-on-record
        And the probability that 2104 was the warmest ever is debunked by none other than NOAA and NASA:
        https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/page-5-of-noaa-nasa-briefing.png
        Any other questions?

      • You left out the JMO, the WMO and Hadly Met office. Each one agrees with both NOAA and NASA..
        ..
        But then, we all know that satellites don’t measure surface temps, so you lose on this one.

      • rodney molyneux, AKA: “David Socrates” says:
        … so you lose on this one.
        Thank you for your opinion, Socrates. As usual, it is baseless. It’s like me saying, “I am King of the World!!” It sounds fatuous and ridiculous, just like your false assertion.
        Your alarmist clique is getting stomped in this debate. Why? Because you cannot even produce one measurement of AGW. Thus, it is nothing but a conjecture. Even if it’s a fact, so what? AGW is simply too small to matter.
        Socks, I’ve told you repeatedly that you don’t have your bigboy pants yet. All your comments are assertions. If you want to discuss evidence, then post evidence [and please, no cut ‘n’ paste jobs. You don’t understand enough of the subject yet to know what you’re posting].
        Satellite data is far more accurate than data like HadCRUT3, SST, or other cherry-picked temperatures. You don’t understand that yet, but maybe you will some day. Also, satellite data is not very much different from other temperature data. The alarmist crowd likes to show scary charts based on tenths and hundreths of a degree. But the error bars are greater than that, so it is meaningless.
        Finally, NASA, NOAA, and other government agencies routinely fabricate past temperatures. That has been established so conclusively that it is no longer questionable:
        https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/gissustampering1999-20132.gif
        https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/giss-1981-1999-20144.gif
        https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/gissus19992014.gif
        Only the most naive, credulous readers still believe the government’s temperature record. Do you still believe them, Rodney? Really?

      • Satellite temp data is more reliable than instrument temps, which have multiple problems of reliability and error bars which nullify any usefulness.

      • First of all you “lose” because you didn’t answer the question.
        Secondly, you posted this “chart”
        ..
        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/clip_image004_thumb.png
        ….
        Which compares a “projection” to RSS, and doesn’t answer the question.
        ..
        Thirdly, the satellite “record” is shorter than the instrumental record, so it is deficient in that respect.

        Fourth, RSS and UAH, both using the same source data don’t show the same trend, and neither are calibrated against actual surface temps.
        ..
        So, again, which year in the record was warmer than 2014?

      • “Finally, NASA, NOAA, and other government agencies routinely fabricate past temperatures”

        Can you post a reference to a peer reviewed paper that discusses the “fabrications?”

      • Rodney,
        I’ll let you know when you can put on your bigboy pants. You don’t seem to be able to understand that it’s a model projection. Really, you just don’t understand.
        [And before I answer any of your questions, you might try answering mine.]

      • Dbstealey

        “you can put on your bigboy pants.”

        Do you know where the following quote comes from ?
        ..
        “Respect is given to those with manners”

        Try to show some manners please.

      • “You don’t seem to be able to understand that it’s a model projection”

        I understand that a “model projection” doesn’t answer the question I asked. You seem to be deflecting.

      • Mpainter
        ..
        “Satellite temp data is more reliable than instrument temps”

        Except for when there are clouds.
        A thermometer underneath a cloud can still measure the surface temperature. The satellite can’t measure when a could is in the way. So much for “reliable”

      • @socks,
        You don’t seeem to be able to understand the simplest of concepts.
        I asked you questions. You ignored them. Now you demand that I answer your questions.
        No problem. I can run circles around you. But try to understand this concept:
        I ask you questions.
        You answer those questions.
        Then you ask me questions.
        I run circles around you.
        Simples. Try it. Answer my questions first, Socrates. That’s the deal.

      • You said…..
        ““Planet Earth is showing their beliefs to be foolish.”
        Too bad 2014 make YOU look foolish.

        It was the warmest year in the instrumental record.
        ..
        If you think otherwise, tell us all WHICH YEAR was warmer?

        Show us all that NASA, NOAA, JMO, WHO and Hadley are wrong.
        ..
        Which year?

      • More reliable because the data is more trustworthy. Clouds or no, satellite data is more complete, much more so than instrument.
        Of course, I understand that the reliability of satellite data makes it undesirable for some purposes, such as proclaiming that it is a “38% chance that 2014 was the hottest year ever”.

      • Wrong again, SOCRATES. But not surprising, since you don’t have your bigboy pants yet.
        Now, what about my questions — mr. “Polite”?
        heh
        [PS: Your comments look too much like the sockpuppet “David Socrates”, to be coincidence. I’m not stupid, socks. You’re just a sockpuppet. Aren’t you?

      • Rodney Molyneux,
        Four (4) comments in a row?? Your head is going to explode.
        You say:
        It (2014) was the warmest year in the instrumental record.
        Wrong, as usual. I posted verifiable links showing you are flat wrong about that. Your response? Another baseless assertion. Therefore, you fail.
        Next:
        …tell us all WHICH YEAR was warmer?
        I already posted that information, from several different credible sources. But you don’t like it, so you ignored it. Therefore, you fail.
        Next:
        Show us all that NASA, NOAA, JMO, WHO and Hadley are wrong.
        Once again: WAKE UP. I posted that information. It is not my fault if you can’t comprehend it. Again: fail.
        Next: you don’t seem to understand the extent of fraud. Here is the government’s fabricating of the temperature record. Notice that the invented changes ALWAYS result in a scarier rise in temeperatures:
        https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/nasauschnages1999-20141.gif
        Here is more evidence of ‘data’ manipulation:
        https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/gissus19992014.gif
        Your mind is closed, but for other readers, here is more damning evidence of fraud:
        https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/hidingthedecline1940-19671.gif
        Here is an easy to read chart, where anyone can count the number of years that were warmer than 2014:
        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/clip_image014.jpg
        Note that the chart is made up of data from GISS, HadCRUT, and satellite data [the most accurate data there is]. There are plenty of years that exceeded 2014 — as anyone whose mind is not closed can see.
        Next, here is a NOAA chart showing global temperature anomalies from 1954 – 2014. Anyone can see that 2014 was on the cool side:
        https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/figure3a_thumb.jpg
        Finally, here is the true ‘Hockey Stick’:
        https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/screenhunter_256-mar-02-06-55.jpg
        Next, you ineptly try to claim that I’m not “polite”. Allow me to set you straight. You say:
        Try to show some manners please.
        Here are some ‘manners’: You answer my questions, because I asked first. That’s polite.
        I then answer your questions. Got it?
        Also, I note that you are A-OK with my being repeatedly called “stupid” for no reason. And I’ve been called “dishonest” many, many times lately, simply because I posted facts, and your pal didn’t. Or couldn’t.
        Tell me: how does that fit into your concept of being “polite”? Did you get on his case for those insults?
        Next, you came out of nowhere a few days ago, and attacked me personally — not for science — but for what you thought was bad grammar!
        I didn’t join in on piling onto your mistake. But lots of other readers did, and they showed where you were wrong. Would you like me to link to that particular thread? Say the word, and I will. Maybe I will anyway, if you keep up your ‘polite’ nonsense.
        Next, I notice that your spelling and grammar criticism is aimed only at skeptics. So it’s not really about spelling or grammar at all. Is it?
        No, it’s just your typical alarmist ad hominem attack. You are playing the man, not the ball [science]. Now tell us: is that polite? Well? Is it?
        Next, you write:
        Nice attempt at gish gallop, but try to answer the question.
        I’ve shown beyond any doubt that the ‘gish gallop’ belongs to you exclusively. You own gish gallop. So before you pontificate on ‘manners’, get some for yourself. Because so far, you have none at all.
        You can start by answering my questions. Then I’ll answer yours. That’s ‘polite’. You may start with this one:
        Can you produce any measurements quantifying the fraction of AGW, out of total global warming?
        Good luck with that question. I’ll wait here, while you trot back to Hotwhopper, or wherever you get your misinformation from.

      • Dbstealey

        You post links to blogs.
        You post charts from blogs.

        Do you realize that science is not done on blogs?

        All you need to do fill in the blanks “According to ______ the year _____ was the warmest in the instrumental record”

        Simple isn’t it?
        ..
        Bear in mind you have NOAA, NASA, JMO, WMO and Hadley to contend with.
        ..
        Which authority will you cite as evidence for the year you assert beats out 2014?

      • PS dbstealey
        ..
        Keep in mind that when you post a chart of a time series with anomalies, that to get the “warmest year” you need to do an integration over the 12 month period. So having the highest peak in a time series isn’t necessarily considered the warmest YEAR.

      • PS dbstealey
        ..
        You are posting a lot of charts showing US temperatures.

        Do you understand that there is a difference between the USA temperatures and global temperatures?

      • Dbstealey
        ..
        You post “Next, here is a NOAA chart showing global temperature anomalies from 1954 – 2014. Anyone can see that 2014 was on the cool side:”

        https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/figure3a_thumb.jpg
        ….
        Now….read the chart very very very very carefully
        ..
        Especially the part that says, “Heating degree days above (+)/ below (-) average for the same quarter over previous five years”
        ..
        THAT CHART DOES NOT SHOW ANOMALIES FOR 1954-2014
        You’re busted.
        * * * * * * * * * *
        (Reply: No, he is correct. A deviation is an anomaly. -mod)

      • @rodmol:
        You’re busted?? You could not be more lame. YOU look at the chart again. You don’t even understand what you don’t know. And you’re still hiding out from answering my questions. I know why: because you are not capable of answering.
        You say:
        Do you realize that science is not done on blogs?
        I’ll answer that question, because I’m a nice guy. But that’s it. You always tuck tail and run away from answering any questions of mine — while you incessantly pester me, demanding that I must answer your questions. That is immature and childish.
        First off, you’re still not wearing your bigboy pants. You are an immature noob. A novice. A know-nothing. Worse, you are not interested in learning anything at all. If you were, you would have a ‘polite’ discussion, instead of impotently trying to dominate the conversation with your baseless assertions. You’re not a big boy, so you fail again.
        As a matter of fact, science is done on blogs. If not, why are you here? To emit your lame propaganda? You clearly are not here to learn anything.
        FYI: there is much better and more honest peer reviewed science being done here than at Scientific American, or lots of other propaganda outlets. Eminent scientists are discussing facts and evidence. But as we saw in the Climategate email dump, the pal review process is hopelessly corrupted. If you don’t know that, then you know nothing.
        Regarding your other inept, lame questions: I have answered every one of them, chapter and verse. I have posted corroborrating links verifying all my statements. You, on the other hand, post only your bogus assertions. That’s why you fail.
        If the CAGW scare had not colonized your mind, you would see that. But you keep asking the same ignorant and lame questions over and over. I keep giving you numerous links from various credible sources DEBUNKING your Chicken Little nonsense, but your response is always the same. You are incapable of learning anything.
        When you grow up and put on your bigboy pants, come on back. With maturity will come the understanding that if you answer my questions, I will answer yours. Keep in mind that you owe me some answers. I asked you first, remember, Mr. “Polite”?
        So instead of hiding out and running interference, try to man-up and post some answers — if you can. It’s the first step toward getting your bigboy pants.

      • The chart is of heating degree days.
        It is not a chart of global temperature anomalies.
        ..
        You’re busted.

      • “As a matter of fact, science is done on blogs.”

        HA HA HA
        ..
        Too funny

        You can’t be serious?

        HA HA HA

      • Another excellent joke Mr dbstealey.
        ..
        “and more honest peer reviewed science being done here”

        This place is peer reviewed?
        HA HA HA HA

        Can you try and be serious please.

      • “As a matter of fact, science is done on blogs.”
        “Wrong again. But not surprising since you don’t have your bigboy pants yet.”

        So tell me dbstealey, if as you claim, science is done on blogs, why did Monckton go all the way to China to publish his paper? He could have just published it here.

        I guess science isn’t done on blogs, or at least Monckton doesn’t think so.

      • Impressive.

        You think heating degree days are “global temperatures”

        You think science is done on blogs.
        ..
        Yup…….2014 was the warmest year on record per NOAA, NASA, Hadley, JMO and WMO.
        ..
        Too bad that reality is hard for you to deal with.

    • I don’t care to learn from someone that thinks that science is done on blogs.
      I don’t want to learn from someone that cant tell the difference between heating degree days and a temperature anomaly.
      Guess you don’t even know what year was warmer than 2014.

      Time to start educating Mr Dbstealey.

      1) Science is done by publishing the results of one’s investigations in a peer reviewed journal. Posting on a blog is not the way you do science.

      Now, see if you can learn THAT.

      • Big Government selects, previews, controls, regulates, rewards, and promotes the only people who they decide they will pay who to select for the Big Science it wants to promote.
        Anonymous pal-reviewed so-called “Big Science” is worth only the paper that it is printed on. For recycling.

      • Science journals are not run by the government. They are private capitalistic enterprises. You have something against a publisher making a profit?

      • He calls rent-seeking and feeding at the taxpayer trough “making a profit”, heh. It’s amusing seeing how little rodmol understands of the real world.
        And yet another silly question from a self-identified loser.
        Did I say a loser?
        Let’s listen to a quote from someone who still isn’t wearing his bigboy pants yet:
        “First of all you “lose” because you didn’t answer the question.”
        ~rodmol

        Thus, rodmol is a self-described loser. Rodney has consistently refused to answer any questions at all. Not one. So by his own reckoning, he is a loser.
        But we already knew that.
        I can tell little Rodney why he won’t answer the questions I asked:
        Because he can’t! He is incapable. He doesn’t have the knowledge. He’s still not wearing bigboy pants, see?
        I asked my questions first. The time stamps show that. Now it’s his turn to answer, but he refuses.
        Further, I politely answered the little boy’s questions, even though it wasn’t my turn. I’m a nice guy like that; I like to accommodate children. Especially to help dispel their ignorance [and I note that a mod has commented a little upthread].
        But fair is fair, correct? The young’un owes me some answers. By his own criteria, he is a loser for not answering. <— He said it, no? And he will remain a loser, so long as he refuses to answer. Maybe well beyond that!
        This amuses me greatly. I suppose I’m a bad person for being amused, and for having fun at the expense of the clueless. Playing Whack-A-Mole with folks who are too immature to answer is one of my faults. I like to pull the wings off flies, too. ☺☺☺

      • 1) Manners dbstealey. It is not polite to call people names.
        2) You say “He doesn’t have the knowledge” Really?…..This assertion coming from someone who thinks science is done on blogs? You sir are the one lacking “knowledge” for if you had some, you would not have made such a ridiculous statement.
        3) “I asked my questions first.” No, I asked you what year beat out 2014. Then you went into chart posting mode, and confused heating degree days with temperature anomalies. Oh…by the way, If you had “knowledge” you would have posted a graph with temperature anomalies, and not heating degree days.
        4) “little boy’s questions” ….. I’m amazed you post here. I thought the policy of this site was that people that don’t show respect are snipped.

      • rodmol,
        You labeled yourself a loser. YOU said people who don’t answer questions are “losers”. You said that.
        That makes you a loser, no? See, you’re no match for someone who’s been around the block a few times. You just don’t have what it takes to keep up. That’s why you whine about what you pathetically call ‘name calling’. If you cared, you would come down hard on B. Gates. But you are completely silent when skeptics are being called much more vicious names. If you can’t handle a very mild rebuke like a ‘bigboy’ comment, you’re on the wrong site. I tried to post at Hotwhopper once, and the names I was called were much more vicious than anything you’ve ever read here. So spare us the crocodile tears, crybaby. You don’t give a damn when a skeptic is being called a liar and worse. If it was up to you, you would censor all skeptics.
        Now I’ll give you a chance to answer a question I’ve repeatedly asked you. And keep in mind that while you may not like the answers I gave, I answered you. Repeatedly. So try to man-up for a change, and answer this:
        “Can you produce empirical, testable measurements quantifying AGW, as a specific fraction/percentage of total global warming from all causes?”
        Yes or No?
        This is how we separate the wheat [truth] from the chaff [warmist propaganda]. It’s called peer review, whether you like it or not, and it isn’t limited to journal subscriptions. Your Appeal to Authority fallacy is no more legitimate than your ad hominem fallacies attacking Lord Monckton. It is people like you who detract from the science at this “Best Science” site, with your incessant game-playing, and tap-dancing around, and asking your questions while always refusing to answer others’ questions, and your sockpuppetry. Isn’t that right, “Socrates”?
        This is better and more honest peer review than anything in the corrupted climate journals, and that is a proven fact: I’ve read the Climategate emails, and the “Harry_read_me” file, where the programmer admits that he has deliberately fabricated years of global temperature data — which was then used by the IPCC. And you can be certain he didn’t make global T decline.
        You are fooling no one here. Obfuscating, misrepresenting, deflecting, and demanding that everyone else must answer your questions is your way of hiding the fact that you’ve got nothing. You have no credible supporting facts, only your baseless assertions. No wonder you hide out from answering questions.
        It is a fact that NOT ONE alarmist prediction has ever happened. They have all failed. Why should anyone believe a word your ilk says? You have been flat wrong from the get-go.
        You won’t answer questions for the same reason that a witness in court is terrified of being cross-examined: the truth will emerge. So you hide out. But we know: you’ve got nothin’.

      • Rodney says:
        I asked you what year beat out 2014.
        And I answered, chapter and verse. I posted several charts from different authorities, based on empirical data, in which you or anyone else can count the many recent years that were all warmer than 2014.
        I posted other links, too, containing a mountain of information showing conclusively that 2014 was not one of the warmer years of the past couple dozen. I posted other charts, too, both by the U.S. government showing U.S. temperatures, and global temperatures, all showing that 2014 was not “The Hottest EVAH!!”
        That narrative has been so thoroughly debunked that only graduates of a rural clown college still believe it. It is simply not true. However…
        I DID answer you, and very completely. You are the outlier here, the one who is wrong, not me, and not those who produced the links. You. You are a ‘consensus’ of one (1). To the point: you are flat wrong. 2014 was a normal year.
        But I did answer you. Whether your religion allows you to believe it or not, that isn’t my concern or my problem. I did more than I had to do. Unfortunately, nothing I post would ever be enough for you, because you are a True Believer. Your mind is made up and closed tighter than a submarine hatch. If global T plunged, and new glaciers descended on Europe and America a mile deep again, you would still be arguing about it. Because you aren’t interested in science. You only want to be ‘right’. But sadly for you, you’re wrong. The cAGW scare is complete nonsense.
        Now it is your turn. Will you finally be a stand-up guy, and answer the question? If not, you’ve been trolling all along.

      • Well, I guess ‘rodmol’ is out getting fitted for some new shortpants, because he won’t answer. He never answers. He has no answers. He is not capable of posting any answers.
        Now, since he’s skedaddled, get a load of his delusion:
        Guess you don’t even know what year was warmer than 2014.
        This guy is the poster boy for ‘closed-minded’.
        How many links have I posted showing EXACTLY THAT?
        So I can’t argue when this jamoke says:
        I don’t care to learn
        and:
        I don’t want to learn
        Both 100% true statements.
        and:
        Science is done by publishing the results of one’s investigations in a peer reviewed journal.
        *SNORT!* Get a clue!
        Science is done by following the Scientific Method.
        Finally:
        Time to start educating Mr Dbstealey.
        ^That^, from a clueless jamoke who is incapable of learning anything, or educating anyone!
        As an old WUWT commenter used to say:
        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
        OK, as you were. Carry on. ☺

      • “So I can’t argue when this jamoke says:”

        Wow….you are using ad-hominem?

        I guess you have to resort to that when you LOSE.

      • dbstealey,

        That’s why you whine about what you pathetically call ‘name calling’. If you cared, you would come down hard on B. Gates. But you are completely silent when skeptics are being called much more vicious names.

        To your credit you did recently opine that my comments are not as egregiously trollish as many here have alleged over time. I’m curious as to why that changed; in my mind, my “stupidly dishonest” comments on and after the piggy thread don’t explain the reversal, only the escalation.
        It also bears mentioning that “mod” has interceeded on my behalf twice that I can think of, warning someone to not insult my person but attack my argument. First one was quite a while back, within the first month or so I started posting here. The other one is on this very thread. Mostly though it’s open season, which is fine — politics is a blood sport, no more so than on the issue of climate. And it’s not like I’m incapable of being nasty when I set my mind to it, or simply lose my composure and fly off the handle.

        If it was up to you, you would censor all skeptics.

        A possiblility. I’d like to see you prove it.

        “Can you produce empirical, testable measurements quantifying AGW, as a specific fraction/percentage of total global warming from all causes?”
        Yes or No?

        No. We don’t know all causes and never will. Best anyone will ever be able to do is produce estimates based on independently verifiable empirical data.

        Your Appeal to Authority fallacy is no more legitimate than your ad hominem fallacies attacking Lord Monckton.

        [reviews the cartoon at the top of the page, recalls the various appeals to McIntyre’s “expert debunking” of MBH98, notes that we’ve now come full-circle] Oh the irony, DB. You hardly ever fail to give me more than the miniumn daily required dose. You guys howl and scream when Greg Laden calls for Willie Soon’s head for doing fossil fuel industry supported research yet here you are day after day whining about consensus researchers hogging up the slop on the public’s dime.
        By your own “logic” above, if you really cared, you would come down hard on your own side for doing it. But you are completely silent when Mann is being called “much more vicious names”.
        See? Zero-sum argument. Follow the money, DB … it leads to food. Everybody’s gotta eat, even Real Scientists (TM).

    • Sal,
      Maybe this is “Brandon”. What do you think?
      There aren’t very many Brandons, and fewer yet posting alarmist nonsense on climate sites. What are the odds, eh?

      • One thing about Gates: it doesn’t bother him a bit to look ridiculous. In fact, one could conclude that he enjoys it. Could it be that our resident troll is narcissistic? Hmmm…

      • mpainter, I think it’s more likely that you and I simply have different definitions for the word “ridiculous”.

  36. Mann also claims the current snow records in Boston have been caused by by a hot pool off Cape Cod causing a doubling of the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.
    This is just another attempt of this climate activist to make the insane claim that AGW is responsible for the snow and frost.
    Joe Bastardi deals with Mann’s BS effectively and also explains why this winter isn’t over by a long shot.
    http://www.weatherbell.com/saturday-summary-february-14-2015

      • You are no authority on any of these subjects.
        That would be fine, if you were interested in learning. But you’re not.
        What are you doing here, anyway? Trolling?

      • Thank you Mr dbstealey,

        “Compared to you, I’m Einstein.”
        ..
        I have never seen a better example of the Dunning-Kruger effect posted.
        ..
        Much appreciated !!!

      • Rodney me boi,
        Since the DK effect specifically refers to unskilled folks, and since my carreer was in a closely related climate field [Metrology], your pop psychology doesn’t apply to me. It’s just another big FAIL on your part. But my comparison applies to you, in spades.
        I will retract that if you are a psychiatrist, or a professional psychologist. Are you?
        So, what is your claim to related climate knowledge? I’ve posted my background often enough here. It is no secret. Now, what is YOUR CV? Do you even have a CV?
        Oh. I forgot. You never answer questions. Well, break your rule for once, and post your expertise. I want to see if you’re talking through your hat, or if you are, in fact, an expert.

      • You are nothing like Einstein. He was a humble man, and did not brag about himself as you do.

      • Rodney,
        Quit changing the subject. I’m not talking about humility, I’m comparing knowledge of the subject. I have it. You don’t.
        Further: as you have admitted in writing, you cannot, and you will not learn. You are not willing to learn. Thus, your mind is made up and closed tighter than a drumskin. It’s the only way you can operate without your head imploding from the vacuum.
        You never get into a discussion of facts. All you ever do is post nonsense. Why? Are you so unhappy that you feel the need to run interference all the time?
        What a sad individual. You have no interest in science, which is why I and most other readers are here.
        You just want to display your unhappiness, and this is a perfect venue: the real world is debunking your side’s beliefs, so you wallow in misery.
        That must really suck, and I am very grateful that I’m not an unhappy person like you are. I am very happy that none of the catastrophic scenarios promoted by the Chicken Little crowd have happened. I am happy that CO2-based technology has made life so much better for everyone. I am happy that the public is rejecting climate alarmism.
        But you? You’re just an unhappy guy. It shows in every comment you post.
        Isn’t that true, “Socrates”?

    • Hmmmm…
      So we have a snow storm. Lessee, is that weather or is it climate?
      Tough one. But I guess the great Michael Mann is the go-to guy when it comes to a snowstorm.
      Gee, now what effect might we call it if a Climate Scientist who’s made his name studying tree rings and upside down lake sediments thinks he’s an expert on a snow storm?
      Gee, maybe I’ll look up the Dunning–Kruger effect

  37. ‘I just finished reading Chapter 14 ‘The hockey stick: a retrospective’ authored by Ross McKitrick in the book ‘Climate Change: The Facts’**
    McKitrick’s chapter is detailed intellectually lethal ammunition against Mann’s latest mythic PR. Mann’s PR in which Mann attempts to resurrect from the climate science morgue his embarrassingly flawed pre-science.
    McKitrick concluded his readable detailed re-dissection of the Mann Hockey Stick saga,

    McKitrick wrote in the book ‘Climate Change: The Facts’,
    “Conclusion
    The [Mann Hockey Stick] story continued on from there and much more could be said. The intensity with which so many people have followed the story, and its continuing relevance via the ongoing Mann v. Steyn lawsuit (as well as others), indicate to me that it is more than just an academic spat about proxy quality and r2 scores. I suspect that the whole episode has wider social significance as an indicator of a rather defective aspect of early twenty-first century scientific culture.”

    Thank you Dr. McKitrick. I think McKitrick has importantly suggested a path to discover the root cause of work like Mann’s pre-science work product. I suggest there is a growing presence of flawed philosophy of science as a cause of what McKitrick describes as “the whole [Mann Hockey Stick] episode has wider social significance as an indicator of a rather defective aspect of early twenty-first century scientific culture”.
    ** The book’s Chapter authors: Abbot, Dr John; James Delingpole, Dr Robert M. Carter ~ Rupert Darwall ~; Donna Laframboise, Dr Christopher Essex ~ Dr Stewart W. Franks ~ Dr Kesten C. Green ~; Dr Richard S. Lindzen, Nigel Lawson ~ Bernard Lewin ~; Dr Patrick J. Michaels ~ Dr Alan Moran, Dr Jennifer Marohasy ~ Dr Ross McKitrick ~; Nova, Jo; Dr Willie Soon, Dr Garth W. Paltridge ~ Dr Ian Plimer ~; Steyn, Mark; Watts, Anthony; Andrew Bolt; Dr J. Scott Armstrong (2015-01-11). Climate Change: The Facts. Stockade Books. Kindle Edition.
    John

  38. When will the hockey stick be updated? It should be easy for Dr Mann to bring it up to date? Might answer a lot of questions?

  39. It would be good to hear the actual story of how Mann was thrust into this position. How he came to settle upon his climate analysis as a dissertation study, how he came to be a recipient of the Department of Energy fellowship to studyt the hockey stick, and how he jumped form a recently-minted PhD to be a lead author of the 2001 IPCC. –That is quite a jump in a world where there are supposed to be so many qualified climate scientists.

    • The right type of bast**d at the right place at the right time . Its clearly nothing to do with any ability in has in science or statistics and certainly not down to his ‘winning personality’

  40. How is it that some get their pants in a knot about Dr Mann, when in the same breath they say:
    1) Peer-reviewed science should be ignored as inconsequential
    2) The relevant science appears on WUWT
    3) Citing of peer-reviewed scientists is an ‘appeal to authority’ and thus irrelevant
    4) PhD Credentials are irrelevant, and amateur non-scientists are to be preferred.
    Such venom brings to mind a paraphrase from Hamlet ” [They] doth protest too much, methinks” i.e., Might they be concerned that after all, the peer-reviewed science is right about AGW?

    • When a PhD “self-selected” scientist is wrong, it does not matter what the paper on his wall says.
      When we do not know who the “self-selected” peer-reviewed readers were, nor what these “reviewers” own conditionals and credentials were, nor what edits and changes they demanded (extorted!) from the original researchers were, and when all CAGW self-styled “experts” run amuck crying “peer-review” “peer-review” “peer-review” all the way home – when the “peer-reviewed” papers I’ve read have been wrong, why should I trust “all” peer-reviewed papers without checking them? Then , when such “peer-reviewed” papers are found (yet again) to be wrong and not worth the paper they waste being printed upon, why should I (yet again) “trust” a person who cannot cite the number of papers they have read, criticized, and corrected?
      Peer-review has been reviewed. It has been found wanting in recent years.
      Well, the relevant “science” does show up each day on the WUWT Sea Ice page and Solar Page, and CO2 page, and on Curry’s site, and on CO2Science site, and on DMI’s site, and on NSIDC’s site, and on a few dozen others I read daily directly from the labs and institutions, it does tend to beat to press the loooooooong paper-printing delay needed for researchers to make the changes demanded by “peer-review” extortionists to get to print.
      Peer-reviewed science may be, or may not be, inconsequential. But NO “consensus” in science has yet to be proved true.

  41. @warrenlb:
    I, for one, get my “pants in a knot” as you say, because I have a real problem with charlatans. I have a problem when someone living mostly off of taxpayer gravy is trying to stack the deck in order to take more of my income. I have a problem when someone who purports to be a scientist refuses to disclose his methods, data, methodology and metadata. I have a problem when I see emails showing that other scientists and editors have lost their jobs because that despicable little lout has arranged it with his pals. I have a problem when someone like Mann hides in his ivory tower and refuses to debate. I have a problem when the guy sucks up multi-$millions in what are no more than bribes, in order to keep a false narrative alive. Mann has all the bad qualities of Elmer Gantry, and none of the good ones. Why are you so impressed with him?
    I could go on. But I have some questions for you: why would you want someone like that for your HE-RO? And if this is such a bad place, where you don’t agree with the great majority of readers, why do you keep coming around? There are comfy blogs like Hotwhopper where you can post your nonsense. Why do you pester us with it?
    #1: As far as your pal reviewed ‘science’ goes, you clearly have never read the Climategate emails, or the associated Harry_read_me file, in which the programmer admits to fabricating years of temperature data — which then finds its way into IPCC reports. You can bet that those invented temperatures never showed a long term decline, either. That wouldn’t fit the Narrative. Climate peer review is a stacked deck. It has nothing to do with honest science. Why do you like it so much?
    #2: Yes, relevant science does appear here. Many mainstream climatologists, and other scientists and engineers post here, and write articles. So why do you cherry-pick only those charlatans who tell you what you want to hear? You don’t learn anything that way.
    #3: Your constant, unending appeals to authority don’t show any original thinking. That is merely a crutch that takes the place of thinking.
    #4: PhD credentials are not irrelevant. Who said they were? Remember that the OISM co-signers consisted of more than 9,000 PhD’s. So the question is: why do you believe they were irrelevant? Because they debunk your Narrative?
    Once more: since you are so unhappy here, and so unhappy with the large majority of readers here, why do you keep coming back? You are completely unconvincing, and your arguments don’t hold water. What do you get out of it? Or are you just trolling?
    Finally, you say:
    Might they be concerned that after all, the peer-reviewed science is right about AGW?
    What are they ‘right’ about? There are still no measurements of AGW. That makes it just another conjecture. So much for your “peer-reviewed science”. It’s more like a “peer-reviewed conjecture”, isn’t it?

    • db,
      Since warrenlb and Brandon Gates never answer the questions regarding any incontrovertible evidence for any climate parameter being changed by C02 going from 280 ppm to 400 ppm or can put forward a falsifiable theory of the AGW conjecture (both questions still outstanding, i.e. unanswered from the thread five days ago), I’m assuming that Skumbag Science doesn’t even have a bogus, attempted sheeple-duping answer to either of these questions for them to cut and paste over here.
      Is this true, or is the purported answer(s) so laughable that they daren’t? These questions are all over comments even in the mainstream media now and I haven’t seen even a half-assed straw man answer yet.

      • philincalifornia,
        I have never seen any such evidence posted. Just the usual cut ‘n’ paste arguments.
        You are right about the mainstream media. I just ran across this article:
        http://www.businessinsider.com/pacific-island-nation-kiribati-sinking-2014-5
        The author emits the usual talking points about ‘global warming’. But the interesting thing is the reader comments under the article. Look at the comments, and also check out the lopsided voting. And this is from a business publication. So they have no axe to grind.
        The public is turning on the MMGW narrative, big time. It will only get worse for the alarmist clique.

      • philincalifornia,
        The “lack” of answers may have something to do with ridiculous qualifiers like “incontrovertible evidence”. I’ve answered variations dbstealey’s “question” many times, including right here on this thread:

        No. We don’t know all causes and never will.
        That wasn’t answering the question I asked.

        “All causes” was the poison pill in that variant. It’s a really stupid game you two are playing here, I hope it’s fun for you.

      • Exactly, so after 40 years of the conjecture any evidence for its existence is between zero and immeasurable, but you still want to make people believe that in the next 80 years, 2X zero to immeasurable is going to be catastrophic.
        That’s not a question.

  42. Brandon, tell me honestly, do you guys go to (taxpayer-paid for) propaganda conferences where if anyone says “null hypothesis” or “straw man” or “x”, you immediately respond with “you don’t know what x means”.
    Come on, you already admitted there’s no incontrovertible evidence for any effect on any climate parameter of CO2 going from 280 ppm to 400 ppm. Go on, you can do it ….

    • philincalifornia,

      “you don’t know what x means”

      Real popular phrase in these parts.

      Come on, you already admitted there’s no incontrovertible evidence for any effect on any climate parameter of CO2 going from 280 ppm to 400 ppm.

      The issue here is your insistence on “incontrovertible evidence”. Or as dbstealey is fond of saying, “evidence which both sides can agree upon”. People who ask such questions are not really looking for answers. As well, the scale and complexity of the system being studied does not lend itself to such an absolutely high standard of proof. Estimates are what you’re going to get, and they’re going to be varied for the foreseeable future.
      Not my fault, I didn’t design this joint. Direct your complaints and dishonest questions elsewhere.

  43. If it were not for nitpicking, Gates wouldn’t have much to say. He loves parsing things that don’t much matter by themselves, while avoiding the big picture.
    The big picture:
    There is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening. In fact, we are fortunate to be living in such a benign climate.
    The big picture: despite endless predictions of doom and gloom, there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening. Every alarmist prediction has been wrong.
    The big picture: although AGW may exist, it is clearly too minuscule to measure, therefore it can be completely disregarded.
    Since the big picture gives us nothing to be concerned about, nitpicking is all that’s left for the Chicken Little crowd. How else can they cry, “Wolf!!”?
    I expect a well thought out, rational answer from Gates addressing those points.
    But I know better.

    • Hampel, M. (2014) Climate Reconstruction and the Making of Authoritative Scientific Knowledge. PhD Thesis, School of Social Science & Public Policy, King’s College London.

Comments are closed.