Friday Funny: Mann gets real time

Our favorite climate publicity hound, fake Nobel Laureate Dr. Michael E. Mann is going to get some real time on ‘RealTime’, where presumably, he’ll wail about the embellished injustices heaped upon him by people that question his hockey stick, his interpretation of science, and his sanity on Twitter. Bill Maher has been known to throw some curve balls, so this might be entertaining, or maybe not. Given what I witnessed at Mann’s lecture in Bristol last year, he’s pretty much a one-trick pony with nothing new to say.

Note the “submit a question” tag on Twitter: #RTOVERTIME I wonder if Maher will dare to ask about Mann’s Nobel Laureate claims?

h/t to WUWT reader “canman”

479 thoughts on “Friday Funny: Mann gets real time

  1. Actually, Mann et al’s “hockey stick” work has been replicated by many different groups, some using independent mathematical techniques:
    “A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years,” Marcott et al, Science v339 n6124 pp 1198-1201, March 8, 2013
    A huge collaboration of several dozen scientists:
    “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
    Coverage of Tingley and Huybers, who used independent mathematical techniques:
    “Novel Analysis Confirms Climate “Hockey Stick” Graph,” Scientific American, November 2009, pp 21-22.

      • As if you do David. Many of us are engineers, statisticians, etc. I and many others fully understand how hockey sticks are constructed and why any such reconstruction will tend towards a hockey stick. The one who doesn’t understand here is you.

      • @ richardscourtney
        Thanks for your excellent take-down with references. Your knowledge and experience is needed and appreciated.

      • RD
        Thankyou for that.
        It is only months ago that nobody thought I would now be here. My recovery is good but attending speaking engagements would still be a daunting prospect.
        Such comments as yours give encouragement and I genuinely appreciate them. Thankyou.

      • Be well Mr. richardscourtney!
        I’ve learned so much from you and the WUWT crew!
        Possibly a guy like me could make you and your peeps squirm a bit in natural sciences and applied human biology, especially biochemistry 🙂 Physical sciences by RSCourtney and WUWT crew? Forget about it!
        Cheers, RD!

        • RD suggests “your peeps squirm a bit in natural sciences and applied human biology”
          Squirmy human biology. Sounds salacious!

      • @David Appell
        Full of [trimmed.]
        [The mods thank our readers for bringing this comment to our attention, after it leaked through in the early AM hours. .mod]

      • Blog comments don’t count — as this blog shows every day, blogs are often full of [trimmed].
        So you prefer arguments from authority vs checking yourself? Excellent!

      • “blogs are often full of shit”
        Yes indeed.
        And peer(*)-reviewed literature is full of what? Organic manure?
        (*) The peer of a buffoon is another buffoon, by definition. The peer of an astrologist is an astrologist. The peer of tea leafs reader is a tea leafs reader. The peer of a chicken entrails interpreter with a PhD is another peer of a chicken entrails interpreter with a PhD.

      • Appell, **it follows you wherever you go.
        Where-ever you are.. there is excrement, it travels with you.
        It is the very centre of your soul.!

      • David, when you have nothing to say, don’t feel forced to post your pointless comments.

      • You only prefer such work when it supports your own predetermined opinion and view. Everything else is subject to your insulting and disparaging prattle.
        You should be more honest, and more self aware.

      • David Appell (@davidappell)
        You ask

        Alan, can you point me to McIntyre’s publications on this? Blog comments don’t count — as this blog shows every day, blogs are often full of shit.

        I assume the obscenity and insult are intended to deflect as a method to imply that McIntyre provided no peer reviewed publications on this.
        In fact, McIntyre and McKitrick published the first peer reviewed papers which ‘broke’ the ‘hockey stick’ graph of Mann, Bradley & Hughes that was first published in 1998 (MBH98), was the ‘poster message’ of the Third IPCC Report and was dropped in the Fourth IPCC Report.
        In 2005 McIntyre and McKitrick published two peer reviewed papers that together provide a complete refutation of that work of Mann et al. (ref.
        McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Energy & Environment, v 16, no.1 (2005)) (2005),
        McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 32, No. 3, (2005)).
        But, perhaps the most important of their studies of that work of Mann et al. was their peer reviewed publication in 2003 (ref. McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Energy & Environment, v 24, pp 751-771 (2003)) that showed it was not possible to replicate the work of Mann et al. There are several reasons for the inability to replicate MBH98; not least that Mann refused to reveal his source codes. The inability to replicate this work of Mann et al. meant it had no scientific worth: i.e. this work of Mann et al. was anecdote so of similar kind to a report of a ghost sighting.
        It is important to note that MBH98 overthrew the paleoclimate reconstructions reported in the Second IPCC Report. But paleoclimate reconstructions continued to accumulate which conflicted with the MBH98 ‘hockeystick’ and indicated that the report of climate variability in the Second IPCC Report was correct; e.g. Beltrami et al “Long-term tracking of climate change by underground temperatures”, Geophysical Research Letters v.12 (2005).
        Before you try waving the red-herring often waved by trolls, I point out that Energy & Environment is a peer reviewed journal that is indexed in the ISI and is cited 28 times in the IPCC reports .

    • Dear Appell, of course as man can construct something, man can reconstruct something. As nature is not run by averages ( a human construct), such constructions often fail a reality test.

      • “I get the impression you don’t.”
        David, I get the impression you are a troll.
        But then, I could be wrong. You could simply be a very arrogant imbecile.

      • “Wow, the quality of the comments here is extremely low.”
        Wherever you post your “arguments”, the average quality of arguments will be low.

      • Do you actually know what “hide the decline” refers to? I get the impression you don’t.

        Steve McIntyre does a great job highlighting how fraudulent the Hide the Decline issue is. If this was done at a drug company they CEO would be behind bars.

    • Even Marcott says that the uptick in his reconstruction is not robust.

      Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.

      Yes, even the lead author admits that the best supporting evidence for Mann’s debunked hockeystick is not robust.
      Yet it’s still the best you’ve got. The first thing you quote.
      So that pretty much proves that Mann’s work is also not robust.

      • Read the quote. You are obviously wrong. Marcott defines “small”.

        that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data

        That is the final uptick.
        Indeed, if counting the number of years since 1850 is beyond your technical expertise it can be proven by other means.
        Marcott admitted the uptick was not robust in response to the debunking on Climate Audit (see the links above). That refutation referred to the current uptick.
        Time for you to admit your error, I think.

      • “So they can’t find the MWP or LIA. They don’t have the resolution across the world.”
        Read the f-ing paper. What they actually write is, “There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.”
        In particular, see their Figure 2.

      • So David Appell claimed Marcott et al replicated Michael Mann’s hockey stick. People responded to point out the temporal resolution on the Marcott reconstruction was so poor it couldn’t possibly replicate features of Mann’s hockey stick, such as its iconic blade. His response?

        We don’t need data on the “final” uptick, since we have instrumental data for the last 165 years.
        Marcott et al is a reconstruction of the prior 11,000 years. And that’s extremely valuable.

        That’s pretty baffling. According to Appell, we don’t need Marcott et al to provide results showing the final uptick, but Marcott et al replicated Mann’s hockey stick, including it’s final uptick. Because you can apparently replicate results despite your data not actually supporting those results, I guess?
        Yeah, I’m not sure. What I am sure of is Appell won’t bother to try addressing substantial criticisms of Mann’s hockey stick. To demonstrate that point, I’ll make an offer to him. I’ve made this offer to a couple other people, all of whom have turned it down.
        I wrote a relatively short eBook as an introductory guide to the hockey stick debate. It is highly critical of Michael Mann and his hockey stick reconstruction. I will send a free copy to any of my critics so they can read and review it for potential errors at no cost to themselves. Furthermore, I will allow them to publish a completely unedited (save for language, if necessary) guest post at my blog to respond to my eBook, and if they’d like, I will include a permanent link to it on my menu bar with the title, “Critics’ Rebuttals” so there is a permanent and prominent record of it for all of my readers to see.
        I think it’s a good offer. If people think what I say about Mann and his work is wrong, this will allow them to make their case in as public a manner as I make mine. It’s true my site is relatively small so the effect might not be large, but at the same time, the effect will be as large as whatever effect I myself have. And if they’d like, I’ll extend the offer to my follow-up eBook which covered Mann’s more recent work.
        I don’t think they will though. In my experience, people like Appell are only looking for cheap and easy points to score. When it comes to doing actual work or having real discussions, they never show up.

      • David Appell (@davidappell) August 7, 2015 at 12:57 am

        We don’t need data on the “final” uptick, since we have instrumental data for the last 165 years.
        Marcott et al is a reconstruction of the prior 11,000 years. And that’s extremely valuable.

        Quite agree that reconstructing the past 11,000 years is valuable.
        But you are using it to support Mann’s falsified hockeystick. For which we need the last 165 years (good arithmetic, well done).
        And Marcott’s paper does not support the last 165 years.
        You have acknowledged that. So acknowledge your error. Marcott does not support Mann’s debunked Hockeystick. Your first, best support does not do what you said it does.
        Of course, you could splice on incompatible instrumental data to find an uptick. But that is explained by the splicing of data – not the real world. Adding apples to oranges and saying you have pineapples is fraud.
        It would also be gross scientific malpractice – Marcott did not do that. Do not claim that he did.

      • David Appell:

        Brandon: Couldn’t find a real publisher, huh? Wonder why…..

        Determined to prove my point that you’re a coward who won’t even read detailed criticisms from people who know this material better than you, huh? I mean, seriously, are you determined to make yourself look at pathetic as possible, or do you think you somehow think you don’t look like a petulant brat right now?
        You can jump on the first reason to insult people as much as you’d like. It’s not going to get you anywhere. It’s just going to make you look more pathetic than you already do, which is quite an accomplishment.
        I mean, when you can’t even make yourself look better than the people commenting on this site, you’ve lost all hope.

      • “I mean, when you can’t even make yourself look better than the people commenting on this site, you’ve lost all hope.”
        Hey, wait a second…
        I represent that remark!

      • David Appell (@davidappell)
        You assert

        We don’t need data on the “final” uptick, since we have instrumental data for the last 165 years.
        Marcott et al is a reconstruction of the prior 11,000 years. And that’s extremely valuable.

        Oh dear! NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT!
        In the same week as MBH98 was published I wrote an email on the ‘ClimateSkeptics’ circulation list. That email objected to the ‘hockeystick’ graph because the graph had an overlay of ‘thermometer’ data over the plotted ‘proxy’ data. This overlay was – I said – misleading because it was an ‘apples and oranges’ comparison: of course, I was not then aware of the ‘hide the decline’ (aka “Mike’s Nature trick”) issue.
        Unknown to me, somebody copied my email to Michael Mann and he replied.
        ‘Climategate’ revealed that email from Michael Mann and it can be read here:
        Mann’s response consists solely of personal abuse against me and, importantly, it does not address the issue which I had raised immediately upon seeing the ‘hockeystick’ graph. Hence, I am certain that the graphical malpractice of the ‘hockeystick’ was both witting and deliberate.
        Our host decided to make an article on WUWT on this subject and that WUWT article with comment from our host and the subsequent discussion thread can be read at

    • PAGES 2k is pay walled. Could you give a link?
      Because it looks like junk science from the abstract. Here’s a quote:

      There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years</blockquote
      So they can't find the MWP or LIA. They don't have the resolution across the world.
      But they can spot the 29 most recent years. Is less than 30 years climate anyway?
      Oh dear. Looks like a car crash paper, doesn’t it?
      I would like to see how they created “the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature”. Because it looks like it was just “constructed”. Give us the paper. This is a Friday Funny.

      • Correction:
        PAGES 2k is pay walled. Could you give a link?
        Because it looks like junk science from the abstract. Here’s a quote:

        There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years

        So they can’t find the MWP or LIA. They don’t have the resolution across the world.
        But they can spot the 29 most recent years. Is less than 30 years climate anyway?
        Oh dear. Looks like a car crash paper, doesn’t it?
        I would like to see how they created “the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature”. Because it looks like it was just “constructed”.
        Give us the paper. This is a Friday Funny.

      • Nah, not worth it, David Appell (@davidappell).
        It’s not worth spending money on a paper that thinks 29 years is climate.
        And that 29 years can be compared to the LIA punctuated by “warm decades during the eighteenth century”.
        I mean, it’s obviously fatally flawed, isn’t it?
        And yet that’s the best that’s left of the cohorts in support of Mann’s hockeystick.

      • “It’s not worth spending money on a paper that thinks 29 years is climate.”
        The paper says no such thing — that’s their resolution. Have you ever thought about actually reading a paper before you dismiss it? Or is that too much effort for you?

      • Davis Appell, 29 years is their resolution?

        punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century.

        Think about that.
        It seems you’ve read the paper but not understood it. Their resolution isn’t what you think it is.
        So why should I spend money to learn that it hasn’t been warmer since 500 AD? What are you trying to prove?
        And are you sure you’re not out of your depth here?

      • Actually, it is fine that they say the LIA and MWP were not “globally synchronous” events. Neither is today’s warming or the cold periods in the 70’s if you judge them in the same way. The only thing that makes today’s data “global” is that they are able to use global temp. anomalies which we don’t have from the past. That is why they use proxies. But today’s warming is very regional and the NH is warmer than the southern and they are not warming at different rates, etc. As those who derive the various temperature sets have noted, about 1/3 of places around the world have cooled. So PAGES2K is good in that it has found more distinctive proxy evidence for LIA and MWP. The fact that they weren’t global and (if you read the abstract carefully it was widespread) did not occur all at once is not surprising.

    • David,
      Mann e.a. has been replicated using the same proxies (strip bark bristlecone pines) and the same wrong statistics (including his PC1) as in Mann e.a. of which the NAS panel said that they shouldn’t be used at all…
      From ClimateAudit a whole list:
      Marcott e.a. data manipulation to create a HS:
      The use of a lot of the same (including faulty) proxies and Mann’s PC1 in several reconstructions:

      • Blogs aren’t science. Cite published papers.
        [Published papers aren’t necessarily science either; they are often merely opinions. Science consists verifiable facts, measurements, data, and evidence. For example, global warming stopped almost 20 years ago. That is a verifiable fact, based upon satellite measurements. ~mod.]

        • “Blogs aren’t science”
          Fantastic rhetoric (sarc).
          Go learn some epistemology and come back only then.

      • “Blogs aren’t science”
        You would not know what science was.. you have never known and never will know. !!
        You only have a mouth, not a brain.

      • David,
        Some blogs contain more science than a host of worthless pal reviewed “scientific” papers, of which more and more are published in recent years…
        And ever tried to publish in Nature or Science if your name is Steve McIntyre…

      • Some blogs contain more science than a host of worthless pal reviewed “scientific” papers.

        Hear, hear. And that’s a fact to which Mr. Engelbeen’s valuable posts and comments have contributed significantly.

      • No, mod, warming certainly did NOT stop 20 years ago. Look at all the data for once, and not just what supports your biases.
        [Thank you for making another assertion. Unfortunately, your assertion is flatly contradicted by satellite data. ~mod.]

      • By the way, mod, reanalysis does show lower tropospheric warming over the last 20 years:
        (bottom graph in first figure.)
        UAH has made some very bad errors in the past, especially about a minus sign that seriously skewed their results, a correction they fought against for years.

      • No scientist would link to Wiki or a low-end journalist opinion site as having any relevance.
        But you are no scientist, so what else can we expect.

      • Blogs can certainly demonstrate science, and the science can be publicly reviewed by a far larger group of peers than pal-reviewed fodder for promoting political objectives.

      • David, you put a lot of emphasis on published, peer reviewed studies. Please read
        then tell me how climate science manages to sidestep the problems inherent at every step of the scientific process that afflicts the hard sciences. From tenure, to funding, to design, to getting results that don’t conform to the current favored theory so doubting those results and never submitting to the paper, to submitting a paper that challenges the current favored theory only to have it rejected by that theory’s gatekeepers.
        Combined, these contribute significant conscious and unconscious bias into the scientific process (not method) especially regarding peer review and the relevance of published findings.
        Jonas Lehrer has done an excellent job of documenting these problems in the hard sciences, to explain why published results often can’t be reproduced. Note that climate science is never mentioned in the article, though he (knowingly or unknowingly) reveals what may be the original instance of the 97% consensus: “Jennions, similarly, argues that the decline effect is largely a product of publication bias, or the tendency of scientists and scientific journals to prefer positive data over null results, which is what happens when no effect is found. The bias was first identified by the statistician Theodore Sterling, in 1959, after he noticed that ninety-seven per cent of all published psychological studies with statistically significant data found the effect they were looking for.”
        Also you may be interested in “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”:
        The scientific method may be the best way we yet have for finding truth but neither it nor the scientific “process” are immune to human nature where bias can be introduced throughout both.

      • “No, mod, warming certainly did NOT stop 20 years ago. Look at all the data for once, and not just what supports your biases.”
        Like you do?
        Is it even theoretically possible to be more hypocritical and disingenuous?

      • David Appell (@davidappell)
        You assert and demand

        Blogs aren’t science. Cite published papers.

        You made a similar ignorant and untrue assertion above where you wrote

        Alan, can you point me to McIntyre’s publications on this? Blog comments don’t count — as this blog shows every day, blogs are often full of shit.

        I DID IN THIS THREAD HERE and you have ignored that but have the gall to again demand “published papers”.
        Clearly you are a troll posting your nonsense, falsehoods and obscenities as a method to disrupt the thread.

      • Blogs aren’t science. Cite published papers.

        Have you not read the Climategate E-Mails? Michael Mann and others have completely corrupted the “Peer” review process. They are peers of criminals and sheep. Do you honestly think Michael Mann or any of his climate change gravy eating “peers” would approve an article that cut off their funding?
        Also, he did the same “trick” with the Hockey Stick Graph. Temperature data wasn’t included until 1903.
        BTW, try to find a recent Hockystick chart with the proxy descriptions. Almost everything I’ve found conveniently leaves them off.

    • I don’t have a lot of time as I’m packing to leave on a trip for the weekend, but I saw this comment in my RSS reader, and I just had to stop by to point something out. At the time David Appell wrote the last article he links to, the paper he wrote the article about hadn’t been published. It wasn’t even finalized. Appell somehow failed to mention that fact in his article.
      What he also failed to mention is while he said Tingley and Huybers “used independent mathematical techniques,” they didn’t use independent data. The two of them have reused controversial data from Michael Mann’s hockey stick papers time and time again in their papers confirming Mann’s hockey stick, proving quite conclusively if you use the same data, you can get the same results. That that tells us nothing about criticisms of that data, or claims that that data has been given undue weight, seems to have escaped Appell’s notice. Or at least his commentary.
      I just thought that was too amusing to not make a quick remark about. All told, there have been only a few key proxies Michael Mann has used which he has been heavily criticized for using. Tingley and Huybers have reused almost all of them. It’s like, if you’re going to go through all that trouble to develop an “independent technique,” why would you reuse the same controversial data? That defeats the entire purpose!

        • “Actually, Mann et al’s “hockey stick” work has been replicated by many different groups, some using independent mathematical techniques:”
          “Reproductions using other mathematical techniques shows there were no merit in those claims”
          Seriously? Other? Independent?
          “Independent” isn’t a science concept, and neither is “other”.
          But then, what do you know about science?

      • David Appell, I know nothing of the sort. In fact, I know that is a gross misrepresentation of what Mann’s critics said. I know nobody who actually understands the criticisms of Mann’s work would ever claim what you just said, as they’d know how foolish it is.
        The criticisms of Mann’s techniques always focused on the fact his techniques resulted in an undue amount of weight being given to a small amount of data. In addition to being wrong on principle, those criticisms were raised as troubling because the data which was given undue weight was viewed as problematic for a variety of reasons. The exact reasons depend on which specific proxy is being referred to, but in most cases, Mann himself acknowledges the data was questionable. In several cases, he did so prior to any of his critics saying a word.
        Pretending criticisms of Mann’s work were merely ones of his techniques is beyond silly. Anyone who knows anything about the hockey stick debate knows the debate is over both Mann’s methodological choices and the data he used due to how his methodological choices impacted the weights given to non-representative data in his data sets. I have no idea why you would think otherwise, but that you would claim I know otherwise is just insulting.
        Whether or not you understand basic details of this topic has no bearing on whether or not I know basic facts.

      • David you now resort to equivocation…Manns’s technique involves using proxies that consist of one member for periods of time, proxies whose constituent elements are selected post hoc, proxies used for purposes the authors who developed them dont endorse, that is part and parcel of Mann’s technique.
        Do you seriously contest the fact that the guy who developed PCA himself decried Mannn’s bizarre application of PCA?
        Why dontcha read some quotes from other scientists regarding the “quality” of Mann’s techniques from Mark Steyn
        “Is Michael Mann a blood-drinking shape-shifting space lizard? It might explain why his scaly reptilian claws are so bad at handling data. And why he’s able to shape-shift himself into a Nobel Laureate, and a man who’s been exonerated by NOAA and the British Government. Just a thought.
        As for the vast Koch-Scaife CDM (Cabal of Disparagers of Mann), Dr Mann is right. The untold billions from the Koch Brothers, the Scaife Brothers and the Koch-Scaife Brothers have funded all kinds of sinister “front groups” and “hired guns” to discredit Mann. One thinks of hired gun “Hendrik Tennekes” of the obvious Potemkin organization “the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute” and former member of the notorious front group “the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences”, who attacked Dr Mann as “a disgrace to the profession”.
        Or paid hitman “John Christy”, frontman “lead author” of the transnational Potemkin village “the IPCC”, who said Mann “misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1,000 years”.
        Or hired assassin “I T Jolliffe” of the Koch-funded Potemkin tract “Principal Component Analysis” in the Scaife-funded Potemkin reference work “The International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science”, who said Mann’s science is “a piece of dubious statistics”.
        Or lavishly remunerated covert operative “Hans von Storch” of the Potemkin-peer-reviewed Potemkin journal “Annals of Geophysics” and winner of the Potemkin prize “the IMSC Achievement Award” awarded by the Potemkin judges of the totally bogus “International Meetings on Statistical Climatology”, who described Mann’s hockey stick as “rubbish”.
        Or hired sniper “Ulrich Cubasch”, a Potemkin professor of Potemkin meteorology at the Potemkin Meteorological Institute of the Potemkin Free University of the vast Potemkin village of Berlin, who said “the real problem in this case, in my view, is that Michael Mann does not disclose his data”.
        Or crack terror cell “David S Chapman”, “Marshall G Bartlett”, and “Robert N Harris” of the Koch Industries in-house staff newsletter “Geophysical Research Letters”, who called Mann’s work “just bad science”.
        Or hired double-agent “John Cook” of the Koch-Scaife Climate Denial Machine undercover website “Skeptical Science” and front man of the denialist tract “Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand”, who wrote, “Stay away from Mann’s 2008 paper… It has actually been invalidated.”
        Or Koch-funded infiltrator “Wallace Smith Broecker”, who in 1975 was given untold billions by the Scaife Brothers to invent the Potemkin term “global warming”. Following further billions from the Koch Brothers Fund for Mild Disparagement, “Broecker” dismissed Mann’s data as “sh*tty”.
        David: no one wants your tripe.

      • A quote about Mann’s science from Mark Steyn!!!!!!!!!!! You have got to be kidding….. Steyn is a scientific know-nothing. He couldn’t calculate his way out of a paper bag.
        Steyn is utterely irrelevant to anything to do with the science. He should stick to Islamophobia.

      • I note that you do no respond directly to the quotes assembled by Steyn, so I now ask you:
        Do you maintain that the quotes Steyn provided were fabricated, untrue or misleading?
        If so, have the integrity to just write that you believe Steyn provided false quotations…

      • David Appell (@davidappell) says:
        August 7, 2015 at 2:06 am
        Steyn … should stick to Islamophobia.

        David Appell condones Islamophobia. That’s hate speech son.

      • Blogs aren’t science. Cite published papers.

        Why rely on “Peer” reviewed interpretations of the data when you can think for yourself and reach your own conclusions? Science is the field of skepticism, science is the belief that the experts are wrong the whole purpose of science is to defeat the tyranny of the status quo.
        Here is the most accurate measurement of atmospheric temperatures, and it shows no warming for over 18 years.
        The ground measurements are altered in a statistically suspicious way where past errors almost always overestimated temperatures and recent measurements almost always underestimated temperatures.
        Worst yet, the IPCC models fail to reject the null hypothesis “man is not causing climate change.” The only time you get all most 100% of the error to fall on one side of the estimate is when you have a systematic bias in the model. This is proof of either fraud, a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject being modeled or both, but neither prove man or CO2 is causing climate change.
        Thousands of coal, mining, steal workers and others have lost their jobs over this epic failure. To my knowledge no “scientist” responsible for these models have lost their jobs. I doubt any journalists promoting this garbage as real “science” have lost their jobs either. Same for teachers preaching this crap. The costs of these failures disproportionately fall on the wrong people, the innocent people.

      • David Appell condones Islamophobia. That’s hate speech son.

        Nope, not even close. David is a liberal. Rules don’t apply. PC applications are only applied to conservatives. The selective moral outrage is the PC Police’s defining characteristics.
        These are examples of “Hate Speech.” The left disguises them as “Art.”
        This is my favorite. The Nitwits use a Christan Symbol, but Evolution is from the Old Testament. This is really insulting Jews and Muslims.
        Can’t forget the Piss Christ.
        Or the Dung Virgin Mary.
        Watch the HBO Series “The Brink” and watch how the Christian ambassador is treated, one of the lines said by Jack Black was “F&^% Jesus.” That unfortunately isn’t a joke.

    • David you are simply beyond belief.
      Marcott’s well publicized conclusion was discedited; he was forced to concede that no, one couldn’t couldn’t conclude that 20th century warming rates were unprecedented on the basis of his research.
      really now.

      • Marcott himself said his “tail” was a essentially piece of junk. !
        Get over it bad Appell, and stop trying to support the insupportable.
        We are actually very close to the coldest period in the whole of the last 10,000 years.
        Not warm, but very much on the COOL side in the current interglacial.

      • David:
        Marcott himself said that one couldn’t conclude that the rates of warming in the 20th century were unprecedented. you are beyond belief.
        Now, what are you going to do: threaten to sue me?

      • The “tail” was forced on him by the climate change agenda and his need for employment, the farce that you desperately support against all common sense.
        He ADMITTED it was not robust. You are contradicting the author himself, to make a worthless and deceitful point.

      • @davideisenstadt,
        Your post at August 7, 2015 at 1:50 am was genius. Thanks for the smile.
        Mr. Appell, you didn’t read beyond the words “Mark Steyn?”

      • Marcott calculated and published the temporal resolution of his reconstruction in the Supplemental Materials to his paper. Marcott demonstrated that temperature fluctuations in Marcott’s reconstruction with periods shorter than 300 years are attenuated by 99% relative to their peak value. In other words, it contains essentially no information about temperature changes that last less than 3 centuries. You could have a Hansen event (boiling oceans) for one year and it would barely show up s a speck of noise in the Marcott reconstruction.
        That makes it impossible to compare the yearly sampled 1850 – 2015 temperature graph to the Marcott reconstruction.
        On the other hand, you could pass the yearly sampled 1850 – 2015 temperature curve through the same low pass filter used by Marcott.
        I bet you can guess the result.

      • Agreed. For some strange reason, whenever I see a flurry of Appell posts on this side of the great divide, the image that invariably comes to my mind is that of an Indiana Bones and Raiders of the Lost Spark😉
        This thread is no exception.

    • From the abstract of the 2nd paper:
      “Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature”
      However, the most reliable continuous temperature estimates based on well understood, reproducible physics, namely those from ice cores and in particular those from Greenland and Antarctica, show that current temperatures are in the lowest 5% of the whole Holocene. That’s quite a discrepancy and therefore (at least) one of these must be wrong.
      I know where I put my money.

    • Patterns of writing are really interesting, Mr Appell, you sound very much like a certain HOG137 who writes on Telegraph blogs. or maybe its just the alarmist style.

      • The alarmist style works; otherwise why would it be the determining factor behind the ‘propaganda by press release’ hyperbole?
        The book by William Sargant titled “Battle for the Mind” documents the conclusion of research by psychologists that statements which raise fear and anxiety facilitate conversion of people to a desired belief without the benefit of evidence.

    • Hmm. The rest of your posts simply degenerate into ad hominem attacks. Why, if the evidence is so compelling, did you feel the need to do that, rather than simply pointing to the evidence?

    • Think you for illustrating why I am a CAGW skeptic. Mann’s hockey stick has been proven false, as in randomized data always produces a hockey stick using his methods. Now, you quote studies that get the same result. What are the odds that a mistake is made that generates a certain result and that result is actually correct for something as complicated as climate reconstruction. Pretty astronomical. I would posit that the follow on studies instead suffer from conformation bias. That is a more likely scenario. Even if the other studies are correct they do not validate his methods or results. The correct result on a math problem with a mistake in the arithmetic proves nothing. Your attempt to defend this only confirms your bias.

      • I’m sorry, but I couldn’t resist. … the follow on studies instead suffer from conformation bias. (My emphasis)
        The reference earlier to sheep (as one style of AGW-er) came to mind when I saw this. Either a masterly pun, with both words being appropriate, or your keyboard is very savvy!

    • David – the major problem with all of this work is making sweeping statements based on little or no actual data.
      Before 1979 we have NO global data. Most of the missing data is filled in by using proxy data. PROXY DATA IS NOT REAL DATA.
      Where there is no data, many model have no problem using proxy data from 1200 km away. If we apply this “logic” to situations we know, is the temperature in London the same as the temperature in Nice? Is the temperature in Salt Lake City, Utah, the same as Phoenix Arizona.

    • Kudos to WUWT for allowing junk like this to appear relatively unmoderated. Appell’s commentary is obnoxious, but it allows insight into the arrogant, closed-minded world of the AGW political animal.

      • OTOH, trolls go away quicker if we don’t feed them. Refuse to engage. The “peer” of a bozo is another bozo, he’ll go find his own tribe.

        • Goldrider writes “trolls go away quicker if we don’t feed them”
          We are feeding each other. On this page exist many links to useful information. It hardly matters that Dave Appell will ignore it.

      • Trolls like David should always be responded to with facts. Once everyone has seen that they have nothing but lies and attitude they usually go away, because there opinion no longer receives the status they believe they deserve. I’m sure we can all remember some of the trolls of past years that acted like David, but eventually they realized no one was fooled and everyone here had already seen all their ‘factlet’ disproven time and again.

    • Nice, clever if misleading response. The math is not the primary issue.
      Math techniques cannot be wrong, but there could be human error in using them, so using multiple techniques is a way of verifying mathematical results. However the issues concern the data and how it was used. In other words, the conceptual entities put into the math can be wrong. In Mann’s case ridiculously so.
      2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples.
      However 2 toasters + 2 helicopters does not equal 4 juice blenders. If you double checked the math with multiple calculators you would find the math sound, unfortunately the answer remains stupid.
      Any kind of analyst would focus on the actual criticism, a politician or used car salesman uses misdirection. Thanks for showing us where you stand.

    • David writes stuff then concludes “Blog comments don’t count — as this blog shows every day, blogs are often full of sh!t.”
      You said it well but I wonder if you exclude yourself?
      “Mann et al’s hockey stick work has been replicated by many different groups”
      Of course. Same data, same method, same result (hopefully). M&M show that it is the training of the model that produces the hockey stick (at least to a substantial degree), specifically using principle components analysis in such a way that the components chosen tend naturally to produce hockey sticks.
      “Nature” or “Scientific American” are part of the problem. Scientific American online banned me for commenting similarly on Michael Mann’s offer of data and model. Of course you will get the same result unless your computer is broken. Climategate showed that Nature isn’t publishing the whole story.
      Wikipedia: Nature Geoscience is a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal published by the Nature Publishing Group. The editor-in-chief is Heike Langenberg.
      Wikipedia: In the fall of 2008, Scientific American was put under the control of Nature Publishing Group, a division of Holtzbrinck. (that is to say, neither scientific nor American).
      I haven’t seen “” before; a quick look reveals “Sexist thermostats, fighting climate change, and more” Yeah, not very scientific I think.
      So what about that editor-in-chief? “Company Description: Nature found that hurricanes have become 50% stronger over the past 30 years. These upswings correlate with a rise in sea surface temperatures”
      The problem ought to be obvious. SST rise is barely detectable and hurricanes simply have not become 50 percent stronger over the past 30 years.

      • “Same data, same method, same result”
        Actually they didn’t all use the same method. But since they ended up using the same data, they got the same results. Had they eliminated the dodgy proxies (Bristle-cone pines, inverted Tiljander, etc).they wouldn’t have gotten the results Mann did. The problem with Mann’s original method is that it chooses the proxies which match the recent period of rising temperatures and these often have problems which eliminate them as good proxies. The bristle-cones, for instance, rely on strip-bark trees and they show an increase in recent growth because of physical and not climactic conditions. E.g. the root system is more or less intact but only a small part of the bark is still alive and it grows fast to supply nutrients to the growing crown of the tree. These trees should never have been used as temperature proxies. But many of the team still use them. This analysis is irrefutable and until David Appell admits it, he’s not worth listening to. Of course, if he does admit it, all the “reconstructions” of Mann’s hockey stick disappear.

        • daved46 writes “The problem with Mann’s original method is that it chooses the proxies which match the recent period of rising temperatures and these often have problems which eliminate them as good proxies.”
          I have studied this phenomenon quite a bit with some of my comments elsewhere relevant. My specialty is electronics, audio and radio signals specifically; a similar phenomenon exist but of course at a considerably shorter time scale. I recognize the shape on an oscilloscope. Feed in white noise (or “red noise”), set the trigger anwhere but zero, and presto, instant hockey stick. The trigger ensures synchronization (“correlation”) at a moment in time but everywhere else the multiple wavetrains partially or entirely cancel.

      • “Actually they didn’t all use the same method.”
        They all do. That is kind of the point. Select on the dependent variable, weight due to correlation, and average.
        This is fundamental to almost all reconstructions. Arguing over things like PCA is kind of like arguing over the differences between Pepsi and Coke.
        Both Burger and Stockwell showed quit simply and clearly why the fundamental method behind all statistical reconstructions tends towards hockey sticks.

    • Marcotte was forced to admit his study didn’t show that. He was demolished IIRC by Climate Audit and had to backtrack. Scientific American, once great, is irredeemably debased. And take a look at the hockey stick: the year (1998) it came out was the first year of the global warming ‘pause’ (hiatus) which has lasted for over 18 yrs, so the hockey stick blade has been bent back down to horizontal for longer than the warming of the satellite era 79-97. You would have to turn such a hockey stick upside down to shoot a puck, now.

    • Repeating something using the same falsified techniques will not unsurprisingly yield the same failed results.
      Defending falsified results by repeating over and over that the results are robust only makes Mr. Appell look rather slow.

    • Independent mathematical techniques? You mean when they utilize either Mann’s mysterious code or the products of Mann’s mysterious code?
      No they did not. Nor have the majority of scientists accepted Mann’s claim that the MWP or the Roman WP were strictly regional.
      Peer review does not guarantee, certify or even make science.
      As Einstein pointed out, all it takes is for anyone to identify and prove an error. One error makes for a falsified theory and erroneous research.
      Every study you’ve pointed to has had multiple errors identified. ClimateAudit is just the easiest place to review and understand the errors as McIntyre has a gift for simple succinct direct yet very detailed accurate statements.

    • Appell, you’re an idiot. Just about a week ago you were spreading your climate blather all over the Oregonian in an article here about El Ninio:
      Where you insisted the “adjusted” temperatures done by NOAA were accurate and valid even though many have published here stating otherwise. When I pointed that out to you, your response was that anything I state has to come from a source “better than WU-WOT” . In other words, you completely dismiss any data or articles that come from this blog even though it comes from the same sources used by all in “climate science”.Yet here you are today, attempting to defend the indefensible on WUWT with respect to Michael Mann, a thoroughly discredited scientist just like yourself on this blog that you have bad mouthed and trashed at every opportunity you get.
      Why do you care about what the people that publish on and read this blog think about climate? Most know your opinions and I have discredited and debunked them many times on other blogs so as to correct the nonsense about climate and CO2 that you spread.
      You would do much better speaking to scientific illiterates elsewhere like you normally do. Perhaps on a site like “Hot Whoppers”, authored by a middle aged know nothing in science with no credentials who has nothing more than a “feeling” that those like yourself must be right about CO2 and climate.
      Chuck Wiese

      • Great post, Chuck. Appell is just the sort of egotistical, conceited, opinionated idiot that would gravitate towards a guy like Mann, who likes baiting people he thinks he’ll never run into face to face – and it’s also why he focuses his comments towards the laymen on the board, rather than yours.
        PS: I catch you on Lars, from time to time – always enjoy it.

    • My property in Michigan was under one to two miles of ice 15,000 years ago.
      There is no ice now.
      I know for sure that coal power plants and SUVs did not start that warming, and could not possibly have caused more than a few tenths of a degree of that warming, although even that few tenths of a degree would be speculation, based on an unproven theory.
      The Mann hockey stick chart was heavily publicized, and later found to be a fraud — that’s why you beloved IPCC does not use it anymore — and that’s why Mann should have been fired and ignored.
      The Mann hockey stick used an inappropriate climate proxy, and then truncated the data because that proxy showed cooling in recent decades, rather than the warming the “author” wanted to show.
      Other measurements were spliced onto the truncated proxy data, with no footnote on the chart stating TWO completely different measurements had been spliced together for the chart, with huge differences in the years where the two data sources overlapped — one measurement cooling while the other was warming — was simply not shown, because Mann is a smarmy scientific fraud, who sues everyone stating that obvious fact..
      I won’t try to reason with you anymore, because I realize global warming is a secular religion for you, based on your beliefs … and I know people with strong beliefs ignore contrary data, and character attack non-believers.
      I hope someday you are able to shed your religion and think clearly:
      Earth’s climate is always warming or cooling,
      more CO2 in the air is good news for green plants,
      and warming is good news for humans.
      The false demonization of CO2 is similar to prior false demonizations of DDT, acid rain, hole in the ozone layer, etc — all false boogeymen used to scare people and then tell them how to live. All now forgotten because they stopped scaring people, which was the only goal. Well, I suppose millions of people who died from malaria while DDT was still banned never forgot.
      It’s sad that you will live your life fearing a climate catastrophe in the future when, in fact, the climate has been getting better since 1850, when CO2 was too low for rapid plant growth, and the average temperature was unusually cool.
      So you live in fear of the false climate boogeyman … which has been “coming” for 40 years so far … like a frightened child scared of an imaginary monster … while completely failing to notice humans and plants on our planet are healthier than ever ! If believing in the climate change boogeyman is not the definition of a delusion, then I don’t know what is !
      For non-scientists with open minds,
      who would like to learn a little
      about Earth’s climate, I offer a free,
      no-ad, no sign-in, climate change blog,
      with no wild-guess predictions
      of a future climate catastrophe to scare people:

    • Yes, David Appell? Real live climate scientists have replicated Mann’s work? Every morning, after my second cup of coffee, I replicate the food I’d eaten the day before and get the same results as Mann.

    • “Actually, Mann et al’s “hockey stick” work has been replicated by many different groups”
      I hope that all of the liars, charlatans and hacks identify themselves so readily.
      Easier to sort things out at the reckoning.

    • When you use invalid methods, you get invalid results.
      So what if other activists using equally invalid methods reproduced the result.
      The result itself has been discredited so many times, that only the terminally discredited try to resurrect it.

    • David Appell
      We don’t need to argue about what is in Mann’s hockey paper. It has been shown that tree rings don’t reflect past temperatures. (Ever hear of “hide the decline”. That work has been extended.) Therefore arguments about the results Mann got or the techniques he used to obtain those results are pointless. His starting data was worthless — making the whole hockey stick exercise worthless.
      And Michael Mann knew his starting data was worthless when he wrote the paper. He wrote it up anyway hiding his knowledge about the worthlessness of his data. I call that fraud.
      Eugene WR Gallun

    • Funny that they couldn’t “replicate” it when congress asked, David.
      “CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, and not be substantiated by what you
      purport to be the facts but have we established–we know that
      Dr. Wegman has said that Dr. Mann’s methodology is incorrect. Do
      you agree with that? I mean, it doesn’t mean Dr. Mann’s
      conclusions are wrong, but we can stipulate now that we have–and if
      you want to ask your statistician expert from North Carolina that
      Dr. Mann’s methodology cannot be documented and cannot be verified
      by independent review.
      DR. NORTH. Do you mind if he speaks?
      CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, if he would like to come to the
      MR. BLOOMFIELD. Thank you. Yes, Peter Bloomfield. Our
      committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his coworkers
      and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate.
      We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented
      at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.”
      “MR. WALDEN. Now, in the Wall Street Journal article too,
      they make a reference to a McIntyre and McKitrick critique,
      and I guess, have you reviewed that one, Dr. North
      DR. NORTH. Oh, I am familiar with their work and, in fact,
      Mr. McIntyre is here. He will be testifying later.
      MR. WALDEN. Did he present to your panel?
      DR. NORTH. Yes, he did. And in fact–
      MR. WALDEN. Can their data be replicated or the results
      be replicated?
      DR. NORTH. Well, what they did was a critical study,
      somewhat like the Wegman report, and I think they did an
      honest job. It was a nice piece of work.
      MR. WALDEN. Dr. Wegman–
      DR. NORTH. I have no complaint about what they did.
      MR. WALDEN. In terms of replicating data or replicating
      studies, my understanding is, it is difficult to replicate
      the Mann study but it was possible to replicate the
      McIntyre and McKitrick study. ‘
      And if they they don’t know which way is up for the proxies, how can they possibly corroborate anything, David Appel?

    • David Appell (@davidappell)
      August 7, 2015 at 12:14 am
      “Actually, Mann et al’s “hockey stick” work has been replicated by many different groups, some using independent mathematical techniques:”
      Hello David.
      What you say above is not quite right or even reasonable, as far as I can tell, actually is more like a logical fallacy.
      You see most of the links you refer to are not actually works that tend to replicate the famous “hockey stick”.
      These works just happen to have a similar “hokey stick” as a consequence, and the main thing about this effect is that probably it tells from the first look that these works are no any better than the M. Mann “hockey stick”
      Most of these works you refer to, are attempts to reconstruct paleo climate to some other new liking, not actual attempts on replicating what you claim these works replicate.
      For lack of better way to describe it, you seem to argue in the bases of what is known as a “circular reasoning” or a “circular logic”.
      These works don’t prove the “validity” of the M.Mann “travesty”…….and most probably any such works are “travesties” too, especially while with same look- alike as that of M.Mann.
      And comparisons as per your above claim, do no any good to these groups you mention, and their works.
      It simply lowers the credibility on such works since from the first approach, at first face value assessment.
      Besides, to me your argument has no substance or a coherent reasoning……….sorry really, but honestly that is what I think.
      Is simply like hanging desperately at straws. (if that will clarify it better for you)..

    • The problem with Mann’s Hockey Stick isn’t the math (which is actually kinda cool), but the data used (tree ring) and the assumptions made.

    • To construct the hockey-stick plot, Mann, Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona analyzed paleoclimatic data sets such as those from tree rings, ice cores and coral, joining historical data with thermometer readings from the recent past”
      That statement from your own poorly written article shows everyone that Mann’s ‘hockey-stick’ is bogus. Tree rings, ice cores, and coral give ESTIMATES and are nowhere near fact. You are simply an AGW kook so full of himself it isn’t funny. Keep pretending that you understand climate dynamics. A clue for you, YOU DON’T.

    • Actually, Mann et al’s “hockey stick” work has been replicated by many different groups,

      The Jamaican Hockey Team?

    • Replicated by everything except reality. I do not remember seeing the current 18 year plateau in Manns Hockey Stick.

  2. Mann’s downfall is spewing the 3.0deg C ECS value. That lie shows he is not a scientist, but in reality Mann is a dogmatist for the CAGW cause.

    • It is often good to let fools talk. Especially you. So desperate. !! So irrelevant !
      And certainly funny to watch your continued INADEQUATE attempts at defence of the Mann FARCE !!

      • “I comment here all the time, usually using a pseudonym. And none of you ever realize it.”
        Gee aren’t you a smart guy.

      • “And none of you ever realize it.””
        And none of us care !!
        You can big-note yourself as much as you feel you need to, to boost your pathetic inferiority complex….
        .. but you will always be a low-end journalist and a scientific non-entity.

      • “And none of you ever realize it.”
        Oh dear, he’s clearly outsmarted us all. Maybe we should just acknowledge his superior intellect and give up on this whole d*nier thing.

      • Appell’s behavior very much is like another Climate Liar who faked blog entries under Dr Motl’s good reputation.

      • “I comment here all the time, usually using a pseudonym. And none of you ever realize it.”
        Yes, how silly of readers here not to be omniscient mind readers, capable of discerning the true identity of a random post from a pseudonym using commenter.

      • The truth is that Mr. Appell’s opinions regarding the identity of a person as bearing on the veracity or relevance of the things a person asserts, is false. As false as false can be.
        Truth is not influenced by identity.
        A layperson who speaks verifiable facts is correct, and a PhD who lies is incorrect.
        It is as simple as that.
        The physical reality of the atmosphere, or of any other thing, is not influenced by polls or popular opinions, is not subject to being more or less real depending on who says what, which way the political wind is blowing, or how much the people who describe this objective reality are or are not getting paid for their opinions.

    • You carry on David, your ridiculous comments make this even funnier.. Just think, this is one of the most popular scientifics blogs on the web, and (in my opinion) you have made a complete twat of yourself to the whole world. So carry on, this is fun fun fun,

      • David Appell (@davidappell) August 7, 2015 at 1:48 am

        False — I’ve lost count of the number of people who’ve said they are censored and banished here.

        Give us names.
        If they turn out to all be anti-semites then we may understand the policy.
        If they turn out to be 14year old Typing Tourette’s sufferers then we may understand the policy.
        And if they turn out to be unnameable then we will understand you’re exaggerating.

      • Exactly. I was banned from DailyKOS in about three hours. I lasted at Scientific American a bit longer. Leftist blogs simply do not tolerate dissent; that is the essence of being left wing or socialist — hive mind, groupthink, social compliance.

      • There is the simple statement about Apple’s math skill. He couldn’t count past his fourth finger when he ran out of names.

      • Yes, I made one comment at the Guardian, politely asking a question, and was banned and one comment at Real Climate suggesting climate change was natural, I was banned there too.
        The climate science Cardinals keep the congregation isolated from alternative views through censorship. It’s important that Appell has the opportunity to post here because he comes across as rather silly.

    • I decry the ad hominems — from both sides (see above). But we do not censor anything that conforms with blog policy. Disagreement with or support of Dr. Mann does not constitute violation of blog policy.

    • You know you are hurting them when the bad Appell makes an appearance.
      So, so funny to watch his desperation. 🙂
      Appell’s site is certainly the Dept of OOPS !!
      A FARCE , of irrelevant PROPAGANDA mis-information.
      JUNK !!
      that is all he has.

    • ahhh now the truth unfolds, you have just come here to publiscise your website to try and get a few cents worht of traffic. Still, I doubt your book will be a best seller likes Watts and co book IS ,,, HA HA HA HA HA

    • Awesome blog David, not one comment on the story you linked to in 30 days. David, if your blog site was a private business and a comment was deemed to be a cash transaction and you didn’t have one sale in 30 days, you would be declaring bankruptcy soon enough due to the lack of cash flow.
      David, your ‘customers’ aren’t buying your ‘product’ because they deem your product to be faulty, poor quality and they generally distrust the seller (you) to provide a good service in general.

      • Agreed Craig.
        When free news and discussion is too expensive for the subscription price, the blog site falls back to trying to scam people into visiting.
        Classic symptom of the flim flam biased bloggert.

    • Look at this book : Climate Change: The Facts Paperback – April 21, 2015 Ranking
      Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,664 in Books
      Now compare with this: The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines
      Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #399,497 in Books
      So we know who is more popular in the charts. Anthony and Co’s book is rompinig ahead of Manns laughable attempt. Anthony is in the top 2000 books sold on Amazon while Mann is just inside the top 400000 Heh

      • Just noticed this …
        Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #265,786 Paid in Kindle Store
        That is for Brandon’s ‘The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Introduction to the Hockey Stick’
        That is higher than Mann’s effort, so perhaps it is Mann that needs a new publisher LOL

    • davidappell: the-department-of-oops-case-number-2
      To the tune of “Stuck in the Middle with You”
      Well I don’t know why I caused such a fright,
      I had the feeling that something ain’t right,
      I made a scare of some emails out there,
      And I’m wondering how my rep now will fare,
      Clowns to the left of me,
      Jokers to the right, here I am,
      Stuck in Yamal on a yew.
      Yes I’m stuck in Yamal on a yew,
      The “threats” were against kangaroos,
      It’s so hard to get this egg off my face,
      I’ll say, “Someone invaded their space!”
      Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right,
      Here I am, stuck in Yamal on a yew.

  3. How can they replicate something where data is dubious -splicing, to say the least- and procedures, formulae and computer programming is dubious as well or even withheld?
    Even if they got full, unlimited access to the procedures and they use them w/o questioning on a 1:1 basis of the very same data as their predecessor did, the results must be identical.
    If I repeat somebody else’s mistake, the result will be identical – and as faulty and flawed as the original.

      • David Appell (@davidappell)
        August 7, 2015 at 12:14 am
        Actually, Mann et al’s “hockey stick” work has been replicated by many different groups, some using independent mathematical techniques:

        >b>A little bit self-contradictory totay?
        bold in the blockquote = mine

      • You use the word replicated and say “some” are using different mathematical methods. So, yes someone is saying replicating and that someone is you.

    • Sorry, it was a reply to
      “David Appell (@davidappell)
      August 7, 2015 at 12:14 am
      Actually, Mann et al’s “hockey stick”…”

      • David Appell (@davidappell)
        August 7, 2015 at 12:43 am
        THey are using different mathematical techniques, as I wrote.
        You wrote at 12:14 am, “replicated by many different groups, SOME using independent mathematical techniques”. [my caps]
        Which means that you were saying that at least some were replicating using the same mathematical techniques. (If not the majority, as you didn’t say “most” or even “many”)
        Which does indeed contradict your statement at 12:36 am that “No one is “replicating.””

      • after sneering at someone and calling them Einstein” youre really in no position to argue.
        Now, going to threaten to report me for harassing you?

    • Dahlquist
      If you don’t agree what someone says, respond with the reasons why you don’t agree with his arguments, not what you think of him as person. Comments like yours only give real skeptics a bad name…

      • @Ferdinand
        Apologies Friend. It just got my goat and I made the mistake of giving David Appell more significance than he deserves. I will follow your good advice and not give in to temptation, after my last at 1:18am.

      • “I don’t see you having any knowledge of the science either.”
        Well you certainly aren’t likely to contribute any !!!

      • ” Scientific insights are few and far between….”
        how would you know.???..
        you wouldn’t recognise a scientific insight if it kicked you in the b***s

      • I know, Andy, because I’ve read your comments here and elsewhere, like NoTricks Zone. They are invariably flippant and without scientific substance. In fact, I’ve never see you make a scientifically serious comment anywhere…..

      • Your low-end journalism is shining through.. empty rhetoric.
        You wouldn’t recognise science if it kicked in the cajones.

      • “I’ve never see you make a scientifically serious comment anywhere…..”
        From you , that is totally hilarious .. Appell self-projection, MUCH !!!
        A low end journalist making comments about the science in someone else’s comments .. so funny !!! :- ) 🙂

  4. Good news , keep him in the sport light , keep him under pressure and his massive ego will do much good work for the very people and ideas he hates.
    Meanwhile how are his various court cases going , is he still ducking and divining for all his worth , rather than getting into a actual court ?

      • I’m still looking for an explanation of the geological record. Eras when Plant Food (CO2) concentration was high in the atmosphere and yet global temperatures were cool. Or when Plant Food (CO2) concentration was low in the atmosphere and yet global temperatures were warm.

      • Only a total moron thinks that TSI is the only facet of solar output.
        But then, you have always been a total moron.

      • “I don’t see you having any knowledge of the science either.”
        From you, a low end science fiction journalist , that is the height of irony. !!

      • “I don’t see you having any knowledge of the science either.”
        How on earth would you deduce this ? You make assumptions, as you have with the hockeystick. Why not read some papers that dispute the hockeystick before claiming you are right. Because if you understand science as you claim to, you would know that to be scientific is to be sceptical.
        I quote.
        “The idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.” Richard Feynman.
        Could you pass that quote on the to Mike ‘hide the decline’ Mann please.

      • What in a comment that had nothing to do with the science but instead reviewed the way Mann’s massive ego is so often counter-productive to his own cause therefore how further public exposer that likley to be a good thing for sceptics , and asked what the situation was regards the various court cases he has started but oddly seems to rather desperate to avoid actually going to court with, you saw no science, well that proves you not blind and stupid .
        The difference Mann’s work is actual supposed to be ‘science’ but it is not .

      • Please provide peer reviewed substantiation for your assertion that the output of the sun varies by approximately 9% IN EITHER DIRECTION for every billion years one looks back.
        That would be a variance of 18% or so over two billion years. The + or – is very interesting…you are claiing the sun may have been ten percent brighter or more di 1.1 BYA!
        This is quite an extraordinary day.
        I will call all of my astrophysics friends to make further inquiries.
        We all await your link to the sources of your assertion.
        Thanks in advance.

      • ““I don’t see you having any knowledge of the science either.”
        How on earth would you deduce this ?”
        I was just about to make a similar inquiry.
        Apparently one must have extrasensory perceptions in order to be an effective CAGW proponent.
        Imagine being able to discern the complete educational experience and sum total of the knowledge base of a person from a single typed sentence on a website comment section!

  5. David Appell (@davidappell)
    August 7, 2015 at 12:14 am
    Actually, Mann et al’s “hockey stick” work has been replicated by many different groups, some using independent mathematical techniques:…

    David Appell (@davidappell)
    August 7, 2015 at 12:43 am
    THey are using different mathematical techniques, as I wrote.
    Maybe you should read the actual papers before dismissing them?

    To make it quite clear:
    It was you who said they were “replicating” in your initial posting.
    What, in your world, means “many”? Ever heard about “Hundred Authors against Einstein”?
    You were talking about “different groups” first, followed by “independent mathematical techniques”. Then you say they were using “different mathematical techniques”.
    When you say “some using independent mathematical techniques” that implies that others did not. So these either used techniques that are not independent or, worse, the same as that Mann.
    Maybe you should start thinking before posting self-contradictions and muddy the waters?

      • David Appell:
        If one honest scientist is forever “contaminated in your mind” by receiving 25,000.00 one time from one conservative think tank for research in one area, how many government so-called “scientists” can you buy for 92 billion dollars in three years to support the international banking industry desperate for 31 trillion dollars in carbon-trading schemes and one political party that needs 1.3 trillion dollars a year in new carbon taxes?
        Who were the “unbiased” so-called “peers” that reviewed and approved Mann’s original one-tree-fits-all Yamal data for publication? How much have these anonymous “readers” of an error-plagued paper received for THEIR contribution to the banker’s 31 trillion dollars in needless taxes on the poor worldwide?
        WHO were these so-called “peers” of Mann that reviewed the “supporting” papers that so suddenly came out of the wordwork factories elsewhere right after Mann’s work was falsified as a fraud? Prove to us that Mann did NOT himself review and approve and arrange funding for those very people who subsequently read and approved – or wrote! – those “magical” papers that baptized his work.
        We know Mann arranged 3 million in malaria research climate-funded federal grants for Penn State’s “disease” studies group right as Penn State was deciding their case. How much did Mann get for these other writers-of-lost-causes from the taxpayers?
        Circumstantial evidence only requires method, motive, opportunity – and when looking at Mann, you can add a history of hos own past actions to that list – to convict a felon of the crime of fraud. Or a self-selected, so-called “climate scientist”

      • I agree with RACook. You can show them the evidence and they still will not listen…
        Eric Scott Hunsader ‏@nanexllc 10h10 hours ago
        Here’s Bloomberg gushing over MIDAS and its wonders
        Nice reporting guys
        @business @BloombergTV
        Embedded image permalink
        3 retweets 5 favorites
        Reply Retweet3 Favorite5
        Eric Scott Hunsader ‏@nanexllc 10h10 hours ago
        Nearly TWO YEARS ago, we told the SEC EXACTLY what to look for. And we put it in writing:

      • So you admit you used the word “replicate” to describe some researcher’s work that, in your opinion,verify mann’s conclusions?

    • All the “97%” say is that man has introduced some warming. But I agree with that, myself. So do the lukewarmers, who have been kicking ass and taking names in the journals. Next time you hear 97%, ask yourself what the 97% are actually saying.

  6. Wow, this guy David Appell is a tedious individual, not surprising that this is the alarmists’ favourite expression, “Dont confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up.”

    • I’ve presented far more facts here than you have. So why don’t you at least try?
      (Reply: The central ‘fact’ is that there has been no global warming at all for almost 20 years now. That fact debunks the “man-made global warming” hoax. ~mod.)

      • Facts? what facts have you presented ? you have ‘presented’ a few links to your blog and what else ? maybe links to a few scientific journals. But remember scientfic papers are not facts. They are hypotheses. If you believe scientific papers are facts, then you have a problem and it may blur your reporting of ‘facts’

      • To quote an article one has written himself and declare that a “fact” is, well, pretty perky.

      • Mod.. the reality is that apart from the NON-CO2 forced El Nino/La Nina ocean energy release between 1997 and early 2001 (about 0.26C atmospheric warming) there has been BASICALLY NO WARMING in the whole of the satellite record.
        The slight warming trend before has been almost totally cancelled out by the slight cooling trend since.
        There is ZERO CO2 WARMING SIGNATURE in the satellite record.

      • David Appell (@davidappell), you still haven’t apologised for your error in claiming that Mann’s hockeystick was supported by Marcott.
        Indeed, you didn’t even seem to understand you were wrong until you came here to be educated.
        So a little less haughtiness and a little more respect for those who disagree with you would be polite. There is always more to learn if you’re curious and open-minded.

      • So far I dont think you have represented a single relevant fact or posted a credit worthy link.
        You say you are a regular on here so you will be aware that all Manns work has been represented, discussed/debated and for the most part debunked.
        Insisting that everyone should read Manns not scientifically produced, sensationalised and very narrowly researched findings yet again would mean that you have produced some sort of new credibility with your quotes and references, and then have been able to substantially back up what you have written.
        so far everything else has been entirely rhetorical and without substance. I cannot support those that have resorted to ad hominems, but your continued refusal to engage on any sort of scientific level brings out the worst in those that are unable to keep to decent language – a pity as it lets you off the hook.
        My understanding however is that using any kind of ‘independant mathmatical technique’ is modelling not paleocimate reconstruction – so yet again your own statements are self critical.
        I really dont think anyone is going to engage with a subject that has been covered over and over again unless you can actually write down why you agree with what he produced. If you can actually write a fact that is of merit you may be surprised how the more reasonably minded here will engage with you (surely even you can ignore the insults as you seem pretty good at dishing them out). Claiming that anyone who disagrees with you hasnt read his work is weak to say the least as I doubt very much that you have read any of the debunking science either……… tell me, why are you here??

      • Please enumerate these presented “facts”.
        If you can.
        I say you cannot, because you have done nothing of the sort.

    • Non, you have to remember, DA is basically a self tarted-up science fiction journalist with minimal science training or understanding… as if I need to state the obvious !!
      He is mouth.. nothing more. !!!

      • We can’t typecast all journalists. There’s a need to separate the paid propagandists from those with integrity.
        “The role of the journalist is not to tell the public what the truth is – your role is to tell them what is going on, so that they can make their own informed decisions.” (Donna Laframboise)

  7. Here’s a link to a scientific result for you… If you pull your head out of your rectum, you may observe something other than your own bullshit.

  8. you want funny? go to bbc radio 4 “What’s the Point of…? The Met Office” program for 28-minutes of audio comedy (link is in anthony’s Tips&Notes comments if u can’t locate it) :
    7 Aug: Daily Mail: Christopher Booker: What a shower! The more money the Met Office gets, the more ludicrously inaccurate its doom-mongering on climate change
    Very surprisingly and somewhat boldly, on Wednesday morning Radio 4 put out a programme by the Mail’s Quentin Letts which ran flatly counter to the BBC’s normal party line on one of its very favourite subjects, global warming…
    One of the guests interviewed by Mr Letts was the veteran Tory politician and climate-change sceptic Peter Lilley, who proceeded to poke fun about how Met Office officials would lobby for ‘more money for bigger computers to be more precisely wrong in future’…
    Hilariously, the BBC’s former environment correspondent Richard Black protested that Mr Letts’s show had breached the BBC’s editorial rules by being so biased — when Mr Black’s own reporting on climate change could scarcely have been more shameless in breaking those same rules for years on end…READ ALL
    7 Aug: Spectator Blog: Damian Thompson: BBC ‘environment analyst’ (Roger Harrabin) explodes on Twitter as BBC presenter mocks Met Office’s climate prophecies
    Here are two tweets he (Roger Harrabin) sent out yesterday (links here and here):
    Letts asked Helen Chivers, Met Office head of news, about the 2004 global warming prediction. She said that knowledge of earth systems was still evolving ‘and things change over time’. There was no attempt to defend the 0.3 per cent prophecy – and Chivers even seemed to agree that the Met Office can be a bit alarmist at times.
    The programme’s conclusion was that the Met Office is jolly good at short-term forecasts, saving lives in the process, but that its comically inaccurate attempts to predict climate change are dangerously close to political lobbying…

    • Pat,
      Just a quick note to say thank you for that “BBC” information: it is very good to know that you keep tabs on the QUANGO (the BBC) and the Met Office, both of which are secured onto the Global Warming Gravy Train. You write with such clarity.
      They are both “pet hates” of mine. Many thanks indeed.

  9. @David Appell, you do know that this is a science site and that science is based on skepticism. If you don’t want to be questioned don’t enter the dialogue – or try twitter #I get up myself.

      • David: You need to read up about this site
        wuwt Best Science or Technology Weblog 2013 – web blog of the year
        wuwt: Best science blog
        So like it or lump it, it is a science blog … dont see many of the alarmist websites winning anything
        Why dont you see how your blog does, I am sure there are a few here that would put forward your site, then watch it fail to get anywhere.
        You have to have good content and be able to keep the number of viewers … So far this site has had upwards of 240 million views… So come on boy, show me a better science blog. If you care to look around here you will see links to official sites, such as NOAA NSIDC and a host of other pertinent climate data. But, you have to open your eyes. Once you start reading this stuff you may learn something and find it is an excellent resource for Climate science and information.

      • David Appell, perhaps the reason you haunt WUWT is because it is the only way you can satisfy your need for an audience, heavens knows you don’t achieve that at your blog.

    • DA, it is very sad that you do not recognise science when you see it.
      Whenever you appear.. science leaves.

      • In your own logic: if this is not a science site, you’d better go away.
        If this is a science site, you’d better go away as well, because you dont quite get it.

        You’ve all heard there’s no such thing as bad publicity. On the internet this is doubly true. When you link to a website — regardless of the reason — this strengthens its position in search engines. This means that a bad review of a website makes it more popular.

      • I don’t think a single link to one of David’s blog posts from several years ago is going to rocket his blog up the charts… of course when you’re as low as his is you never know.
        Regardless, please let us not start the whole ‘discuss a blog without ever linking to it’ nonsense. That’s the kind of bull places like Hotwhopper and other Alarmist sites pull. And if that isn’t a sign of how not to run your blog, what is.

    • OMG.. that was tongue in cheek you dozy moron.
      Aimed at Mann and all those other wannabe Nobels
      You seriously are off your meds today, aren’t you !!!

      • I wonder why it is that there are so many responses to this person’s rantings.
        Trolls should not be fed.

      • Excellent…..not just that DA took it out of context, but that he couldn’t determine the context. How is that possible for a journalist? Or he understood the context and he despicably used the quote as a surreptitious means to print a lie.

    • David,
      Marcott’s paper, like Mann’s hockey stick, are not the ones to cite if scientific credibility is important to you. Even the authors of the Marcott paper said
      “Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust and cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes”
      Marcott was trying to reconstruct global temperatures for the last 10,000 years. There are, obviously, no instrumental records going that far back – the thermometer wasn’t invented then. So, he had to use ’ proxies’ for temperature.
      The proxy which causes the problem is Alkenone; this is a chemical produced by plankton and the proportions of different types produced depend on the water temperature. Thus, alekenone recovered from sediment cores, taken from the sea bed, provide a way to determine water temperature in past times.
      Marcott et al examined alekenone samples from various locations, determined the sediment age by radio-carbon dating and then averaged the deduced temperatures to give a global mean.
      Marcott didsn’t drill the sediment cores himself of course, he relied on the published work of other researchers .
      The problem uncovered by Steve McIntyre is that on comparing the end dates for the series used by Marcott with the original end dates published by the researches he found that they have ‘changed’. Series which ended long before the present day are now included in the present day reconstruction and series with published end dates up to present have been excluded.
      If the published end dates are used rather than Marcott’s changed dates, then the uptick becomes a downtick
      You don’t really want to support that do you?

  10. WOW. I am surprised Anthony is allowing David Appell to post such drivel. Ah, maybe there is method in his madeness to allow David to post, just to show exactly the sort of person he is. Well done Anthony.

  11. …by virtue of having our names listed in IPCC reports…

    The true background is being mentioned without being asked. More important, it was not abused in legal proceedings so that a member of the Nobel Committee had to repudiate it. That’s a shame.

  12. Sorry, I am not very clear on this. What does it matter if Mann’s hockey stick has been replicated and confirmed? Maybe there was no global Roman or bronze age warming, maybe the LIA was a local event, but the warming is not happening today as predicted. The longer the pause continues, the less likely the hockey stick.
    If your theory does not agree with measurement then your theory is wrong. In time the hockey stick must either be discarded, proven true or we all agree to use the new-science, based on consensus rather than experiment.

  13. I’m also surprised that Dahlquist’s obscene comments have survived moderation. Never seen that kind of stuff survive here. Does not make any converts to the common sense usually supplied on WattsUp.

    • Agreed, Pete. But DQ at 1:27 promised to reform, and I don’t see that he’s fallen off the wagon yet. Still, it would be fool to clean up the record….

  14. I don’t have the time today to read all the comments as I have to trot off to school and do a little work, but I will read all when I get back I hope.
    In the mean time, would someone please tell me if they have ever seen David Appell and Mike Mann in the same room at the same time? Seems like Mr. Appell is going to great lengths to defend a totally debunked “scientist”. ( see a retired statistician named Steve McIntyre for more details)

    • I wonder if he realise the damage he does to the alarmista cause whenever he goes on a rant ?
      Having everybody laughing at him is not a good way to promote his religion . 🙂
      His handlers/carers should have a good talk to him once his meds have stabilised his mental condition .

  15. I want David to identify all those tree-rings, showing warming temperatures in recent decades in the NH.
    Then we can know whether or not “tree-mometers” make valid temperature records, regardless of CO2 levels.

    • Good question Orson – come on David – surely there is some ‘other’ tree ring data stream of multiple tree ring readings that supports Michael Manns hockey stick, seeing multiple tree ring data sources from around the world to support a world wide point of view from MM would be very interesting

  16. The people here have allowed a troll to dominate the thread with 4th grade playground banter – a big time waster for all. Ignoring the troll would have been much more helpful.

      • Ric Werme
        August 7, 2015 at 5:19 am
        The comment stream doesn’t seem all that funny. In fact, it’s a pretty lousy way to start off Friday.

        Come on, have a cup of vinegar for a start. Some people are different….

    • Indeed, nice place midst of the Lofoten where the last trolls are living. Have been there with my family many years ago with a trip from Svolvær. They didn’t keep us there…

    • Sorry, that is the Trollfjord where I was speaking of, Trollshavn is a different place…
      No problem, more places in Norway where we can send trolls to live in peace with their neighborhood…

      • Iceland, too, is renowned for its Troll Population. And there are Skeptics, which are called Elves…**GG**

    • Neckbeard net nuisances SHOULD be sent to Trollshavn! (Oh wait, ‘shavn’ probably means ‘haven’, not ‘shaving’)

  17. I take it that David Appell had his medication some time after 2:07 am or did his mummy send him to bed.

    • I would hope that Appell would correct his own errors first. Like not knowing the difference between deg C and deg F, and not knowing the difference between daily high and low temps.

      • You have to realise that Appell is a sort of low-end journalist, trying to make a living writing climate farce in a back-water newspaper of some sort. He has very little scientific or mathematical understanding, as is obvious for all to see.
        He is desperately trying to find some relevance to his baseless existence… and hasn’t yet realised that what he does here is even more worthless and demeaning to him than his day job.

  18. Always entertaining to see people defending the idea that there was no MWP or LIA as a worldwide event. They ask themselves why the very extensive written records are never consulted. Maybe they just don’t want to believe what they say. 😉

  19. The hockey stick was down to a cherry pick, added to previous data that showed a decline during the very same period.
    One tree showed significant warming, the rest in the region didn’t. Anybody can verify one reading, but nobody with any science knowledge should even think that it represents the entire Northern hemisphere without very good evidence. To make matters even worse, other trees in the region didn’t even support the cherry pick.

    • Erm, except the Yamal reconstruction was published several years AFTER the Hockey Stick papers.
      Dr Mann is many things, including a recipient of the Hans Oeschger Medal.
      A time traveller, not so much.

  20. Bill Maher is praise narcissist for the yound college age and naive and the European mainstream. He baits his snares with comments in enviro/scientific and gender/racial issues he has no experience or real knowledge of whatsoever and of course the ever original patting Europe on it’s back for its progressiveness while bashing his own countrymen ad hominem. He lives in ultimate bubble of cushy delusion and political correctness yet claims to be the exact opposite. He is painfully politically correct. Quite possibly the most irresponsible and sloppy political commentator of our current times imo. Naturally his chosen guest will fit right into his narrative and level of honesty. Everybody get their vomit bags ready if they plan to watch.

    • And it could be pointed out by some that his stance on Islamism isn’t much different than Mark Steyn’s. (Please see above re: Steyn’s supposed “Islamaphobia”.

  21. Should have know Appell (or someone like him) would show up to defend the indefensible (Mann and the Hockey stick)

  22. Has he gone home now ? Havent had so much fun since the ship of fools.
    Why dont more of those alarmist types come here for a whipping?

    • To be fair Trenberth claims a number of things which are not true such has there is ‘missing heat ‘ and he practices science, so its normal for him.

    • Yep. But it isn’t that blunt stunt that the abominable trickster Mann delivered. And, afaik, he didn’t vapour in court with it. The Nobel Committee, too, remained unmolested as well with that bout of vanity.

      • The issue is not Amazon, they can’t check or adjudicate the credentials every author might put on their site.
        The issue is as it always has been that Mann is a dishonest little twerp with illusions of grandeur.

  23. On the local front Appell is regularly spewing his activist’s version of science.
    Appell has no learning curve. By choice.
    David Appell
    @Chuck Wiese – No, more CO2 is only a tiny feedback to warming caused by water vapor.
    CO2 warming increases the saturation vapor pressure of water vapor. (See the Clausius Claperyon equation.)
    Chuck Wiese
    @David Appell : You are incompetent in basic atmospheric science. Would this be so with respect to the oceans, Appell?
    If CO2 warming causes the saturation vapor pressure of the atmosphere to increase, then why does the thermodynamics of vaporization require that to step the wet bulb temperature up one degree C or 80 degF to 81.8 degF requires an ambient air temperature of 2.62 times the step in wet bulb temperature to re-saturate it? And this is not linear by the Clausius/ Clypeyron equation. As the wet bulb temperature increases, the ambient ratio continues to increase as more heat becomes necessary to evaporate water from the surface.
    Since the ambient air tracks with the ocean surface temperatures, where is the heat energy coming from to increase the saturation vapor pressure of the air? It is being used up as the latent heat of vaporization, Appell and can do no such thing to the atmosphere above the oceans. And when the latent heat is released back to the troposphere in the hydrological cycle, clouds are formed which blocks incoming shortwave. A negative feed back.
    Chuck Wiese

    • Perhaps since not a single amicus brief from in or out of the field of science was filed on Dr Mann’s behalf, perhaps David Appell might take a “stand for science” and file a brief on Mann’s behalf.
      At least then Mann would have 1 brief on his side.

      • Maybe Mann asked him not to help. Just like I do when my 2 year-old niece wants to “help” me use the table saw.

  24. Appearing on Real Time might backfire for Mann. Maher is not a nice person and more than a little mean. Mann has a very “punchable face”, so despite being on the same political side, Maher might not be able to resist taking a whack at him.

    • These shows work on the principle: never show up the host. Camera angles, good lighting, hair and makeup make them look good. A full room of writers having a week to come up with “spontaneous” one liners make them sound good.

  25. Question for Dr. Mann “Sea ice levels and CO2 levels are both at all time highs. We know that correlation does not mean causation but how can you argue causation when there is no correlation?” #RTOVERTIME

  26. Re: David Appell
    Sceptics should cultivate Mr. Appell, he does grand job in discrediting the AGW social order. His comments are ‘worth’ at least half a dozen of the most ridiculous AGW predictions.

  27. From what I recall of the stick it used some dodgy numbers and spliced different proxies together in a way that was convenient but misleading. The stick ended around 2000 rising into the stratosphere and has never been updated. If it was updated with new proxies presumably it would be hitting the moon, although maybe it would be flat…….It was sensational and removed major documented climate changes over the centuries by saying they were local only in the areas that had robust written records and everywhere else didnt change at all(maybe they were cooler and/or warmer to compensate for the documented changes)….

    • Scott M writes “From what I recall of the stick it used some dodgy numbers and spliced different proxies together in a way that was convenient but misleading.”
      I think not deliberately misleading; maybe so but maybe not. A huge number of “proxies” exist each of which is only distantly, if at all, related to temperature. A better proxy is the Vostok ice cores; a poor proxy is bristlecone pines.
      So which ones do you use? You look for significance (principle components analysis) or correlation, sort of the same thing I think, with measured data. To achieve correlation you average out the deviations from a baseline. But if the baseline is shorter than the data, and you center the baseline on the short measured period, and for whatever reason that short period is not actually representative of the thousand year period, then some bad proxies will be used because you have 900 years of “significant” data but it is significant primarily because the baseline is shifted. Not only that, but because they were correlated, they will all peak at the same place — the year 2000 or whatever — producing a hockey stick even though over the long run it is possible no correlation exists.
      Therefore, the hockey stick is neither proof nor disproof. It convinces those who wish to be convinced.

  28. The HUGE number of posts by a particular person got me wondering about a couple of things. IF the sun is truly hotter now than in the past, what is the implied ECS from this tid bit. I did a quick google search. Apparently, the temperature impact of the cooling of the sun is 1.4°C for each 1% change in solar heat. The same source (History Of Planetary And Geological Factors by I. I. Borzenkova) asserts that solar energy to the earth has increased by 3% over the last 600 million years. This thus implies that the sun should have increased the equilibrium temperature of the planet by 4.2 C°. CO2 was about 6,000 ppm back then. If we start at 279 ppm, this is 4.43 doublings of CO2 (279 X (2^4.43) = 6,000). Let this be D=4.43. So to get an increase of 4.2 C°, we use: ECS X D = 4.2. or ECS X 4.43 = 4.2. So if we assume our friend is right and the reason temperatures have been flat as the sun warmed is the CO2 decreased at the exact rate necessary to maintain constant temperature (wow isn’t that a miracle!), the ECS implied is 0.95. Have I made a mistake somewhere in the logic? How about the actual numbers. References please if you dispute the actual numbers.

  29. Appell,
    Muller of BEST totally flamed Mann. The Steyn-quoted comments totally flamed Mann. Mann claims to be a Nobel Prize winner, funny because he is a “Climate Scientist” and it was the Peace Prize which would embarrass a real scientist, and he didn’t even win it.
    Marcott flamed himself.
    You are getting singed, can’t you smell burning flesh?

    • beng 135: You said ” I vote for a timeout or ban for DA…..”
      I strongly disagree. It is at skep. sci., realclimate, etc., etc., that people get banned for counter views. One can take his posts and see how he changes his point of view to suit whatever he is replying to. Obvious contradictions indicate that he is not arguing from fact but from feeling. An excellent example to show to the world.

      • The greatest enemy of DA is DA himself when he rants and is ravished by himself. Let him speak so that his own sophistry and ignorance will backfire and spoil him the day. He is a good example of a bad example.

    • John Eggert is right. One of the great strengths of WUWT is that it welcomes all opinions. David Appell has been given as much rope as he wants, and readers can make up their own minds.

    • I think we should take pity on DA. Perhaps we should take up a collection and buy him some Dale Carnegie courses, and the book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People.” He sounds like he was at the receiving end of a great amount of bullying in school, and has never developed any social skills.

  30. “Friday Funny: Mann gets real time”

    The title describe today’s Friday Funny really well! And the show isn’t even until Friday night! All because Mann’s silly yap yap dog showed up to shower us with nonsense.
    A classic canine trait of marking territory even when the yap pooch is squirting blanks. It is the pitiful lonely little yap mongrel doing it’s silly surreal dance of nonsense that is making us laugh; even as we feel sorry for the poor little SOB.
    Can there be a drearier existence than a fruit’s sole reason for existence is to yap at one’s betters desperately trying to prop up the false science and existence of an sad out-of-date ego centric manniac?

    • Can there be a drearier existence than a fruit’s sole reason for existence is to yap at one’s betters desperately trying to prop up the false science and existence of an sad out-of-date ego centric manniac?

      An existence as a Tren-berth?

  31. davideisenstadt at August 7, 2015 at 2:37 am asked David Appell:
    I note that you [David] do no respond directly to the quotes assembled by Steyn, so I now ask you: (and would suggest Maher ask Mann directly)
    1) Do you maintain that the quotes [Mark] Steyn provided were fabricated, untrue or misleading?
    2) If so, [do you] have the integrity to just write that you believe Steyn provided false quotations?
    David, I would be extraordinarily interested in your response to those questions, also. Is Steyn lying about what other scientists have (at least once, each) said about Mann? Or has Mann been so personally provocative that even people who agree with his science make unkind remarks (as Steyn has researched, cited, and republished) about his published work? Or are you confident that Steyn is a liar you haven’t bothered to check his citations?
    Or is it at least possible that Mann is in the opinion of many of his peers an less competent as a data-analyst than he is a self-publicist?
    Hoping Maher asks the questions about Steyn’s literature search and published citations, and obtains an on-the-record response from Mann for a wider audience than provided by WUWT.

    • Steyn provides citations for his quotes…in the interest of brevity, i didn’t copy the links, they are available at his website.
      One can only presume that they are accurate; they haven’t been the subject of any amended complaint filed by Mann, as far as I know there haven’t been any demands by those individuals quoted by steyn to correct the quotations in question.
      In other words, they stand.
      Those quotations and more are included in steyn’s answer to Mann’s amended civil complaint.
      Unlike Mann, who has included, to be polite, misstatements in his complaints, Steyn’s court filings have not been challenged on the basis of a lack of veracity regarding those quotations
      (Mann was forced to amend his original complaint when it was revealed that in it, mann claimed to be a Nobel prize winner, much to the surprise of the Nobel prize committee., which disavowed this claim explicitly).
      Hope that helps.

  32. Sorry to disappoint the Mann haters here but his and other temperature reconstructions were reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences and were supported. Here is what the NAS said re Mann’s analysis:
    “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on icecaps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during
    at least the last 2,000 years.”
    Unless you can refute the NAS, quit trashing his research.

    • You miss the point. The point is that Mann’s work is no better than numbers from a phone book insofar as providing useful information about NH temperature history goes. The hockey stick is – as M&M noted over twelve years ago now – “primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data, and incorrect calculation of principal components”.
      Maybe late 20th century warmth is “unprecedented”; maybe it’s not. That’s not the issue with the hockey stick. Mann’s data-mangling means his efforts don’t even get past the starting line to make a contribution to the topic.

      • Tell that to the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS considered the criticisms leveled by McIntyre and McKitrick 2003 and 2005 but still concluded:
        “Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.”

        • Luke quotes NAS: “the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.”
          What a joke.
          Of course it is plausible. When the NAS is certain of it then return and report. “Plausible” means “possible” maybe a “plus good possible” and if they could prove it they most certainly would advance beyond “plausible”.

      • Hey Luke; you do get that ‘plausible’ and ‘proven’ are very different things, do you not?
        Mann himself was forced to admit that he could not say with any degree of certainty that the 20th century was actually warmer than at any other period in the preceding 1000 years, let alone 1500 years.
        Given his hockey stick, the whole ‘hide the decline’ issue and the lack of error bars, I’d say he completely failed to convey the actual level of uncertainty in his reconstruction.
        I am going with Muller on this; Mann should be considered a disgraced former scientist, like Hwang Woo-suk. History will not be kind the Great and Powerful Mann.

      • “Plausible” means apparently valid, giving a deceptive impression of truth, specious.

    • Luke: This is blather from the NAS. One thousand years of record means nothing. Go back further in time and the Roman, Medeival and Minoan warm periods appear, surpassing by far any warming of the last century or up to 1,000 years, as these periods occurred 1,200 years back for the Medeival period, 2,200 years for the Roman period and 3,500 years for the Minoan period.
      And it’s always a nice play on words. “appears to be unprecedented” up to 2,000 years. What does
      that mean? It is or isn’t and if it is, why?
      You people are disingenuous beyond belief and rely on the ignorance in science of the general public to spread your rot.
      Chuck Wiese

    • I can refute this: ” . . .such as melting on icecaps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during
      at least the last 2,000 years.”
      Here’s two examples of why this statement is incorrect:
      Both of these villages were inhabited within the last 2,000 years before being covered by ice.

      • “Both of these villages were inhabited within the last 2,000 years before being covered by ice.”
        Every time the MSM reports on something like this, I’ll drop by and comment to point this out. For some, totally inexplicable reason, my comments aren’t accept.

    • Most climate proxies show Earth was unusually cool from about 1300 to 1850, and has warmed degrees F. since 1850.
      The data are very rough.
      That adds up to about 750 years total.
      Out of those 750 years, it is likely the current decade is the warmest.
      The word “unprecedented” (warming) is propaganda.
      The correct words are: “The slight warming since 1850 is great news”
      Mann is a fraud.
      Anyone who approves of his hockey stick chart is a fraud.
      The IPCC does not use Mann’s chart anymore because it was a fraud.
      The most basic climate science fact is that Earth’s climate is ALWAYS cooling or warming.
      Mann attempted to trick people into believing something else.
      He failed, and although you and fellow smarmy leftists are still desperately trying to defend his hockey stick chart fraud, it was thoroughly debunked years ago.
      Go back to your scary predictions of the FUTURE climate catastrophe, always many decades in the future, because it takes many decades to prove those predictions are wrong ( although 40 years of wrong predictions so far sure don’t look good).
      Bogus charts of the PAST climate don’t work as well as scary predictions of the FUTURE, because they can be refuted quickly, and the Mann chart has been.

      • Richard,
        You stated “Anyone who approves of his hockey stick chart is a fraud.” So you are accusing the National Academy of Sciences as publishing fraudulent information? If you can prove that and get it published you will receive national recognition, I encourage you to try!

      • Luke, As far as I can see NAS didn’t “approve” the hockey stick, merely stated it was “plausible”.

    • so the remains of ancient civilizations being discovered under retreating ice were originally established underneath ice flows?
      is that your theory and are you sticking with it?

    • Luke,
      Right answer, wrong method = bad science. It matters not whether Mann’s reconstruction was allegedly corroborated by other scientists using other methods. Mann’s methods were blatantly flawed. NAS wanted some lame justification for not excoriating Mann and the that justification was that others produced similar results. The work of those others was not put under the microscope by NAS to see if similar shoddy methods were used by those allegedly corroborating scientists. Actually. it is you warmists that should be throwing Mann under the bus as his antics have done grievous damage to the CAGW cause.

      • I suggest you read the report. The NAS scientists address many issues with reconstruction of temperature records.

    • @Luke, (or is it David Appell?)

      The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence . . . such as melting on icecaps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years.
      Unless you can refute the NAS, quit trashing his research.

      That is not what the NAS Panel concluded..
      Here is what Gerald North, Chairman, Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years for National Research Council /National Academy of Sciences, said before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives about the National Research Council’s NAS Panel report, called The North Report. July 19, 2006.

      Let me summarize five key conclusions we reached after reviewing the evidence:
      1. The instrumentally measured warming of about 1°F during the 20th century is also reflected in borehole temperature measurements, the retreat of glaciers, and other observational evidence, and can be simulated with climate models.
      2. Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700.
      3. It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.
      4. Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.
      5. Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900.

      This is a far cry from what you are claiming.

      • If you read the testimony at the link I give above, you will discover, Luke, that what you quoted was North’s conclusion of what Mann, et al, claimed in their paper.
        It was not what North, et al, concluded.

    • Luke says “Unless you can refute the NAS, quit trashing his research.”
      You have the cart before the horse. I do not need to refute the NAS or any other agency feeding at the government trough. They must persuade me (and a few hundred million other taxpayers).

        • Luke says “The NAS is not a government agency.”
          The great oracle Wikipedia says: “Established by an Act of Congress, signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, the NAS is charged with providing independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology.”
          “Do your homework!”
          Actually, it appears I have done yourhomework and you are welcome to be educated herein:
          “Who do the National Academies work for; where does funding come from? Most of the studies are carried out at the request of government agencies or Congress, some are initiated internally; and a few are proposed by other external sources. About 85 percent of funding comes from the federal government through contracts and grants from agencies and 15 percent from state governments, private foundations, industrial organizations,”

          Back to the wiki:
          “As a national academy, new members of the organization are elected annually by current members”
          What that means is that bias will amplify itself in the selection of new members. It is inherent in the process but it could drift over time. Would you elect someone to the National Academy of Science who you thought was wrong?

        • Tomer D. Tamarkin writes (in response to Michael 2) “it would be wise to include the sentence in Wikipedia just before the one you quoted.”
          No, it is not wise, but thank you for checking my source.
          The topic is government funding. That is why I focused on the parts that pertain to government funding. Anything else is just clutter as you are now amply demonstrating.
          “Note that the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and US Olympic Committee are equivalent to the NAS.”
          No. I do not “note that”. The topic is government funding, particularly with regard to the probability that such government funding skews results. The Boy Scouts of America is not government funded and I have a doubt about the Girl Scouts being a title 36 organization but it isn’t important enough for me to research it.
          That they are Title 36 organizations (BSA in particular) is and was known to me but is irrelevant to the discussion. I will accept that the NAS is not itself a “government agency” per se, and yet its funding comes from government agencies and its grants and projects are in support of government agencies and as such its bias will reflect that of government and the party in power. One example that I found rather interesting was Project Mohole that burned about 56 million dollars appropriated by Congress.
          I wish Congress would appropriate 56 million dollars (in 1960’s valuation!) to the Boy Scouts. Camp Oh My Gosh here we come!

      • Michael 2,
        You cheated on your homework, you omitted the first sentence. “The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars. Established by an Act of Congress, signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, the NAS is charged with providing independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology.”
        You quote “What that means is that bias will amplify itself in the selection of new members.”
        So now you are suggesting that the NAS is populated with AGW alarmists that only elect their ilk? Good luck with that. When you can show that there is collusion among hundreds of the world’s top scientists to prop up global warming please publish it- you will become famous overnight. Until then, stop casting aspersions on some of the best minds in the world. You obviously don’t know how scientific organizations work. It is not a network of back slapping friends. Scientists are harder on one another than they are on the rest of society. Take a look at the beating that Hansen is getting from other scientists on his newest global sea rise paper.

        • Luke, in response to Michael 2: “You cheated on your homework, you omitted the first sentence.”
          Actually, I omitted 12.665 sentences (approximately) that were not relevant to the point I was making.
          “So now you are suggesting that the NAS is populated with AGW alarmists that only elect their ilk?”
          That is a reasonable restatement.
          “Until then, stop casting aspersions on some of the best minds in the world.”
          Yours, I presume. A problem is that “best minds” are not administrators and politicians. I take it for granite that the director of any government organization is not its “best mind” but its best politician.
          “Scientists are harder on one another than they are on the rest of society.”
          No doubt. Cloistered in their ivy halls who exactly do they encounter? Other scientists competing for grants from the NSF.
          “Take a look at the beating that Hansen is getting from other scientists on his newest global sea rise paper.”
          Where can I see this? I have a vague recollection that Hansen moved the goalposts for the inundation of New York City from the year 2000 since that obviously didn’t turn out as predicted.

  33. Tree rings, when selected over a broad area do two things (which can be in opposition to each other or not in terms of the outcome): 1) They lag and smooth affects of their micro environment, IE temperature, precipitation, access to sunlight, etc, at different rates for each tree, and 2) A single outlier tree in an isolated area may be responding more quickly to an environmentally local change or weather variation, not an overall climate regime shift. When a researcher is faced with an outlier in the data sample there are only two things to consider: 1) Remove the outlier, or 2) take more samples from more trees in the same vicinity to determine why that outlier exists, and then decide whether or not to remove the outlier data. It seems that Mann did not understand tree growth, not being an expert in such things. If he was he would have provided a subsection in his paper on this outlier.
    Maybe he should have included an expert independent tree ring researcher. Such as:

    • The key thing to remember is that trees dont have a linear response to temperature. They have an optimal growth range. As such regression analysis does not work.

    • “2) take more samples from more trees in the same vicinity to determine why that outlier exists, and then decide whether or not to remove the outlier data”
      I believe that those Yamal tree samples came from only 12 specimens of 252 in the data set… while a larger data set of 34 trees from the same vicinity that weren’t used, showed no dramatic recent warming, but warmer temperatures in those Middle Ages.
      Who put the liar in outlier?

  34. “In their minds, I’m the idiot, not them. Me.
    But them, still, I think: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 5 molecules per 10,000 trap more heat than 4 per 10,000, or even three.”
    Well, there goes 20 minutes of my life that I’ll never get back…

  35. We can’t believe how cold the summer days and night are now, only had a few days of ‘warmth’ where one can leave the windows open at night – and that’s it so far! Total rip off; even had a fire on July 1st it got so cold in the evening. So where’s all the heat we were suppose to have with the rising C02? CAGWers said that if C02 ppm went to 400 we’d fry; well it’s there and we are in fact cooler in this NH corner of the globe for the past few years – colder summers and colder winters. We burn more wood now to heat than ever before. (before the econuts ran things we used electric heat but now can’t afford it….)

    • Its out west right now. CO2 likes to manifest itself in different parts of the globe at different times. It manifests as bitter cold and uncomfortable warmth. Depending on the time of year. We have been told that rainy parts of the world will get wetter. This has now been disproven in the pacific northwest, where it is 4th driest summer evah!

  36. Rules of holes:
    1. When you are in one stop digging.
    2. Holes come in a variety of types. Don’t be the “A” type..
    3. Some holes exist where the sun don’t shine. Some comments on this post should be placed there.
    You know who you are.

  37. Maher is far left on most subjects, so I don’t expect him to challenge Mann at all. I’m sure Mann doesn’t either, or he would refuse to appear.

  38. ” Blogs are full of Sh*t” : David Appell (@davidappell) August 7, 2015 at 12:28 am
    Yes David, and a great deal of it is your very own work.

  39. Mr. Appell,
    You’ve previously stated:
    “In 2003 Mann and Philip D. Jones of the University of East Anglia in England used a different method to extend results back 2,000 years”. Can you elaborate on the different methodology?
    Prof. Richard Muller of Cal says ” … I was horrified to learn how these (Mann) plots had been manipulated and changed…” Do you think Prof. Muller is (1) incorrect or (2) lying, about the Mann works?

  40. David Appell, especially in this thread, serves as a good example of a bad example.
    He says blogs are not sources of good information, then quotes from his own blog.
    He says “blogs are full of sh*t” and then quotes from his own blog.
    He is not a scientist and claims we should listen to scientists and then when actual scientists respond he says we should not listen to them, we should listen to him.
    He belittles posters for hiding behind screen names, but admits that he uses fake screen names here, often.
    I would not wish ill will to befall anyone, so with that in mind I’m reminded that even a village idiot has his/her purpose; therefore, I sincerely hope Mr. Appell finds his village and the happiness it will provide him. To the other villagers there, once he settles in, I hope you can find solace in, um, blogs.

  41. Wow….this David Appell fellow sure spends a lot of time on WUWT. What else do you do, sir?
    And for all those letting his nibs dine at the Trollough, please….it’s hard to dig through all of his responses for the meaty bits!

  42. Bill Maher donated 1 million dollars to the Obama campaign in the last election.
    It must be nice to throw money like that around, just to score points.

  43. David Appell,
    You claim the PAGES2K reconstruction supports your beliefs about the MBH98/99 hockey stick as an accurate representation of the paleoclimate. You do realize, then, that the PAGES2K authors only use 3 regions for their “global” reconstruction for the 0-800 AD period: Europe, Antarctica, Arctic, and they indicate that all 3 regions had warmer periods than the late 20th century during that time (0-800 AD).
    “In Europe, slightly higher reconstructed temperatures were registered in A.D. 741–770, and the interval from A.D. 21–80 was substantially warmer than 1971–2000. Antarctica was probably warmer than 1971–2000 for a time period as recent as A.D. 1671–1700, and the entire period from 141–1250 was warmer than 1971–2000.”
    Here’s the “corrected” Arctic reconstruction (2014) showing warmer or just-as-warm temperatures throughout the first millennium:
    So, according to the PAGES2K authors, for the 3 regions represented in their 1 AD to 800 AD period (Arctic, Antarctic, and Europe): a) Europe was warmer than now during the late 700s AD, and “substantially warmer” during the Roman Warm Period; b) Antarctica was warmer than modern not only for the Medieval Warm Period, but for more all of the 1,000 years preceding it; and c), after so many “errors” were found in their original Arctic reconstruction, the PAGES2K authors had to issue a correction paper ( that made temperatures in the Arctic just as warm during the Medieval Warm Period (~1,000 AD) as modern—and for much of the 1,000 years preceding it.
    Their 2013 graph (below), even with the uncorrected (biased warmer) Arctic temperatures, shows similar warming levels for the 1st millennium compared to modern. And even the colored Mann, Ljungvist, and Moberg reconstructions atop depict a just-as-warm Medieval Warm Period.
    There’s no Mann-like hockey stick here. So how does PAGES2K help you?

  44. Here’s Bill Maher:

    Mann is boring but the lt gov of Calif is interesting on drug legalization. …..Lady in Red

  45. I am sure he even wasn’t aware of what he said about Hansen: “Any time he says something you wanna listen very carefully to him.” Dead right, Mann! Everybody ought to listen extremely carefully to what Hansen says. But his insight into the negligeable quality of Hansen’s statements doesn’t last long.
    That Mann really is deceitful. He is talking about an alleged permanent 6 ft sea-level rise and compares it with Hurricane Sandy, that was over in a few days and brought, as he said, damages of 7 1/2 bn bucks. Mann, of course, didn’t say when he expects such a rise but carries on fearmongering by comparing CA nuts with FLA oranges. I suppose he’d love to flood the whole ConUs just to demonstrate he is right. What a dreary fruitcake.

  46. If everybody goes to google and searches for ‘climategate’ or ‘hide the decline’ etc, perhaps we can start a new trend on google to revive the climategate affair.

  47. If ever material is short for a Friday funny, just post a link to Appell’s blog. That will more than suffice.

  48. David Appell (@davidappell)
    August 7, 2015 at 1:06 am Juvenile insults. Not surprised to find them on this blog.

    I would encourage all the readers and commenters to post their best Smoking Guns and challenge David Appell to write about them in his articles. Clearly he has the background to understand good science from bad science, good statistics from bad statistics, good math from bad math. His resume proves he has the ability to discern the truth.
    David can claim ignorance as long as all he does is parrot the conclusions of “peer” reviewed articles. That is the way a lazy journalist would handle things. A real journalist seeks the truth, and is skeptical of those who stand to gain from the story they are pushing. Use this article to publish challenging questions for David, and challenge him to publish his answers in Scientific American, Physics World, Audubon, New Scientist, Wired, Salon, Popular Science, Nature, Discover, The Boston Globe, The San Francisco Chronicle, Physical Review Focus, Discovery Channel Online, Science, and many other publications that buys his work. I’ve always said there is a Pulitzer Prize in exposing this hoax. Also, no Nobel Prizes in SCIENCE has been given for Climate Change research. I doubt there ever will if the focus remains on CO2.
    Please post your challenging questions for David Appell, help him discover the truth.
    David, using your math and science background, how can you explain almost 100% of the errors being skewed to one side, the one side the overestimates temperature? How can you explain such a systematic failure?×353.jpg
    David, given CO2 is the most significant contributor to global warming, how can CO2 increase by 25% and temperatures be flat over the past 18+ years? How can δCO2 be 20% and δTemperature be 0%?
    David, the oceans are warming. It take a huge continual quantifiable influx of energy to warm the oceans. Increasing CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm increases downward radiation of about 1W/M^2 from a wavelength of 13µ to 18µ, wavelengths that don’t penetrate the ocean. Is 1W/M^2 enough to warm the vast oceans by 0.5° C. While you are at it, why does the slope of increase between 1910 and 1945 exceed that of the slope between 1970 and today? How does CO2 explain the “pause” between 1945 and 1970?
    David, why does the Hockeystick graph not include thermometer data before 1902? We have temperatures records going back to the mid 1600s?
    David, why didn’t CO2 cause catastrophic warming in the past when it reached 7000ppm, how did we fall into an ice age when CO2 was 4000ppm?
    David, it is exposed in the Climategate E-mails that Dr Thompson and others know that the Mt Kilimanjaro glacier is disappearing due to sublimation, not warming. Will you help educate the public on the truth? Why do honest “scientists” conceal the truth from the tax paying public? Isn’t failing to tell the whole truth an ethical violation?
    David, the hide the decline deception is exposed in two previous videos featuring Muller and McIntyre, and it is evident in the Hockeystick which uses temperature data only after 1902. Will you help educate the public regarding this statistical fraud?
    David, specific Antarctic Ice Sheets are melting due to Volcanoes, yet is is blamed on atmospheric CO2. How can CO2 cause local warming of the atmosphere, let alone warming of the ocean?
    David, Polar Bears have been thriving, yet they are the poster children of climate change damage. Will you educate the public about the truth?
    David, the rate of sea level increase has not been accelerating (especially if adjusted for thermal expansion), which would happen if glaciers were melting at an increasing rate. Will you help educate the pubic as to the truth about sea level increase? Note the increase is 3.3mm/yr. How many years will it take to flood Manhattan? Match the level of daily and/or seasonal tide?
    David, pH is a highly quantifiable measure. If you took 100% of the CO2 in the atmosphere and dissolved it into the oceans, what would the change in pH be? What if you dissolved 100% of all CO2 from burning fossil fuels over the industrial age? Can atmospheric CO2 rally alter the pH of the oceans? How did life thrive when CO2 was 7000ppm?
    David, temperature variations are huge in deserts where there is no H2O, humid environments at the same latitude show much moderate temperature variation. How can you claim CO2 is the climate driver when H20 is easily demonstrated to be the defining GHG?
    I would encourage all readers of WUWT to post your challenges to AGW so David can understand the issues beyond reading the conclusions of corrupt “peer” reviewers and a corrupt “peer” review process. BTW, the piece of crap Hockeystick, and past temperature records that are now being “adjusted” made it though “peer” review. The failed IPCC models made it through “peer” review. The highly variable “residency” of CO2 can be found in “peer” reviewed papers ranging from 5 years to over 200. Then IPCC reports it to be 50 to 200 IN THE SAME REPORT.
    I would also encourage readers of WUWT to visit David’s website and send him e-mails directly with your comments and challenges, and be sure to cc: some of the magazines that have hired him in the past.
    Here is his website.
    Once again, please post your challenges so that the next time David writes an article he can no longer claim ignorance of the fraud that is Climate Change.

  49. I forgot my favorite challenge for David:
    David, given your background in Physics, and assumed understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. How can CO2 result in record daytime temperatures? As a reminder, CO2 is transparent to visible light, and that heat travels from hot to cold. Please use an example of a desert that the previous night fell below the previous night’s low temperature, and then set a record daytime high. How can CO2 result in record high daytime temperatures, given that CO2 simply can absorb radiated heat between the 13µ and 18µ wavelengths.
    David, these lists of questions are an effort to help you from becoming a modern Lysenko.
    We’ll be watching to see how you address these issues in your coming articles. If you avoid them, we will know you are a Lysenko. You have an opportunity to restore your credibility. Just be honest.

    • @CO2islife
      Incredible questions you ask about the greenhouse effect and the range of atmospheric life times for CO2, among others.. Illustrating mostly your ignorance of 6th Grade Science. Neither Appell nor Science has much to worry about from your ‘challenges’.

      • warrenlb, in response to co2islife, writes: “Incredible questions you ask about the greenhouse effect and the range of atmospheric life times for CO2, among others.”
        Yes, they are good questions and help steer discussion.
        “Illustrating mostly your ignorance of 6th Grade Science.”.
        Probably. My 6th grade was a long time ago. I am pretty sure it did not cover greenhouse effects and the atmospheric residence time of carbon dioxide. On the other hand, I remember spending some time studying electromagnetism and making my own electric motor with nails and wire and a home-made commutator.
        “Neither Appell nor Science has much to worry about from your challenges.”
        Science is not a person. Why do you suggest it has any capacity whatsoever to worry?
        Appell will choose for himself what he worries about. He ought to worry about his employment but so long as he speaks to his sheep what they want to hear then I agree with you he has little to worry about. It does seem that not many sheep still march to that tune but that’s for Appell to worry about; not you, not me.

      • @Michael 2
        Good questions? ‘Good questions’ reflect either an understanding of the issues being asked or are asked in the spirit of wanting to know more. The questions do neither; instead CO2islife is challenging Appell without having a clue about the subject.

        • warrenlb writes “Good questions reflect either an understanding of the issues being asked or are asked in the spirit of wanting to know more.”
          Agreed, but not limited thereto. I used the phrase in the context of suggesting topics of study and discussion which is similar but not identical to the spirit of wanting to know more. A good question identifies the sticking point or the heart of a matter which, if not resolved, make somewhat irrelevant all other discussions.
          In this context establishing that there is, or is not, global warming is obviously crucial to any further exploration of global warming. If !(global warming) the door is still open on a vast realm of climate science, just not global warming and its accompanying one-world-government mandate.
          I accept that there has been no significant global warming in nearly 20 years, certainly none where I live, which is the only thing I can personally verify. I accept that the future is unknown and probably unknowable; although I also accept it is worth trying to know it.
          I accept that the warmists are wrong to attribute global warming to humans exclusively or that it represents a catastrophe. The most strident advocates of global warming do not seem to be personally concerned about it — Al Gore’s huge mansion or DiCaprio’s “Eco Resort” in Belize about three feet above sea level. He’s obviously not worried about sea level rise. He just wants you and me to be worried about it.

      • Neither Appell nor Science has much to worry about from your ‘challenges’.

        Really? See my response to your challenge below. Seems you might want to brush up on your “science.”

      • “warrenlb
        August 9, 2015 at 6:05 pm
        The questions do neither; instead CO2islife is challenging Appell without having a clue about the subject.”
        Too funny! You have demonstrated time and time again you have no clue, about anything, relating to this planet!

  50. It was pretty much as I expected, after watching. I think Bill Maher’s and extraordinary guy, as knowledgeable as he is sharp, and with a great memory. But as soon as I heard Mann was on in the new season’s première, I thought: ” this is going to be a love in!” It was.
    No-one is more fascistic in their Warm-mongering views than Maher.

  51. I have another question for David.
    Bill Gates has lost a fortune on Green Energy, and this is his conclusion.
    Google has abandoned many renewable energy projects:
    Given that snow can effective make solar panels totally ineffective, and wind is highly variable, if everyone start to drive electric cars, how will we recharge them? Assuming at best a 20% efficiency rate for wind and solar combined.
    How much more energy capacity will we need to recharge these cars? How many new 1.65MW wind turbines will we need? How much will that cost? What will the cost be to recharge a car overnight?
    If we recharge it with solar, how many more solar acres of farms will be need? How many “7.26 megawatt-hours of electricity per day per acre.” will we need? How much will it cost to charge the car overnight?

      • And two questions for you: What is your take on:

        Water vapor. As the sun heats the oceans, more H2O enters the atmosphere. H20 absorbs the same IR as CO2, only much more of the spectrum. Facts are, oceans are warming, CO2 doesn’t warm the oceans. You are ignoring the most obvious explanation, H2O. H20 is 10x as potent at CO2 is as a GHG.

      • Warrenlb asks “What is your take on: Or:”
        I don’t have one. Perhaps I should look at it briefly. Quote from that website “What happens on planet Earth stays on planet Earth”
        I think NASA hasn’t heard of Voyager. I’m pretty sure it’s not coming back. Radio signals do not stay on Earth. Obviously the rest of the website is going to proceed according to the emotions of its director.
        “A) Conspiracy by aliens? Or”
        Many such things; Los Zetas comes to mind. 11 million aliens in the United States. Most of them are not probably in a conspiracy, but then, conspiracies are secret so how would I know?
        “B) Conspiracy by all the Climate Researchers in the US, China, Germany, UK, France, Japan, Brazil, Italy, and Canada?”
        Impossible. However if you remove “all” and make it “most” then I would say yes. How exactly does one become a “climate researcher”? Obviously it is by approval of existing climate researchers or you won’t get a degree, or a grant, or a tenured position at a university.
        Consider Nasa’s claim: “Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree.” On what, exactly? That is either evidence of something real that they agree on, OR it is evidence of groupthink; you are admitted to the club IF you subscribe to the Consensus. If not, some people want you to die or be imprisoned.

  52. Appell claims he does not take blogs seriously. I guess that means we are also to assume his posts are bull. However, he likely reads Unrealclimate. Readers of Climateaudit will recall that during one Superbowl game Steve McIntyre posted on an Antarctic paper, which was corrected the next day. Of course the Unreal ones would not admit to having read Steve’s post which (may not have been peer reviewed(sarc)).

  53. When the American and other people of the world get an honest perspective of this issue they will be outraged, and I can only hope that the people supporting these groups drop their support. This could be the next Planned Parenthood and ACORN scam exposed.

    Bottom line, the truth can bankrupt Sierra Club, WWF and Green Peace. These organizations are looting the public treasury for their own personal misguided agenda.

  54. The most damning part is highlighted about 34:00 into the video. I bookmarked in in the following link. It highlights what I’ve been saying, silence in the face of evil is evil itself. The silence of the real scientists that know better will bring down everyone. Everyone knows a fraud is going on, and yet they remain silent, either because their jobs depend upon it, they need the research grants or they are simply scared. I doubt those excuses will be enough to protect the entire field of academia and science when the crap hits the fan. This is complete and absolute corruption from the top to bottom, and the villains will be easy to identify. We can only hope that the funding for such corrupt organizations will follow ACORN and now Planned Parenthood. There is a common denominator. Left-wing political organizations and corruption.
    Remember, the depth of depravity of these left-wing organizations can not be overstated. ACORN was exposed for their willingness to help establish child sex slavery rings. Obama was an ACORN Lawyer.
    This highlights the evils of silence.
    The Bizarre Silence of Child Advocates on ACORN’s Child Sex Trafficking Advice

  55. This may go down as one of the most epic gaffs in WUWT history. Above in the comment section warrenlb insulted me, my scientific knowledge and the insightful questions that I posed. He made comments like

    instead CO2islife is challenging Appell without having a clue about the subject…@CO2islife Incredible questions you ask about the greenhouse effect and the range of atmospheric life times for CO2, among others.. Illustrating mostly your ignorance of 6th Grade Science. Neither Appell nor Science has much to worry about from your ‘challenges’.

    It is worth noting that warrenlb didn’t say why or how my questions demonstrated an ignorance of science, he just attacked me. He never attempted to answer any of my questions, he just simply discounted them. This is a typical distraction tactic used by dishonest liberals (Yes, I know that is redundant).
    Oddly warrenlb focused in on one question regarding residence life. That seems odd to me because 1) concentration is what matters and 2) with a range from 5 to 50 to 200 depending of the source, that issue doesn’t seem “settled.” Why he would defend the IPCC not having an answer to a critical component of their model is beyond me.
    The epic gaff of warrenlb was that he identified how you would reach the truth regarding CO2 and temperature. He states.

    Any reasonable least mean squares fit of any of the three databases shows a clear upward trend over the last 20 years.

    Clearly he knows at least the basics of regression analysis. The Einstein then posted this graphic to make his case. Sure enough the charts to demonstrate auto-correlation and they are in fact trending up for the lower atmosphere and down for the stratosphere. No argument there. Clearly, we have established that there is some warming going on. We can all agree on that, and we can all agree that a regression analysis can help answer our question regarding the cause.
    Now here two possible causes, CO2 and H2O.
    The simple question then becomes, if I run a regression with CO2 as the independent variable and Temperature as the dependent variable and if I run Specific Humidity as the independent variable and Temperature as the dependent variable which one will give a higher R^2? That experiment can be run in any 9th Grade Science Class, and it pretty much gets to the root cause of the recent warming trend. Just eye balling it I would say the CO2 vs Temperature R^2 would be about 0.30, and I bet Specific Humidity vs Temperature would have an R^2 of at least 0.80, much much much higher than CO2. Also, I bet if you ran a rolling period regression of around 3 years I bet H2O would have many periods near 1.00, and I bet CO2 would have many periods of a (-) correlation. Temperatures fell from the 1950s through the 1970s while CO2 increased. Anyway, I would like to thank warrenlb for helping me find one of my most convincing arguments against AGW yet. warrenlb also provides a great example of how narrow minded, lazy and intellectually dishonest liberals can be regarding this issue. warrenlb provides a great case study in liberal political tactics which is useful in helping identify the deceitful and dishonest tactics used by the anti-science and scientifically illiterate left.

    • Sorry old chap — you have me, as well as the science, totally wrong. I’m a lifelong conservative Republican who agrees with Bob Inglis, (R-South Carolina) [go here:], George P Schultz, Lindsay Graham, John McCain, and a dozen other Republican leaders who advocate for a revenue -neutral carbon tax to address man-caused Climate Change.
      By the way, your “analysis” of humidity correlated with warming climate is laughable — you’ve mixed up cause and effect to a fare thee well. Humidity rises as a RESULT of warming, by the Clausius Clapeyron equation, and CO2 drives the warming.
      And since every Science institution on Earth concludes AGW, you seem to be the one with a science literacy problem.

  56. Why do you all take Appell’s bait? It’s clear he’s just having fun aggitating everyone. He has no interest in true debate or a quest to understand the truth. He just wants to agitate.

    • David L asks “Why do you all take Appell’s bait?”
      All? You are here too. Whatever is your reason may well be someone else’s reason but hardly “all”.
      Appell is like the seed of a snowflake. The seed is vital to get it started but inconsequential after that.

  57. OK, here is an experiment we all can run to get to the bottom of what is possibly causing the warming. warrenlb Using the temperature, Specific H2O and CO2 graphs posted above you can turn them into digital format through this website. WebPlotDigitizer.
    I’ve digitized the data and tested it using the =rsq function in Excel. You can test it yourself. The R^2 I get between Temperature and H2O is a whopping 0.75. In other words the 75% of the variation in Temperature can be explained by H20. I’ll leave it up to everyone else to test CO2.
    Once again warrenlb thanks for providing the data needed to prove your CO2 theory is 100% garbage.

  58. Reference: David Appell (a commentor).
    The vile commentor David Appell has been debunked, exposed and thoroughly torn to shreds by JohnWho, Kennethrichards, indefatigablefrog, co2islife, richardscourtney, James Bradley, RH and others.
    I think it would be best to IGNORE that particular commentor completely: I’m sure that the moderator is well aware of the situation.

  59. I am really surprized that Scientific America risked their credibility by publishing a pro Mann pro-Hockey Stick article. No other organization seemed to willing to suport Mann in court. David Appell seems to have taken a personal passion and was willing to drag down Scientific America with him. Now that Steyn has the new book out Scientific America is going to look like a fool. My bet is David Appell will have difficulty finding work in the future. He clearly puts his personal politics ahead of professional integrity.

  60. By the way, your “analysis” of humidity correlated with warming climate is laughable — you’ve mixed up cause and effect to a fare thee well. Humidity rises as a RESULT of warming, by the Clausius Clapeyron equation, and CO2 drives the warming.

    1) R^2 of H2O and Temp in infinitely higher than R^2 of CO2 and Temp. You can’t even show the basis relationship exist.
    2) CO2 follows Temperature, it is well defined by Henry’s Law. Care to explain how CO2 leads Temperature coming out of an ice age.
    3) Care to explain why past histories of CO2 reaching 7000 ppm didn’t result in run away warming.
    4) Your simplistic example of higher temp results in higher H20 results in higher temperatures is a self fulfilling run away catastrophic. That has never occurred in 600 million years of geologic records.There are no natural dooms day bombs.
    5) You have 0 evidence CO2 drives temperature. Computer models based upon your nonsensical Clapeyron equation have failed.
    6) If CO2 causes the warming you claim it causes, other more potent GHGs would have already resulted in catastrophic warming. Mother Nature isn’t that stupid or fragile.
    7) Warming results in higher H2O, but also higher CO2 through Henry’s law and greater decomposition. Why is do you select CO2 as the culprit when H20 is a far more potent gas?

    Sorry old chap — you have me, as well as the science, totally wrong.

    1) I keep waiting for you to provide evidence. Your temperature and CO2 model is a joke as I proved above. Ice core data proves recent temperature volatility is nothing abnormal. What evidence do you have? Warming doesn’t prove man or CO2 is the cause.
    2) How does CO2 warm the oceans?

    I’m a lifelong conservative Republican who agrees with Bob Inglis, (R-South Carolina) [go here:], George P Schultz, Lindsay Graham, John McCain, and a dozen other Republican leaders who advocate for a revenue -neutral carbon tax to address man-caused Climate Change.

    1) That’s a joke
    2) Appeals to join the herd are effective with the collective mindset of the left, not the free thinking individualistic conservatives.
    3) I’ve heard countless liberals use that phoney claim of being a conservative. It is right out of Saul Alynski’s deceitful Rules for Radicals.
    4) Regardless of your , it doesn’t change the fact that you have no science backing your position. Conservatives simply aren’t that gullible.

    And since every Science institution on Earth concludes AGW, you seem to be the one with a science literacy problem.

    1) Once again, conservatives don’t make 2nd Grade type arguments like are you popular or do I fit in. We don’t join herds and unions. We think for ourselves. Claims of polls and consensus are used to convince lazy liberals to support your position knowing that they will never bother to look into the facts, or even care about the truth. Being part of a collective movement is what Liberals want. They are herd animals. Conservatives don’t make those kinds of arguments. We think, we don’t outsource out decision making to groups like “every science institution on earth.” We are smart enough to know that they are populated by left wing activists and will eventually be proven wrong. They always are.
    2) I’m pretty sure solar physicists and geologists don’t support the conclusions of the climate science departments. When push comes to shove, no one will really step up to support the climate scientist. They may remain silent, but they won’t offer overt support when the spotlight is shined on them. Just ask Michael Mann. No one with an ounce of common sense would support this guy knowing that someone might actually look behind the curtain of his deceit. No one would every want to testify in a court of law that Michael Mann and the climate science field practice commonly accepted scientific practices.It is one thing to remain silent when others lie, it is a whole other thing to openly support and participate in the lie.

Comments are closed.