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.
Well that was a thing that happened. More on the #GOPDebate from @BillMaher and his guests tomorrow at 10pm! @HBO pic.twitter.com/AYiSeQhA8B
— Real Time with Bill Maher (@RealTimers) August 7, 2015
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”
Mark Steyn has a collection of what scientists think of Mann – it is not pretty.
“A Disgrace to the Profession – The World’s Scientists on Michael E. Mann”
http://www.steynstore.com/product133.html
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.
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.
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
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.
The Donald Trump of climate bloggers. Just keep spooling out the rope.
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.
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.
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?
I vote for a timeout or ban for DA…..
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.
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?
An existence as a Tren-berth?
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.
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.
Sure, Bugsy Malone reviewed Al Capone’s tax records and found that he didn’t owe any taxes.
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
Meteorologist
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:
http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/09/09/ancient-eskimo-village-uncovered-thanks-depleting-arctic-ice-caps
http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/voyage/subset/greenland/archeo.html
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.
http://www.elOnionBloggle.blogspot.com
That’s 715 years from 1300 to 2015, not 750 years
I only have BS degree.
If I had a PhD, it would have been right the first time.
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!
If you had a PhD it would have been theoretically correct.
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?
This is called cronyism. Frankly, their endorsement of Mann is enough to discredit the NAS. And you too, for that matter.
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?)
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.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/ocga/109session2/testimonies/ocga_150987
North:
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.
I don’t see how that relates to Mann’s analysis.
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).
The NAS is not a government agency. Do your homework!
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,”
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DEPS/DEPS_037300
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?
[Snip. This is another ‘David Socrates’ sockpuppet.]
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.
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:
http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/fbiondi/EcolApplic1999.pdf
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?
“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…
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!
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.
+ 1 hole
David Appell: Mann’s chihuahua
I prefer:
Lickspittle
I just took a little break and skimmed through this thread…Good grief!
so much for a perfectly good Friday
Michael Mann may be believing in a future destroyed by CAGW. But, what must scare him even more is the have a public open debate with informed critics.
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.
” 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.
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?
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.
🙂
ROFL
David A, priceless advocate of “crimes against humanity” charges for folks like Anthony Watts, says Mann thinks it will eventually become illegal to deny climate change, calls everyone here idiots, fools, incoherent minds…then gets to the end and admits his feeble little mind doesn’t even know if it remembers his wifi password.
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-charlesh-problem.html
I guess he has no Cat5 patch cord in his kit.
David Appell says: “just because they think they are entitled to have an opinion. Frankly, they are not.”
(from your citation http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-charlesh-problem.html)
Good heavens. Anyone that disagrees with Appell aren’t even entitled to an opinion. Now THAT is scary!
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!
Cough
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.