For those unfamiliar with the Climate Wars, Professor Michael E. Mann has been a subject of shall we say “note.”
Mark Steyn published a book about him titled: “A Disgrace to the Profession”.
He is considered a prominent climatologist by the anthropogenic catastrophic global warming movement. He is probably the most litigious of climatologists and not the kind of person with whom I would like to have a beer. His libel suits against Mark Steyn and Tim Ball have been discussed repeatedly here and elsewhere. Yet at the same time he is always entertaining and good for a laugh now and then.
Now to the point of this post. In 2017, Michael Mann wrote a book called The Tantrum that Saved the World. Well, technically he was a coauthor, but he certainly has touted the book.
In this review of the book the central plot is summarized in this short paragraph.
She leads a march to City Hall, hoping that adults would sort out the mess. The gray-suited adults tell her to wait and then offer condescending excuses. Nothing happens until Sophia throws a tantrum that wakes up the world: “Cooperative action could turn this high tide. / They had strength in numbers and right on their side.”https://www.climatelit.org/literature/the-tantrum-that-saved-the-world/#:~:text=The%20Tantrum%20that%20Saved%20the%20World%20affirms%20that,climate%20activism%20that%20demands%20radical%20transformation%2C%20not%20excuses.
One of Mann’s interviews about the book was actually titled:
When it comes to climate change, a tantrum is just what we need
The world is currently experiencing expansive disruptive protests, such as those throwing soup on invaluable historical works of art, wasting food in a milk pour, or blocking legal right of ways to tens of thousands of people.
Collectively, most people in the world would call these TANTRUMS, perhaps related to same kind of TANTRUM Professor Mann alluded to in his children’s book with the word TANTRUM in the title.
Well, children are growing up, doing what they were taught, and are spreading the word to engage in TANTRUMS far and wide.
tantrum (noun) · tantrums (plural noun)
- an uncontrolled outburst of anger and frustration, typically in a young child:“he has temper tantrums if he can’t get his own way”
And this is where Mickey Mann now plays the role of the Sorcerer’s Apprentice.
The poem [sorcerer’s apprentice] begins as an old sorcerer departs his workshop, leaving his apprentice with chores to perform. Tired of fetching water by pail, the apprentice enchants a broom to do the work for him, using magic in which he is not fully trained. The floor is soon awash with water, and the apprentice realizes that he cannot stop the broom because he does not know the magic required to do so.
The apprentice splits the broom in two with an axe, but each of the pieces becomes a whole broom that takes up a pail and continues fetching water, now at twice the speed. At this increased pace, the entire room quickly begins to flood. When all seems lost, the old sorcerer returns and quickly breaks the spell. The poem concludes with the old sorcerer’s statement that only a master should invoke powerful spirits.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sorcerer%27s_Apprentice
The results of these TANTRUMS do not appear to be helping their movement. In fact, they are doing the opposite in the court of public opinion.
And here is Professor Mann frantically working to undo the spell which he, metaphorically, may have had a part in casting.
To mix metaphors, that genie is out of the bottle; Pandora’s box has been opened.
For those unfamiliar with the tale of the Sorcerer’s Apprentice, please check out this clip from the classic 1940 Disney film, Fantasia.
Not withdrawing the Hockey Stick paper when it was noted his factor analysis yields hockey sticks from red noise is unethical.
Further, when did a narcissist (like Mann) never have “right” of their side? He thinks he’s right because he thinks he’s right about everything, in my opinion.
Good point, Scissor.
So if Mann is always right, was he right then (tantrums good) or is he right now (tantrums not good)?
The answer to that is ‘Yes’.
You hit right on it, Scissor. Our “Intellectual Superiors™” are always right. If tomorrow, they espouse something 180 degrees from their position today, they are right in both cases.
Always right. Never wrong. Never in doubt. “Shut up, sit down, and do as I say because I am right.”
[edited a stray word]
Seriously? That guy “died” in the GW Bush years – also for lying
Numerous commentators have pointed out that Mann’s analysis does not yield hockey sticks from red noise (e.g. here). Why this falsehood continues to be spread around the blogosphere more than a decade later is beyond me.
Mann’s criteria for data screening, pre analyses, even generates hockey sticks from white noise. Screening bias is screening bias.
The criteria of calibrating proxies against instrumental temperatures? This is hardly bias, we directly measured 20th century temperatures with thermometers.
And then adjust them, and 10 years later adjust them again, and again 15 years later adjust them again AND also adjust and readjust 100 year old prior measurements. Then infill missing data with what can only be determined to be manufactured data.
Really AlanJ, that’s where you want to go? The instrumental record departs from the proxies for over 1/3 of the record, which is why Mann had to “hide the decline” in the first place.
Departs from some proxies*. And the time period over which divergence was observed was not used to calibrate those proxies.
Wow, talk about missing the point. So to calibrate the proxies they ignored (by your own admission) 1/3 of the data. If it doesn’t fit the narrative, it ok to igmore it?
Tree ring width reflects both temperature and precipitation.
The notion that you could get a precise value for either one from 100s of years ago is just silly. It’s funny how nobody speaks of error bars.
If you cannot see what is wrong with your statement and reasoning you are beyond either hope or parody and possibly both.
At least half that record is made up completely. The rest of the record is adjusted so that it better matches the made up part.
And if the rest of the series you do not calibrate against is white noise, you average out to a hockey stick, as my graphic above demonstrates.
The process literally picks and stacks blades and the rest averages out to a straight line.
You seem to be implicitly endorsing the shaft of the hockey stick. I’m not sure if that’s what you’re intending.
I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you. If you select a group of random noise time series for a blade at the end and screen out the rest, the resulting average will always be a hockey stick.
Click on my graphic. Look at it. If you select only the 1/3 that show the blade, the shaft will average out to zero.
Of course these aren’t random noise time series but, rather, temperature proxies. The end result is our best estimate of temperature changes prior to the instrumental (calibration) period.
It is hoped they are temperature proxies, but the only proof is the calibration to the instrumental temperature. There’s no way to know otherwise. The point is: If they were random noise you would get a hockey stick. So how do you know they are not random noise?
This is incorrect, I think you know that, so this seems to be nothing more than a disingenuous attempt to sling crap at the wall to see what might stick. We believe that tree ring records can be used as temperature proxies based on the physical characteristics of tree growth. The fact that they correlate well with the instrumental record is certainly a good sign that we are correct in this, but it is not the “only proof” that tree rings are temperature proxies.
It is not disingenuous at all. Paleoclimatology is based on lots of speculation and assertions.
Other things that can affect tree ring growth, drought, rainfall, change in seasonal start and stop, soil nutrients, disease.
It is HOPED those don’t affect the records, but it is not known.
So you’re saying you genuinely believe the stupidly wrong thing you said? Ignorance is certainly preferable to dishonesty, so that’s a more promising sign.
Running out of any counters aside from a vague appeal to authority?
There’s nothing to counter. You’ve deftly pivoted from “there is no proof that tree rings are temperature proxies other than correlation to the instrumental record” to “other things than temperature can also influence tree rings.” The latter is unobjectionable and correct, the former is flagrantly wrong, but you are now trying to position me as disagreeing with the latter.
The latter explains the former. The former is during the calibration period. The latter is true along the entire record and casts doubt upon relying on only the calibration period for proof of temperature proxy behavior across the entire period.
This notion that we cannot rely on any paleo evidence because there might be some unknown confounding factor we have yet to discover is not how science works. We have very strong evidence that tree ring growth responds to temperature, and in science we don’t rely on the hypothetical scenario in which we discover evidence we don’t yet have, we rely on the evidence we do have until such time as this hypothetical scenario actually arises, and then we modify our theory accordingly.
I didn’t say any paleo evidence. I said there is great uncertainty in relying on screened inputs, which if given random inputs would produce a hockey stick.
There is no way to know that those reconstructions are robust except your faith that those series whose calibration periods correspond to temperature also correspond to temperature outside the calibration period.
You can say that these scientists KNOW these are temperature records, when I maintain they are speculating that these are temperature records.
Deleting the calibration period of one of four reconstructions in a graph because it declined in the calibration and cast doubt on the other three reconstructions is the actual devil in the details of Mike’s nature trick, otherwise known as hide the decline.
Four reconstructions on a graph. One truncated at the calibration period because it turned downward. Only three at the end, all climbing upward.
Leaving it in would have cast doubt on the accuracy of the other three to track temperature along the entire period.
This is not the case for MBH98, so this uncertainty is not relevant.
Science never “knows” anything. We have evidence, and we accept what that evidence tells us unless and until new evidence comes along that overturns it. Saying that we shouldn’t accept tree ring temperature proxies because maybe there’s some unknown factor confounding their use is silly. We don’t disguard evidence because maybe there is something we don’t know that might change our minds if we knew it, because that is the case for literally everything in science.
You are conflating multiple different things and cobbling a very muddled and confused narrative. I’m not sure you actually understand the issues you’re trying to argue about. Judging by the gleeful upvotes you’re receiving I’m guessing your peers do not, either. The set of tree ring series showing the decline were not calibrated over the period in which they diverged from the instrumental record because you couldn’t possibly do this. They were calibrated over the period in which they did align. But the calibration has nothing to do with how the data are visualized. The ‘hide the decline” email is referring to a visual Phil Jones was preparing for a WMO report that was meant to summarize Mike Mann’s reconstruction alongside that of Keith Briffa and Phil Jones. The decline was present in Briffa’s reconstruction, not Mann’s. Jones truncated Briffa’s reconstruction in 1961 to “hide the decline” in the tree ring chronology. Mann did not do this. Mann did not include Briffa’s reconstruction in his Nature paper. “Mike’s Nature trick” was to include the instrumental series alongside the reconstruction to extend it to the present day, as he stated in Figure 7.
The trick was to extend the reconstruction with the instrumental record prior to smoothing and truncating. See Figure 6 in MBH98 and Figure 3a in MBH99.
Both MBH98 and MBH99 clearly delineate between the reconstruction and the instrumental data. Jones certainly did not make a clear distinction in his graphic for the WMO report, which was not appropriate. But the “trick” is nothing more than including the instrumental record, as Jones explicitly stated in the email.
Look at the smoothed curve in Figure 5b of MBH98 (not Figure 6, my mistake in the previous comment). It is labeled “reconstructed (50 year lowpass).” Nowhere does it say that it was padded with instrumental data before smoothing. This is the trick. Jean S and UC figured out the exact details at Climate Audit.
The legend reads:
– – – Actual data
The “Actual data” is the instrumental record appended to the end.
And then “reconstructed (50 year lowpass)” which is the relevant curve with regards to the trick. Essentially the same thing was done in the IPCC TAR hockey stick diagram (MBH99) which is less cluttered.
UC and Jean S were able to reproduce these curves exactly by padding the reconstruction with instrumental data.
If that’s what you’re saying the “trick” is, I’m struggling to understand why that is problematic. You can see that the overlain instrumental data matches the smoothed curve matches the proxy data.
1) It is completely correct.
2) Love the way you completely fail to actually support your beliefs.
3) Anyone who believes that trees represent temperature, knows absolutely nothing about trees.
4) The reason why they had to “hide the decline” is that tree rings don’t actually correlate with temperatures. In fact in the modern era, tree rings diverge dramatically from the temperature record, that’s why they had to truncate the proxies and append the thermometer record.
More on trees.
1) All trees have an optimal temperature for growth, when temperatures get below or above that temperature, growth slows down.
2) There are many things that influence tree growth, too much or too little water, fertilizer, sunshine, etc. Trying to pick the temperature signal out of all the other signals is a fools errand.
3) Trees only grow during the growing season. Tree rings tell you nothing about happened climate wise when the trees are dormant.
The fact that you think that scientists who study tree rings have failed to consider these factors is so asinine it is not worth commenting further on.
Considered but have not resolved in any meaningful way.
Well, resolved in the way that maximises the odds of getting more taxpayer’s money and virtue signalling credits.
Science itself being one of the sacrificial victims.
”The fact that you think that scientists who study tree rings have failed to consider these factors is so asinine it is not worth commenting further on.”
Scientists who claim they can determine past temperatures with tree rings no nothing about trees. If you want to know how a tree responds to a slight temp increase as opposed to the response to increased water availability, ask someone who has grown and observed trees for 40 years. That would be me. Fact.. Increased temperatures do basically nothing to tree growth compared to the available water quantity. In AU El Nino corresponds to less rain and higher temperatures. Trees do not grow. Many die.
La Nina corresponds with cooler temperatures (much cooler in my case) Trees growth is explosive. That’s it and that’s all. There is nothing to argue about.
Michael Mann’s hokey stick graph will go down in history as the most meaningless and most wrong piece of research ever undertaken.
Exactly, tree ring spacing has always been an indicator for wet and dry seasons. Nothing to do with temperature.
So what are your opinions on, say, the effects of temperature vs. precipitation on the maximum latewood density of high elevation stands? Since you know way more about the subject than the scientists who spend their entire professional lives devoted to studying it and all.
A load of confused conjecture and not to be taken very seriously.
”The divergence problem is the disagreement between the temperatures measured by the thermometers (instrumental temperatures) on one side, and the temperatures reconstructed from the latewood density or width of tree rings on the other side, at many treeline sites in northern forests.
While the rendering and analysis of data from thermometer records largely suggest a substantial warming trend, tree rings from these particular sites do not display a corresponding change in their maximum latewood density or, in some cases, their width. This does not apply to all such studies. Where this applies, a temperature trend extracted from tree rings alone would not show any substantial warming. The temperature graphs calculated from instrumental temperatures and from these tree ring proxies thus “diverge” from one another since the 1950s, which is the origin of the term. This divergence raises obvious questions of whether other, unrecognized divergences have occurred in the past, prior to the era of thermometers. There is evidence suggesting that the divergence is caused by human activities, and so confined to the recent past, but use of affected proxies can lead to overestimation of past temperatures, understating the current warming trend. There is continuing research into explanations and ways to reconcile this the discrepancy between analysis of tree ring data and thermometer based data”
personally I reckon treerings are more for good rain years than temps.
from personal obs after cutting trees down that I knew age and weather patterns for
“The end result is our best estimate of temperature”
Rubbish.. the GISS series is a load of mal-manipulated, agenda-driven nonsense bearing zero resemblance to actual measured temperatures, and taking no proper count of things like urban heating effects, station siting etc etc.
The GISTemp analysis explicitly accounts for the things you mention, and the analysis is quite consistent with the raw measurements:
You seem to be extremely misinformed, and I daresay someone has fed you false information to try and play you for a fool. Don’t let them.
Wow, you really do consume the kool-aid.
You really do believe that naked assertions is how science works.
If it can create hockey sticks out of random signals, it will create hockey sticks out of everything.
That was an exceptionally pathetic come back.
Not even close to being an accurate description of Charles’ statement.
Looks like fraud to me.
The Early Twentieth Century was just as warm as today, and then the Alarmist Data Adjusters came along and turned the cyclical temperature record into a Hockey Stick, non-cyclical temperature record in order to promote a “hotter and hotter and hotter” scare story.
The completely politicized NASA that was repurposed by Barack Obama for “Muslim Outreach” and “CliMUTT Change Research” from its original mission in no way resembles the NASA for which I interned as a college Physics major on the Apollo Program.
I usually try to separate the NASA that works on climate from the NASA that works on space exploration.
I call the Science Charlatans “NASA Climate”.
Is Mann a fraud?
Not by even the broadest definition of the term.
His FAILED lawsuit against Dr. Ball is an example of fraudulent behavior since he never intended for it to be concluded in a trial, he dragged it out for over 8 years instead which is hilarious as he claimed he was libeled during that time he won awards made a lot of money and remains a professor in a university.
Mann who was rebuked for pretending he was a Nobel Prize winner by the Nobel Institute.
Nobel Committee Rebukes Michael Mann for falsely claiming he was ‘awarded the Nobel Peace Prize’
Did you read the book published by Mark Steyn (The one at the top of this page) showing that many scientists have a dim view of Dr. Mann even some his own associates were not supportive,
Mann never suffered from libel at all.
To paraphrase Steyn, ‘well he is from Penn State and belongs in the State pen.’
He is incompetent.
No, he’s deliberate.
Since the temperature was constant before the IR, if you heavily weighted any data set that showed a constant temperature before the IR and then averaged it, what would you get? A hockey stick?
I need to apologize for a lot of the commenters in this thread.
Stop with the temperature adjustment talk. it is a non-sequitur and a distraction.
Stop with the hide the decline talk. It is another unrelated issue and a distraction.
BTW, this is why you’ve all pissed off Mosh into his intolerable flybys. Instead of logical arguments you guys just start throwing shit at the wall randomly, as AlanJ accused me, but I didn’t do.
You’ve turned what might have been a reasoned back and forth into a nonsensical flame war.
We were talking about screening and processing tree-ring proxies for data.
This is not a good look for this site.
Thanks Charles. I was wondering what was happening with this thread.
In 2 decades can’t ever remember Mosher making any sustained intelligent commentary here other than unsupported claims of how perfect the BEST data is. He brings very little to the table.
Try being logical on ANY warmista blog and you’ll cop a pile-on bagging there.
This is the problem that I see, we’re too ‘nice’ to people that don’t deserve it and that is why the world is where it is today.
He led the movement to get NASA to open up the code and make their Climate Model E available to everyone.
He wrote the first book on Climategate.
He uncovered Gleick’s forgery.
And more beyond recount.
His inside baseball snarks skips over the preface most would need to understand it.
And we haven’t been here two decades.
It is entirely likely that some of the above discussion was imperfect.
1. Mann’s data twisting in “hide the decline” is both relevant and damning.
2. AlanJ with his mischaracterizations and half-truths was mostly NOT having a reasonable discussion.
3. Mr. Mosher and not the regular commenters of WUWT is SOLELY responsible for his often worthless, nearly always rude, sometimes dishonest, comments.
Your harsh, unfair, castigation of the WUWT commenters is appalling.
If it weren’t for those commenters (some of whom are present on this thread) who have, for over 10 years in many cases, faithfully added the high value of their well-informed, often highly educated, analysis to this site, WUWT would have dwindled into a lukewarm, mostly useless, doing-as-much-to-help-AGW-as-to-counter-it, site.
And Mr. Mosher’s book about “Climategate” would have done nothing to prevent that.
Instead of insolently insulting and scolding some of WUWT’s finest commenters, you could have simply countered their arguments.
Is your goal to alienate these loyal, intelligent, people to the point that they leave?
Is your goal the ruin of WUWT as a vehicle for observation-based science?
Is your goal to turn this site into “Steven Mosher’s Lukewarm World?”
Excellent comment, Janice! Right on the money!
Thank you, so much, for that, Tom.
I should have included an acknowledgement of Charles Rotter’s years of hard work around this place…… I was too upset at how he treated the WUWT science warriors …..
Your logic will NEVER convince Alan and his followers. It’s a religion.
Any rational bloke picked up quickly that Alan was delusional.
I think you are completely off the wall there, Charles.
To quote you:
“Stop with the temperature adjustment talk.
Stop with the hide the decline talk.”
What do you expect to get when you introduce Michael Mann’s name into the conversation? Just a discussion of tree rings? Please!
And you are whining about Mosher’s behavior? And skeptics here caused it?
I don’t like disagreeing with you, but you are off-base here, imo.
What Charles’ graph shows was demonstrated by Steve McIntyre years ago.
McIntyre showed that if you run Mann’s method but with random data (red noise) it generates hockeysticks pretty well identical to Mann’s. If the scientific community cannot disprove that finding – and they cannot – then the hockey stick is dead.
Are you actually aware of McIntyre’s analysis of the hockey stick? It is completely devestating. Mann responded to these criticisms by name-calling and nothing else. He was completely unable to disprove McIntyre’s work.
Just look at the proxy data used by Mann. It is very noisy but nevertheless on average it does show a warm Medieval Period. But Mann’s method conveniently removed that warming. It also removed the equally inconvenient cooling of the Little Ice Age.
The hockey stick is scientific fraud. You are defending the indefensible!
The link that I provided at the top of this thread proves that this is incorrect. There’s a lot of public confusion about what the actual issue M&M were trying to raise were, partly because of gross misunderstandings of it propagated by the Wegman report (on top of all the plagiarism stuff) and that propagated again by Muller.
M&M argued that one should center the series over the entire period of record rather than only the calibration record, and that doing so loses the hockey stick shape of the reconstruction. They essentially said, “if you model data that looks like the real tree ring series and use our centering convention you don’t get a hockey stick shape, thus your convention is artificially favoring hockey stick shapes in the tree rings series.” The response from MBH is that you still get the same hockey stick shape using either convention, you just need to include more PCs. Cue a lot of debating about the minutiae of complex statistical techniques.
Wegman and Muller somehow became confused by the work M&M had done and believed that M&M were working with series comprised of nothing but red noise – and this false notion has persisted ever since. It was never the issue M&M tried to raise, but it is the thing nearly 100% of skeptics think was the heart of the whole debate. McIntyre himself has certainly never tried to correct the record, and no one involved with the Wegman report ever, to my knowledge, admitted to their egregious oversights and errors.
The North Report demonstrates that Mann’s PCA method does indeed yield hockey sticks from red noise. They provide R code on page 140.
The North report agrees that short-centering PCA might lead to spurious results, but that is different than saying the short-centering performed in MBH98 did produce spurious results. In fact it did not, as the North report agrees. The hockey stick shape is an inherent property of the data, and this is confirmed over and over again through numerous independent reconstructions. M&M find a hockey stick themselves when not using short centering, as I noted above (they obfuscate this fact by using improper selection criteria for PCs with no justification whatsoever).
The North Report shows that the exact theoretical PC1 of red noise is a hockey stick.
The stripbark bristlecone pines show a clear hockey stick pattern. No one says otherwise. The problem with Mann’s PCA method is that it mines for data with this pattern whereas conventional PCA is unbiased.
The North Report provides a curated example of how persistent, autocorrelated red noise might produce a hockey stick shaped PC1. I don’t think that there’s much question that MBH98 procedure hoisted the HS shape to a higher PC, the question is whether that materially affects the results. The answer, as shown by McIntyre and many, many others, is that it doesn’t, really.
M&M do indeed start to insist that all they really meant is that the PCs rely too heavily on the bristlecone pines, but of course you can omit those series and you still get a hockey stick. You can, in fact, not do PCA at all and still get a hockey stick (yellow line):
As the North report, which you appear to agree with, concludes: “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”.
The hockey stick is not a construct that Michael Mann made, it is simply the shape of the temperature evolution of the past 2000 years.
To be precise, the North Report shows the exact (theoretical) population PC1 of an AR(1) process with the MBH method (red curve of Figure 9-2).
The yellow line in your figure presumably includes the bristlecone pines, just not as constituents of principal components.
I agree with the easily verified PC calculation of the North Report. I also believe the North Report is right in that bristlecone pines should be avoided in temperature reconstructions. And while it is true that some subsequent studies support the findings of MBH, many of them also rely on the bristlecone pines and other questionable proxies, and/or the biased screening procedure that Charles mentioned earlier.
Again, the question is not whether under strict circumstances the MBH procedure might produce an HS shape out of red noise, it is whether it always produces an HS shape out of red noise as Wegman claims (it does not, as M&M and countless other have shown). The idea is that you can feed red noise in and always get a hockey stick as the output. This is flagrantly false. I think most agree(?) that the short-centered PCA is not appropriate here, but it has no material affect on the results of MBH98.
As far as I’m aware, the MBH reconstruction has never been reproduced and thus no one knows the real end effect of the PCA error. The emulations by MM and WA have a warm period in the early 1400s when conventional PCA is used.
This is a valid point. The M&M paper and a number of Climate Audit analyses showed that the MBH approach can (i.e. where certain conditions are met) mine for hockey stick blades (accentuate the shape), not that it will (ie under all conditions) do so, which has been misunderstood.
I’m not sure that the Wegman report (which was not a journal submission, so not subject to the same rules) running a subset of the M&M validation suite is necessarily claiming this always produces hockey sticks. If the report did claim that, it was in error.
The caption for fig 4-4 in the Wegman report reads:
I don’t know how to read this as anything other than, “the MBH98 algorithm always produces hockey sticks in PC1s when fed red noise.” What he’s not saying is that these are 12 samples drawn from a set of the 100 most “hockey stick-like” PC1s sorted by their hockey-stickishness. It is not true that the MBH98 algorithm found hockey sticks in “each of the independent replications.” I don’t think Wegman realized this because they were blindly reproducing things from M&M without investigating thoroughly what they were looking at.
It is true that the MBH98 algorithm can tend to, under specific conditions, hoist hockey stick shapes into the first PC, but it is not true that the hockey-stick shape of the reconstruction is an artifact of this. M&M own centering method produces a hockey stick shape when the first 5 PCs are used. Essentially, MBH98 centering puts HS in PC1, M&M centering puts HS in PC4, standard selection rules for which PCs to retain indicate keeping the first two PCs for MBH98 centering, and the first 5 PCs for M&M centering, but M&M retained only two. The HS is a real property of the underlying data. In fact you can just use the temperature proxies without any PCA at all and still get the exact same HS (yellow line):
Thank you for the measured and informative reply.
“As the North report, which you appear to agree with, concludes: “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.”
That doesn’t apply to the United States. In the United States it was just as warm in the 1930’s as it is today.
Here’s the Hansen 1999 chart as evidence:
So it is a lie to claim that it has not been this warm in 1,000 years in the United States.
Btw, 1998 was just as warm as 2016, in case anyone is wondering. Which means the 1930’s were warmer than 2016, too.
These thinktanks out to break out the historic, written temperature records if they want the truth. You too, Alan.
The contiguous United States is less than 4% of the area of the Northern hemisphere. The Northern Hemisphere was not warmer in the 1930s than today.
You rely on a 12 year old presentation that is a mess to read meanwhile there have been plenty of anti-hockey stick papers published that continues to expose its errors that are chronically avoided by the small number of Mann’s fans.
Why do you present a highly misleading narrative when his errors are found in many ways besides the “red noise” discussion?
It’s entirely likely that Mann’s study was imperfect, but I am here addressing a specific, flagrantly false claim that is still floating around this very blog despite having been debunked 12 years ago. Why do you think this lie has persisted for more than a decade here and elsewhere in the climate blogosphere? Why hasn’t there been more effort from skeptics to debunk it?
Feel free to debunk it here. Why whine about others debunking it when you could do it yourself (apparently)?
I linked to the debunk just above. Give it a read, there are multitudes of other sources if you are still hungry afterword. This is perhaps among the deadest of horses still being beaten by skeptics in all of paleoclimate.
It wasn’t debunked over there which is why many here think you are wasting time defending the indefensible since that was only one of several big errors Dr. Mann made for that absurd paper which by the way doesn’t cover 50% of the planet.
Meanwhile their HUNDREDS of published papers that doesn’t show any hockey sticks at all:
600 Non Warming Graphs
That was part 1.
Thanks for that link.
Hockey Sticks are a computer artifact. They don’t represent the real world.
Just because you refuse to acknowledge the debunkings, doesn’t prove they don’t exist.
I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, no one else in this thread is choosing to acknowledge the debunking I provided. Choosing instead to put their fingers in their ears and yell nah nah nah can’t hear you.
I haven’t seen any debunking, just a bunch of activists whining that we don’t agree with the great and powerful Mann.
“It’s entirely likely that Mann’s study was imperfect …” ????
What the hell is wrong with you.
It is 100% that the ‘study’ was fraudulent.
What do you think ‘Mike’s trick to hide the decline’ means?
What the hell is wrong with you? If you are going to start out trying to deflect (lie), why would anyone care what you have to say?
What do you think those words mean? Are you aware that Mann didn’t write them?
I think it means that Mike’s cohorts and friends knew about his cheating (trick) methodology. It means that at least three of them were OK with the lie.
There was one that wasn’t OK with the lie and he outed them.
Again, you are deflecting. What do you think ‘Mike’s trick to hide the decline’ means?
I think you’re misquoting the email (deliberately? Out of sheer ignorance? The world will never know) and conflating different things. Jones didn’t write “Mike’s trick to hide the decline.” He wrote “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Mike’s “Nature trick” is to add the instrumental record alongside the reconstruction (see, e.g., the Figure 7 caption in MBH98). Jones is plotting Manns reconstruction alongside Keith Briffa’s, so he’s saying that he has added the instrumental record to Mann’s from 1981 to present day and for Keith Briffa’s reconstruction he is truncating the proxy record in 1961 and adding the instrumental record from there to “hide the decline” in the proxy reconstruction that diverges from the instrumental record.
For reference, this is the graph Jones was talking about in the email:
I wasn’t quoting the e-mail. I was quoting Muller (for all the world to know).
Please note that his (Richard Muller) presentation (at the 2:30 mark) shows what the graph should have looked like … what it would look like without the ‘hide the decline’ cheat.
You need to realize that if you feel the need to exaggerate to make your point, deep down, you must actually realize there is something wrong with your point. (either that, or you also are just an outright fraud).
I am quoting you here:
“It’s entirely likely that Mann’s study was imperfect …” ????
What the hell is wrong with you.
Why do you think Muller misquoted Jones’ e-mail? Do you think he did it deliberately? Why are you repeating an incorrect and misleading misquotation of the email that is publicly available?
And the purpose of “hide the decline”?
Because it did not look good.
Because it did not represent their narrative well enough.
I don’t care who first suggested that they (all) “hide the decline”, and I don’t know why you want to protect any of them (Jones, Mann, or anyone). I don’t know why Muller wanted expound on it and to bring it to light.
Your characterization of the ‘study’ as potentially ‘imperfect’ is silly … a very silly & clumsy attempt at deflection. You have shown that you have zero credibility.
Why to you think they wanted to hide the decline?
Well, he didn’t “expound on it.” He flagrantly misquoted the email and his misquotation changes the meaning completely. Why do you think he did that? Do you think it was simple ignorance (excusable if he has later corrected the record, but he hasn’t), or do you think it was a deliberate lie intended to mislead people?
All that I want is for true things to be known. You are, intentionally or not, trying to spread false things. That is why I am pushing back.
You get the meaning from the quote from the last four words of the quote: “… to hide the decline”.
So, instead of saying that they worked together to hide the decline, Muller says they used “Mikes trick to hide the decline”. Jones etal don’t get the bad press that Mann gets … I don’t care … you do.
You characterized the ‘study’ as potentially ‘imperfect’. Maybe you say ‘imperfect’ because the intent, to fool the general public, didn’t play out & they got caught. If this is what you mean by ‘imperfect’, then I was wrong about your (dis)honesty. If not:
Why to you think they wanted to hide the decline?
Mann didn’t try to “hide the decline.” His reconstruction doesn’t show a decline in the late 20th century because his reconstruction is based on multiple proxies rather than just tree rings. Keith Briffa’s reconstruction did show a decline because it was tree-ring only. The decline is seen in certain species of northern latitude trees.
Jones is not saying, “I’m hiding the decline just like Mann did,” (Muller’s misstatement of the email), he’s saying, “I’m adding the instrumental temps just like Mann did, and doing it from 1961 for Briffa’s reconstruction to hide the decline in the tree ring series.”
Why Jones wanted to hide the decline, which was widely discussed in the peer reviewed literature, on a schematic diagram intended for the cover of a WMO report, seems pretty straightforward: the decline isn’t a real climate signal, and Jones was trying to make a diagram showing our best understanding of the climate evolution of the past 2000 years. Certainly his approach was clumsy, perhaps misleading, but he certainly wasn’t worried about people finding out there was a decline in Briffa’s tree ring series, since that decline was widely known.
“Jones was trying to make a diagram showing our best understanding of the climate evolution of the past 2000 years.”
NO. Jones (and the others, Mann included) was trying to make a scary graph. Whether or not they believed we are/were in a period of skyrocketing temp increase doesn’t matter.
Would they, or anyone, use similar methodology again (to hide a decline)? Why not?
Nothing in the hacked emails ever talks about producing a “scary” graph, so this is purely conjecture on your part with no evidentiary basis. In fact the conversation revolves around how to present the clearest and most accurate picture of the current scientific understanding.
I think the graphic Jones produced was a bit misleading, so hopefully no one tries to make a similar visual. But the fact is that the “hide the decline” comment has nothing to do with anything Mann did in his 1998 or 1999 studies, which is the lie that Muller is propagating.
Why do you think Muller is propagating a lie?
I don’t know how we got from your characterization of the ‘study’ as ‘imperfect’ (and my calling it out as a very silly & clumsy attempt at deflection), to what Muller thinks about Mann.
He did say he had no problem with the ‘trick’; his issue was with the ‘hide’ … the deception.
Maybe he isn’t propagating a lie, mebbe he is just making an ‘imperfect’ statement.
You said that Mann’s study is fraudulent and that the ‘hide the decline’ email proves it, by referring to a misquotation of the email by Muller. I’ve been explaining that Muller was propagating a lie and that “hide the decline” referenced Keith Briffa’s reconstruction and not Mann’s.
Mann’s study was flawed. It was not fraudulent, and the flaws did not substantively impact the results, which are perfectly consistent with two decades of independent work by other researchers.
Mann knew about the ‘flaws’, before, during & after.
The graphic was intended to deceive.
You need to accept that Muller did not propagate a lie, he simply said ‘imperfect’ stuff.
Fraud: “an act of deceiving or misrepresenting”
Again, what the hell is wrong with you?
Meanwhile the stupid HS lives on getting whacked again as the IPCC lies using a set of proxies that doesn’t come close to supporting it.
The IPCC AR6 Hockey Stick
I wonder if they are trained to be incompetent since they again graft yearly resolution data onto a set of proxies with divergent resolution range mostly at the Decades to Century range level and large error bars too.
Haw Haw Haw…..
You are really that clueless Alan?
Mann, “imperfect”? Wow.
Do you know what “hide the decline” means?
Of course a team of activist dark science response folk
who use strawman techniques to “debunk”^тм stuff they recognize as terminally damaging to their climate feint.
The “red noise” hockey stick of Mann et al arises from
his ‘novel’ (his own term) statistical transformation of the data BEFORE performing PCA (principal component analysis) and is not from the actual data itself.
This work was published in Geophysical Research Letters with demonstrations of this effect by eminent statisticians Steve McIntyre and Ross McKittrick. McIntyre discovered this problem with Mann’s work.
Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance
Stephen McIntyre,Ross McKitrick
First published: 12 February 2005
Physics prof Richard Muller of U Calif Berkeley, who is not a sceptic of Anthro Global Warming, and is author of the Berkeley Earth global average temperatures set, had this to say:
“I emphasize the bug in
their PCA program simply because it is so blatant and so easy to understand. Apparently, Mann and his colleagues never tested their program with the standard Monte Carlo approach, or they would have
discovered the error themselves.”
BEST is made from all the worst data in the world..
… manipulated and tortured with the aim of matching match the GISS fabrications.
It relies on adjusting non-urban temperature to match regional expectations governed by strongly urban affected sites, then smearing the whole over huge areas where there is no data whatsoever, infilling with pre-assigned model non-data.
Yeah b.nice, I know. But even a hot house partisan was disgusted with the blatant manipulation to get a Hockey Stick. Mark Steyn’s book has a hundred CliSci warming proponents who think Mann is a “Disgrace”! So we’re talking about a fraud who’s a cut below homo sapiens
The excuse they used was that urban records had fewer gaps and were therefore better.
In their “minds” all they did was adjust “poor” data to match the “better” data.
BEST is just another lying Hockey Stick.
If you look at a temperature chart and it’s temperature profile does not show that the Early Twentieth Century was just as warm as it is today, then you are looking at a bogus, bastardized, computer-generated Alarmist Hockey Stick chart.
Legitimate temperature charts do show that the Early Twentieth Century was just as warm as it is today.
Since CO2 was not a significant factor in the Early Twentieth Century, it cannot account for the wamth that occurred at that time, and even though much more CO2 has been added to the atmosphere since that time, the current temperatures are no warmer than they were back then.
Therefore, CO2 is a minor player in the Earth’s atmosphere, and does not require regulation or restrictions.
The Alarmists have it all wrong. And they are currently attempting to destroy our economies with their war on coal, oil and natural gas, even when there is no evidence that a war needs to take place.
See 600 examples of temperature charts where the Early Twentieth Century shows to be just as warm as today, at the link provided just above.
Those charts are written and recorded by human beings. They don’t look anything like the scary, computer-generated Hockey Stick charts alarmists use to frighten the world into doing very stupid, dangerous things in an effort to curtail the benign gas, CO2.
Without the bogus Hockey Stick charts, the Alarmists would have no argument to present. The bogus Hockey Stick charts are the only thing they can point at. It’s all they have. And it is bogus as hell and all made up in a computer for political/selfish purposes.
The most damaging scientific fraud in human history.
In a rational discussion, this citation would close off further debate. But not in climate science.
““I emphasize the bug in
their PCA program simply because it is so blatant and so easy to understand.”
There seems to be at least one person on this thread who doesn’t understant this.
Thanks for the post, Gary. I notice there is no reply to this from the person who doesn’t understand. Maybe your comment enlightened him enough to change his mind.
We’re here to help. 🙂
I’ve been discussing this issue extensively throughout this comment thread. Please refer to those comments. I’m here to help.
you entirely missed the point in that his paper has more than just red noise errors in it which you entirely ignored; I asked you the question:
The talking points memo only mentioned “red noise”.
Yes, I am aware of that, but he thinks defending one of the errors somehow make his paper valid or something…. when there are other errors not being addressed by this Alan who seems determined to ignore them.
Thus, even if red noise argument is false as Alan claims the other errors haven’t been addressed and some of them are far easier to expose as fatal errors thus what he is doing here is what I call a smokescreen to hide other harder to defend errors of the stupid paper.
The HS remains paper remains a failure one that doesn’t cover close to 50% of the planet’s surface.
There actually are some genuine errors or at least poor choices in methodology in Mann’s study*. This nonsense about generating the hockey stick graph from red noise is not one of them. In fact the error was on the part of Steve McIntyre, which was then repeated uncritically in the Wegman report. If we agree that this isn’t a significant issue in Mann’s study then we can agree that it is peculiar how it seems to be universally believed and kept alive in the skeptical blogosphere. My impression would be that skeptics should want to distance themselves from debunked and wrong notions yet they persist.
*i don’t agree that these issues undermine the general conclusions of Mann’s work as they have been reaffirmed numerous times in the past two + decades.
“The HS remains paper remains a failure one that doesn’t cover close to 50% of the planet’s surface.”
It doesn’t cover the North American continent, either. There is no Hockey Stick profile for the United States and Canada. At least, not until after 1998, when the alarmists realized the temperatures were NOT going to continue to climb, and the alarmsts set out to rig the temperature profile after that time.
But 1998, was just as warm as 2016, and that means, that the 1930’s were warmer than 1998 and 2016. No Hockey Stick profiles here.
Red noise, white noise, pure monotone, dead silence – he got the fraudulent curve he wanted. The “source” didn’t matter in the least, except to make his lie slightly plausible.
Rather than whining about it, why don’t you DO something about it? Post links to credible papers debunking it, or provide excerpts or even your own analysis proving your point here?
Oh dear AlanJ. It simply amazes and saddens me that there are still people like you who actually believe that!
Mann’s analysis produces hockey sticks from anything. It most definitely produces hockey sticks from red noise. Its pretty trivial to reproduce the principal of why that is so using a random number generator and a spreadsheet.
If you don’t think its true, try it yourself. In other words, use one of the teachings of that great scientist Richard Feynman and experience the “joy of finding things out” and follow the motto of the Royal Society “nullius in verba”
Would love to see your proof of that. Would be particularly helpful if you can also address the arguments in the above link I posted while you’re at it.
Like I said:
“If you don’t think its true, try it yourself. In other words, use one of the teachings of that great scientist Richard Feynman and experience the “joy of finding things out” and follow the motto of the Royal Society “nullius in verba””
Do your own proof. I don’t need further proof to know you are wrong. I have the necessary expertise to check it for myself. I don’t need third party “debunkings” or your unfounded opinion to know that.
As to your comment “Would be particularly helpful if you can also address the arguments in the above link I posted” I am sure it would to you, but I am not inclined to respond to your lazy nonsense.
If you can’t be bothered to summarise, articulate or otherwise present those arguments here, why would I or anyone else waste our time responding to your trolling?
Get a life mate, do your own diligence. I’ve done mine, enough to be confident that Mann’s hockeystick will condemn him in the history of science as a charlatan.
In other words, you’re unable to object to any points made in those arguments but still choose to cling to your unsubstantiated and now debunked opinions. That’s fine, just go forth knowing you believe things you can’t even defend.
LOL what a pathic reply since you refused his request:
If you can’t be bothered to click a link and read it I certainly can’t be bothered to distill the contents of that link down into fun sized easily digestible bites for you. Read the article and come to me with questions and objections. Then we will be having a conversation and it might even be worthwhile.
Ha ha ha you still didn’t do what he suggested which was this:
Why can’t you do it?
M&M claim that the hockey stick in MBH98’s PC analysis depends on their use of short-centering (normalizing over the calibration period instead of over the mean of the entire series).
M&M tried to demonstrate this by generating PC1s from trendless red noise pseudo-proxy series using the MBH98 procedure. They find that it tended to produce PC1s with hockey stick shapes. However, the “red noise” series they generated had high auto-correlation and persistence (they artificial pseudo-proxy series were hockey-sticky!)
Wegman then reproduced one of M&M’s graphs, not by replicating their analysis, but by grabbing some of the PC1s from the Monte Carlo simulations M&M had performed. Unbeknownst to Wegman is that he selected PC1s that had been presorted by how hockey sticky they were. So it wasn’t a random sample of the PC1s M&M had generated, but the ones that had the strongest hockey stick shape. Wegman then claimed on this basis that the MBH98 procedure always produced hockey sticks from red noise.
Thus a persistent myth was born.
This “overcooking” of the pseudo-proxy series isn’t the only problem with M&M’s analysis, nor the uncritical acceptance of it the only problem with Wegman’s, but it certainly has produced the longest standing misperception among skeptics, and M&M and Wegman seemingly have little interest in correcting the record.
And did those analyses resolve Mike’s Nature Trick?
People who know even less about statistics than Mann does, come out in defense of Mann’s use of statistics.
I know that impresses you.
Do you really believe the Horse Hockey on a Stick graph is legitimate?
US Postal rates drive global warming…H//T JoNova
HIDE THE DECLINE…Climate Change over the past 1000 years per the IPCC
Climate scientists that I have met and correspond with showed me this 1990 IPCC in 2000 after one of them John Maunder had attended the first two climate meetings in Villach and Rio de Janeiro .
He came and gave a presentation in 2000 before this fraudulent 2001 report was manufactured to push the climate change scam .
Without this 2001 IPCC report the global warming fraud falls over and there is nothing to see and nothing to worry about.
M Mann and the other dishonest scientists that are pushing this scam should be held to account but they will try and say that they believed this hockey stick chart.
Fraud is fraud .
“Without this 2001 IPCC report the global warming fraud falls over and there is nothing to see and nothing to worry about.”
I agree with that.
The Bogus Hockey Stick Chart profile is all the Alarmists have to try to scare us with.
The Bogus Hockey Stick Chart profile looks completely different from the temperature profile of the written, historical temperature record, all of which show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.
This is why I say it is fraud, not just stupidity or a mistake, because all these alarmist data manipulators have seen all these written, historical temperature profiles from all around the world showing it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, yet they create a Hockey Stick temperature profile in a computer than looks nothing like the historical, written rocords.
So the Data Manipulators knew the real, benign temperature profile of all the written, historical temperature charts, and they deliberately changed this profile into a “hotter and hotter and hotter” profile where today is the hottest day in human history.
They knew what they were doing. They changed the temperature profile of the globe into a scary nightmare. A fake scary nightmare.
And here we are. Look at the damage they have done. And it’s not over yet.
From what I can gather from your link, processing the random data will generate both upwards and downwards hockey sticks, then you make the comment below that the criteria of calibrating proxies against temperature records is hardly bias.
And you still can’t figure out why people say the method creates hockey sticks out of noise?
Well, you’re getting there. At least you tried to read the link. The takeaway is that the data M&M presented were not random, but in fact were series constructed to look like real tree ring series. Wegman misunderstood this and thought he was looking at red noise series, and thus the myth of the MBH algorithm yielding hockey sticks from red noise was born.
I think the claim is that red noise can produce up ticks post 1900, as well as down ticks, of various gradients. It doesn’t create flat pre 1900 data. Average post or pre 1900 data with no weighting, and you get a dead flat plot. Weight post 1900 so that it’s the equivalent of many more data sets with significant up ticks post 1900 (is that what is meant by calibration?) and the pre 1900 data of these sets are still likely to average out as flat.
As pointed out above by myself, if that were a logical way to discriminate between good and bad data, you could claim that any data set with a slope of 0 before 1900 was good data, weight it regardless of happens after 1900, and then the average of the data sets should give you an up tick after 1900. A good proxy for temperature should still result in an up tick. A bad one, like the tree ring data, would be close to the result of random red noise – zero trend.
There are two issues at play:
I think there is an issue with the short centering in MBH98 (others might disagree), but has no material impact on the results. It’s a small quibble over a bit of statistical minutiae. M&M get a HS in their analysis when the correct number of PCs are retained.
No one has independently replicate Mann’s analysis.
I’m aware that Mann has assisted at least one attempt.
Without independent replication all non-hockeystick claims are specious sophistry.
Of the so called replications, all were done by students or close associates of Mann, and all used the same methods and mostly the same data.
has this Deep Climate paper been submitted to GRL to rebut M&M and been analyzed by M&M? I did not see evidence of that in my minimal research. Their paper and the Wegman report have withstood this process rather well in my opinion.
There were certainly comments submitted to GRL (e.g. Huyber 2005), explaining some of the methodological errors employed by M&M.
To which M&M responded.
That boils down to a difference of opinion as to what constitutes “red noise”.
oh, and dissing Wegman for some boilerplate.
Have fun with your flame war, chaps.
Clearly the author of Deep Climate provides an objective perspective. /sarc off.
From the “Deep Climate” About page:
Previous “About” page (November, 2010)Welcome to Deep Climate, an exploration of the climate science “skeptic” phenomenon in Canada and beyond. I look at the organizations that propagate climate science disinformation and the public relations professionals who have worked behind the scenes to ensure maximum impact of that disinformation. I try both to “follow the money” (flowing primarily from special interests opposed to regulation or taxation of greenhouse gas emissions) and to “follow the science” (by exposing the most egregious flaws in the “evidence” against the attribution ofcontemporary climate change primarily to human causes). From time to time, I’ll also “follow the politics” and examine the various ties between the “skeptic” disinformation efforts and right-wing political parties, including the Conservative Party of Canada and the Republican Party in the U.S..
Ad hominem attacks have no place in scientific discourse. You can either dispute the author’s arguments or you can’t.
Says someone who supports the side of the argument that attempts to associate those who disagree with their poor “science” as being equivalent to Holocaust Deniers.
Quoting an About Page is not an Ad hominem attack.
If the About Page makes the guy look biased, that’s not Jim’s fault.
I don’t think you understand what an ad hominem attack is. Jim is dismissing the author’s arguments not on their merits but because he thinks the author himself might be biased.
I considered your complaint prior to sending my comment.
My comment was that he was likely less than neutral in his judgement.
This conclusion was due to his words that he indicated that he leaned toward confirmation bias
My comment is a valid observation of concern.
That fact that you take his evaluation at face value may very well shine a light on your confirmation bias as well.
The fact that Michael Mann spliced two separate datasets together without validation raises some serious red flags.
Now add the various emails regarding “hide the decline” in addition to refusing to allow others to validate his work and the premise becomes questionable.
Lastly, I noticed that you chose to comment on a perceived ad-hominem attack on my part, however, you also chose to ignore my other question.
Tree rings show both temperature and precipitation.
Where are the graphs showing an absolute (or bound) value for precipitation? How do you differentiate between the two?
Tom: This today’s art. It certainly isn’t science. It was composed deliberately with selected proxies including one used upside down, ones for which the science community advised had no value as a proxy (strip bark pine), one of the Yamal tree ring series that yielded a hockey stick and the brush was a statistic that always made the pre-imagined hockey stick from red noise. Very artistic. He would clearly have thrown tomato soup on it had he thought to ‘hide the decline’ more permanently.
Courtesy of Iowahawk- make your own HokeySchtick™ at home:
The rule is to never reward a tantrum!
Of course, outlandish utterly ignorant tantrums completely alienate mature civilians.
I doubt mannical rewards people in his lectures/audiences throwing tantrums. Yet, manniacal is well known for throwing hissy fit tantrums.
There is no branch of science in which it legitimate to replace inconvenient data with data you like to get the result you want.
Except climate “science”.
No, Bill, Fred is right. Climate “science” is not a branch of science. It doesn’t make falsifiable predictions, and it doesn’t modify its hypothesis when its “projections” are proved wrong.
It’s a cult. Similar to Mann….
Science modifies it’s theories when they don’t match the data.
Climate “science” on the other hand modifies the data to match the theories.
Well now that he’s figured out that tantrums don’t work, does anyone think he’ll ever figure out that refusing to debate is not very effective either?
Actually, it is a very effective tactic if one owns government and media.
“It means whatever I say it means. Nothing more, nothing less”.
Good post. These are indeed tantrums for which Mann bears some responsibility.
First these are tantrums in favor of actions that not only make no sense, they simply do not work. Take the spilt milk example, in protest of ruminant produced methane. EXCEPT, while methane is a GHG in the laboratory in dry air, it isn’t in the real world with humidity, since the much more abundant water vapor completely overlaps methane IR absorption bands. And we already have real world examples of renewables collapsing the grid thanks to intermittency and lack of grid inertia.
Second, they are induced by fears of flawed climate model projections. Those models have three major failings: they produce a nonexistant tropical troposphere hot spot, they underproduce ocean rainfall by half, they get the cloud feedback sign wrong. And as a result, all their past predictions have proven wrong:
Tantrums are a sign that the wheels are falling off the global warming bus.
I’m mildly disappointed this story hasn’t received more traction this am.
Between potential nuclear war and crippling inflation running rampant, as well as a few little other things, I guess I understand.
When I look at the age of these kids, I think they are not paying for the electricity and heat, they are not paying for an EV, they haven’t been stuck in traffic because signals aren’t working, they haven’t been in an elevator with no power, they aren’t paying taxes that give their friends a non-work income, and they haven’t yet seen the loss of synthetics from fossil fuel destruction. No more DRI-FIT clothing!.
But one of the two does know how to dye her hair purple — Yet Hair dyes come from petrochemicals. So does the methylmethacrylate superglue they used to glue their hands to the gallery wall.
To paraphrase Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now: ‘The horror’.
“actions that not only make no sense, they simply do not work.”
Aren’t they beautifully consistent with the modern climatology?
Beside all the fails you mentioned, the Great Barrier Reef’s
also doing okay. To make matters worse for Climate Alarmists,
scientists recently discovered Antarctica’s Thwaites
“Doomsday” Glacier’s retreat has been slowing down. The
“exceptionally fast” retreat of at least twice its 2011-2019
rate at least pre-dates 1950 & may be 180 or more yrs old.
It’s hard to scare people, especially when nature has its own
“temper tantrum” & doesn’t cooperate!
I will add GBR in all future failure listings. Good point. My bad.
The point will be: ‘Buffered ocean isn’t ‘acidifying’ and GBR thrives’.
And the polar bear population has increased over the past couple of decades, as opposed to the predicted collapse.
Time to put little Mickey Mann on a stool in the corner, next to the coal burning stove, until he learns to behave.
The hat in the headline picture would be more appropriate if it had a “D” for dunce on it, but don’t put him near the stove, put him near the draughty window so he gets cold.
….with a dunce cap on his head.
I think it would be better if he was out in the cold without a heater
Like he wants us to be.
An inefficient coal fire with mostly incomplete combustion gases?
And the stove is trying to burn one small lump of brown coal?
Out in the snow.
children are growing up
They’re getting older. They are not growing up.
As for Mann, he’s getting what he asked for – why is he complaining?
i have to admit that watching these useful idiots destroy perfectly good milk pisses me off.
I guess that was the next best thing to destroying the cows.
Pour tomato soup on them while they are sitting in the middle of roadways disrupting traffic and people’s lives.
While they’re glued to something or other?
Ooooh, I like that idea!
I could think of some better things gs to pour on them rather than waste food. Perhaps collect some cow urine, seems more fitting…
I’m not a big fan of drinking milk but when they start stomping ice cream into the dirty aisles of the grocery stores, I could work up a very indignant huff.
What irritates me is none of these fools are being arrested. The people in the stores just stand around looking at these fools, and there are no police to be seen.
If you don’t discourage such behavior, then you are in effect encouraging such behavior. So expect more public foolishness, if the fools are allowed to get away with what they are doing.
People need to start understanding the process of Citizen’s Arrest, and to start practising it in these circumstances. It’s very simple and effective, anf perfectly legal.
Force them to clean up their messes … with their tongues. Now that would garner some attention and upvotes on social media.
Send the little pricks to work on a dairy farm and they might learn something .
If they resist send them to a vegetable growing farm and they might learn that there is no free lunch and every thing that they eat requires energy and work to produce .
A headline in our paper today .
“15% of young Spanish people are not working and not in education .”
Is this the latest that the state will look after you if you don,t want to work or train for a profession .
As far as these tantrums go, as soon as these individuals are given a proper spanking, these silly acts will end. The same could be said for the Karen phenomenom.
Careful there. Some of the Karens I’ve seen look like they enjoy spankings, bondage, whips and stuff.
Mann complaining about tantrums.
It’s reasonably intelligent of Mann to notice these extremist headlines actually result in loss of support for their “cause”. Maybe I will upgrade him from “deranged” to “manipulative” in the author’s rating list on my computer…..
Immature people acting immaturely are not gonna persuade the adults in the room. Let them show themselves for what they are.
Hey presto the MWP vanishes.
Mann is a one trick pony
In the years since the hockey stick came out, and was quickly broken, Mann has not done anything else of note.
Is it right that he plays the fiddle?
Perhaps in a church band . . . .
Asking, as I really wish to know.
Four hooves definitely, but I think a different animal, a jack***.
Meanwhile today Just Stop Oil protesters have scaled the Dartford Crossing bridge to which the police responding by closing it this morning at 4am. Currently 2-hour delays and 5 – 6 mile tail backs. Likely closed 24 hours through rush hour.
Selfie of the Civil Engineer Activist shows him hanging from the bridge. The ropes, prussik loops, static rope, harness, rucksack, clothing etc all appear to be made from petroleum products.
Couldn’t he have used a hemp rope and cotton clothes at least?
Personally, I fail to see why the police have closed the bridge. just leave them there and ignore them until they come down. Then arrest them.
Because Plod are complicit.
I don’t know about complicit.
mebbe ‘useful idiots’, being used by other useful idiots.
Is his home now empty and unprotected?
It would really be wrong for folk to go to his place in East London [UK, not the South African port], and pour milk – ‘Plant Based Future’ – on his things, in his whisky, his freezer, etc.
Please don’t do this.
But would it might help his cause if someone went to his place, and removed all materials that are, or utilize in some way, oil based materials?
I read this story from the BBC. It mentioned ‘some people’ on the bridge. That was yesterday. Since then? *crickets*
It sure looks like his nylon climbing shoes are on the wrong feet.
That silly hypocrite should be ridiculed for every fossil fuel derived item he is wearing/using.
One of the ironies for woke rock climbers is if they are vegan they have to wear rock shoes made from petroleum products. Decisions, decisions.
The problem with ridiculing them is that they’ll just shout over you and won’t listen.
I hope that everyone who has incurred additional costs (fuel, lost business time etc) from being stuck in traffic sues the twat.
Do they do class action suits there?
I’m guessing that Greta Dunderheadberg read that book, and it inspired her to act. The queen of climate tantrums.
When you seed winds you will collect storms!!!
This all CAGW EMERGENCY, CAOS and whatsoever, will make up the poor mind brainwash.
The two girls are only an “expectable product” of all this unscientific regurgitation.
By seeing the curricula of several’s countries teaching system, full of these “doom” and “emergency” things, I expect a lot more of this protests in the future. Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear” is more actual everyday that passes.
I really don’t see how it’s conceivable that someone so embroiled in his politics can produce objective science. Someone who has bound their entire identity and sense of self to a certain hypothesis. It’s not possible to change one’s mind at some point, humans just don’t work that way. Now it goes much further where many of these math and physics guys, who are touted as giants of their fields, want more and more. Now claiming to be experts in environment, humanities, engineering, and energy, because of their reductionism of the world to their global climate perspective. Climate impacts everything I guess, therefore they are experts on everything? It’s kind of hard to watch sometimes, like really seriously cringe-worthy. Now many of them are becoming very studious in theories of political persuasion and psychological manipulation, teaching courses on the subject. Imagine environmental science departments reduced to such nonsense. To pay for a course as an undergraduate to learn politics from someone trained in applied math. it’s all so strange. Self-taught people, fumbling around in areas they clearly do not understand, going way outside their area of qualification to pontificate on what’s best for humanity. It’s really going off the rails.
Be glad they’re just pontificating. I’m waiting for the first amateurs to start doing it themselves along the lines of Neal Stephenson’s Termination Shock.
The girls could at least have used Campbells Tomato Soup… (art joke)
Joking aside I think they chose Heinz because of the companies green credentials, which appear to be saintlier than Campbell’s.
Hard not to notice that his only objection to the minions throwing tantrums is that they’re not working.
IF the tantrums were gaining more minions, Mann would be applauding them.
(The “settled science” of CAGW has made many projections over the years. Ma’ Gaia has thrown tantrums and refused to cooperate. When will he notice that?)
The evolution of Mann?
Will Mikey suddenly realize that being shown,in his own words, as willing to lie to further the cause..Did nothing for his credibility?
How many decades before he “evolves” to the understanding that whatever he has been doing with the data..it ain’t science?
And I use the term “data” very loosely.
All things are possible.
Mikey Mann is an evolutionary dead end, he is incapable of evolving. He will continue to lie, deceive and defraud to the bitter end.
Mickey Mann’s faked graph is a great exposure of the effect of CO2 on tree growth. 😉
The paleoclimatoligist originally collecting tree cores and analyzing the paleo history of the bristlecone and foxtail pine from the cores speculated that CO2 fertilization caused increased ring growth in the 20th Century since there was no corresponding temperature change in the region. It is now believed that the unusual and asymmetric nature of the stripbarking impact on tree growth, combined with incorrect original sampling procedures, caused the difficulties. Who knows?
What we do know, thanks to Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, is that Mann cooked up the Hockey Stick by manipulating data and inventing his own statistics. Yet the “scientific” palaeoclimatological community circles the wagons around him still. And they are still using the invalid bristlecone and foxtail pine data.
We also know that tree rings better track rainfall, and are not reliable for temperature reconstructions. All of the scientific literature cautions people not to use tree rings for temperature reconstructions. Yet the Team still uses (abuses) them.
”We also know that tree rings better track rainfall, and are not reliable for temperature reconstructions. All of the scientific literature cautions people not to use tree rings for temperature reconstructions. Yet the Team still uses (abuses) them.”
Correct. Tree growth and temperature are only related in extreme situations.
It gets worse because the Bristlecone Pine is a niche tree in a climate that is barely found on a climate map a poor statistical representation of the American West that it grows in which is a high elevation tree that barely grows from year to year, I pointed this out to Steve McIntire over a decade ago.
The NAS said they shouldn’t be used in temperature reconstructions.
Mickey Mannish seems intent on giving advice to everyone but himself. Might I suggest a new strategy for him based on real science, integrity, respect for the audience and just a wee bit of humility? I know the science aspect may be a bit of a reach as he seems to have missed any training in that field but there are many sources of guidance.
We need the Sorcerer to come home and get the Apprentice Mann under control again.
A lot of old people get paid to do this sort of stuff because it’s about inducing a heavy-handed response. That would be effective.
It’s guided research used to confirm partisan ideology. Academic departments reduced to think-tank advocacy groups, funded with public money. Any academic worth his weight in salt should fight against this ideology. Those pushed into the public eye in the climate space effectively being used as pawns. The few that repeatedly appear in large media broadcasts/publications do appear to have similar personality traits. Perhaps too ignorant or tempted by their newfound popularity to recognize they are being exploited. Easy pickins. It would make them easy targets for selection. Those with the ‘correct’ ideas, and gullible enough to go along. Selected for promotion, awards, and TV spots. I suspect most scientists would be far too embarrassed to put on display like that, to speak with certainty on any of these issues. It takes a certain type.
When you have the facts on your side, pound the facts.
When you have the evidence on your side, pound the evidence.
When you have the science on your side, pound the science.
When you are a climate alarmist all you can do is pound the table.
All of these acts are unlawful. The individuals should face severe punishment as well as the organizations they are affiliated with. If those organizations are receiving government grants, tax incentives or any benefit from government it should be withdrawn forever. Withdraw the benefits from the members also so they can’t change the name and continue on. The individuals need to be punished severely. They are punks.
Well, not mentioned was the fact that he knowingly published incorrect data in his most prominent hockey stick paper in 1998!
S. McIntyre provided clear evidence that Mann calculated the r squared statistics (it is hidden in his infamous censored FTP directory), but failed to report it in his publication.
That is scientific fraud.
Curious that no-one mentions Andrew Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion”.
In my opinion the best and most readable account of Mann’s egregious charlatanism.
VERY LATE but finally..