Stephen McIntyre has recently again fired up the seminal site for uncovering deficiencies in the works of Mann et al, ClimateAudit.org
His latest post ends a 25 year mystery surrounding the famous MBH98 paper. A Swedish engineer, Hampus Soderqvist, reversed engineered the reconstruction and deduced that:
Mann’s list of proxies for AD1400 and other early steps was partly incorrect (Nature link now dead – but see NOAA or here). Mann’s AD1400 list included four series that were not actually used (two French tree ring series and two Moroccan tree ring series), while it omitted four series that were actually used. This also applied to his AD1450 and AD1500 steps. Mann also used an AD1650 step that was not reported.
Soderqvist’s discovery has an important application.
The famous MBH98 reconstruction was a splice of 11 different stepwise reconstructions with steps ranging from AD1400 to AD1820. The proxy network in the AD1400 step (after principal components) consisted 22 series, increasing to 112 series (after principal components) in the AD1820 step. Mann reported several statistics for the individual steps, but, as discussed over and over, withheld the important verification r2 statistic. By withholding the results of the individual steps, Mann made it impossible for anyone to carry out routine statistical tests on his famous reconstruction.
However, by reverse engineering of the actual content of each network, Soderqvist was also able to calculate each step of the reconstruction – exactly matching each subset in the spliced reconstruction. Soderqvist placed his results online at his github site a couple of days ago and I’ve collated the results and placed them online here as well. Thus, after almost 25 years, the results of the individual MBH98 steps are finally available.
Remarkably, Soderqvist’s discovery of the actual composition of the AD1400 (and other early networks) sheds new light on the controversy about principal components that animated Mann’s earliest realclimate articles – on December 4, 2004 as realclimate was unveiled. Both articles were attacks on us (McIntyre and McKitrick) while our GRL submission was under review and while Mann was seeking to block publication. Soderqvist’s work shows that some of Mann’s most vehement claims were untrue, but, oddly, untrue in a way that was arguably unhelpful to the argument that he was trying to make. It’s quite weird.
Soderqvist is a Swedish engineer, who, as @detgodehab, discovered a remarkable and fatal flaw in the “signal-free” tree ring methodology used in PAGES2K (see X here). Soderqvist had figured this out a couple of years ago. But I was unaware of this until a few days ago when Soderqvist mentioned it in comments on a recent blog article on MBH98 residuals.
https://climateaudit.org/2023/11/24/mbh98-new-light-on-the-real-data/
The post is a long and technical one to which I cannot do proper justice, and I suggest reading the original at Climate Audit
Yippeee! A New Mann-bashing thread. I’ll be back later to read the post and to enjoy the comments.
Regards,
Bob
Fakery included from the very beginning, just like Mann’s Nobel prize.
“What we did was we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. …”
Here’s where you can read that revolting James Hansen quote (yep — you can read that sentence two ways and both would be accurate):
https://www.climatedepot.com/2018/06/22/analysis-james-hansens-1988-testimony-was-the-end-of-any-pretense-in-reality-with-climate-science/
There was a video of Tim Wirth recanting that sabotage of the hearing room. But my short search didn’t find it. Wirth was laughing about it on camera. Maybe someone here at WUWT can find it.
Whether it happened or not- isn’t the question- it’s the fact that they’d even joke about something like that. It’s juvenile and lowers their integrity.
It happened. I saw it.
“Men Without Chests” don’t have integrity
Sure, Troll Case. Sure.
And, FYI, it was HANSEN who admitted to doing that. It would, therefore, be for HANSEN to recant.
I suspect Steve’s autocorrect turned recount into recant
Steady….
Janice, I just down voted you for the first time I can remember.
Wirth, in the video, admitted to doing it as Steve Case said.
(If I remember correctly, Hansen’s testimony was scheduled for the historically hottest day of the the year in DC.
Wirth had them leave the windows open all night so the AC units would freeze up, and so not be able to cool the room before Hansen’s hearing.)
Recant when I should have said recount.
Typos can be a botch!
(I know what you meant. The sweat on Hanson’s brow was a set up.)
I saw it a decade or so ago.. It happened.
Perhaps if you had said, “Tim Wirth recalling …“, your comment would have been better received?
I remember the interview with Wirth.
It was basically about him bragging about the AC being sabotaged, and how it was done, before Hanson’s testimony.
(Anybody surprised that an internet search makes it hard to find?)
Interviews – Timothy Wirth | Hot Politics | FRONTLINE | PBS
I suspect Wirth was using the royal ‘we,’ when describing his fraud Janice. It doesn’t include Jim Hansen.
The Nobel Museum in Stockholm admit the some recipients of the prize were in retrospect considered unworthy of the Prize; I said to the guide when I was there ‘you mean like Al Gore for instance’ he was speechless. However I did not know that Mann had won one as well. 25 years on he was and is especially unworthy
The UEA were pioneers in climate research and defined the medieval warm period which Mann hockey-sticked out of the record- how clever was that then.
Yep. And the ‘Climate Research Unit’ at UEA was established when Hubert Lamb left the UK Met. Office to establish it and the University agreed to match the funds he had already raised from oil company Shell.
Mann said he won one, even included the false statement in legal filings, but to their credit, the Nobel Prize organization quickly shot down his attempt at stolen valor.
Gore on the other hand was an actual named winner, along with IPCC, unfortunately.
So was Yasser Arafat. So there’s that.
Obama won a Nobel for being elected president.
Obama’s Nobel was for antisemitism. Hamas will win one next year. The Euros love their antisemites.
Hamas and Gaza are maintained by Qatar, the EU, the UN….their desalination technology comes indirectly from Israel who are leaders in the field. Kuwait no longer support them since Saddam’s invasion when they stabbed them in the back and can no longer be trusted. The leader of Hamas lives in Qatar ; the latter created Hamas and sustain them with millions of $ daily
And saying ‘No we can’t’.
Obama should have shared the Nobel Prize with the American people.
Yes, we need to keep things in perspective.
I believe that when the IPCC got it- it included several dozen “researchers”. One was Bill Moomaw, the creator of “proforestation”- the fantasy that forests should be locked up to do nothing but sequester carbon. He also has a habit of being a “pretender” to a Noble laureate- and often when he’s introduced to an audience (often here in Wokeachusetts)- they’ll call him a Noble lauriate. I don’t think crowds deserve to get the Noble. Maybe 2-3 who worked closely together on major breakthroughs- but not dozens of mediocre authors of IPCC papers.
After the IPCC won, their infamous President sent out letters of thankyou to many contributors (including my tennis partner who was a scientist in the old Asheville NASA office).
As we know mendacious Mike used that thankyou to claim he won the prize.
I remember one of my (now retired) work colleagues having a certificate for his contribution – there were probably hundreds of them sent out.
I don’t think so, but I could be wrong. My understanding was that the 1/2 prize given to the IPCC named no one specifically. It was accepted on behalf of the IPCC by that great human being Ranjenda Pachauri, as Chairman.
Al Gore won the other half and he accepted it on behalf of himself and his chakra.
Mann wasn’t the only climate “scientist” to make incorrect claims over receiving the award, and I understand that several were told to cease and desist in making such claims.
If Bill Moomaw had been awarded the prize, I imagine there would be a photograph of him receiving his award in Olso, along with other recipients.
Then again, Nobel prizes kind of lost all credibility when the terrorist Yasser Arafat, Mr. “Start the peace talks, we’re running out of ammunition/getting our asses kicked,” was awarded the “Peace Prize.”
The award to the Intergovernmental Propaganda on Climate Control removed any doubt that “Nobel Prizes” meant anything.
“mediocre authors of IPCC papers.”
Swap order to:
“authors of mediocre IPCC papers.”
Unless you know them personally. If you’re never met the authors how could you know?
By their fruits ye shall you shall know them.
The neurologist who invented lobotomy get a Nobel in Medicine.
The obsession to sniff another’s hair originates from the frontal lobes. FJB
My frontal lobes are shot to pieces thanks to Campylobacter, a UK GP giving me the wrong drug and resulting multi organ failure – the ne waits very different from the old bits – so “I dont get that”…..
QED!! – “new bits”…
These days the Nobel Committee would probably posthumously award Adolf Hitler with a prize for his outstanding history on Jewish relations./sarc
What a Charlatan
If Michael Mann’s graph hadn’t turned up at the end and had just kept on flat lining indefinitely as apparently it is doing now – he would have deserved a Nobel Prize in some category or other; no doubt or question whatsoever about that!
We’re only talking about the Nobel Peace Prize, which is an overtly political award and completely lacking in the academic rigour associated with the “proper” Nobel Prizes. It should be an embarrassment for any aspiring scientist to claim the Nobel Peace Prize as being any sort of validation of their work.
Same with Economics; Krugman, for example. Then there’s Pinter in literature.
Makes me happy that there is not a Noble Prize for Engineering.
‘Krugman, for example.’
It’s gotten a lot worse since then. Imagine getting a Nobel for ‘showing’ that increasing the minimum wage actually increases employment.
I wonder if Mann reads this stuff and gains succour from it.
I was named Man of the Year in 2006.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_(Time_Person_of_the_Year)
Oh, me too! Thank you.
Thank you for pointing this out! Time (pun intended) to update the ol’ resume.
G’Day Mark,
“Person of the Year”
Time magazine didn’t acknowledged a ‘special person’ at the end of the Vietnam war. Their ‘reporter’ in Saigon was an NVA Colonel. He didn’t go to the field, he stayed in town and interviewed allied generals, “What’s coming up next?”
“Time” – slick paper – can’t even use it for the obvious purpose.
Mann didn’t actually win one. The IPCC won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007
Nothing like winning a Nobel in Physics for example.
And WTH does a UN body assembled to push propaganda about the Earth’s climate have to do with “PEACE” anyway?!
A Nobel prize for the German Supreme Court
OMG, if I were Scholz, I would hide under a stone
German High Court Forces Government To Tell Voters True Costs Of Net Zero
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/german-high-court-forces-government-to-tell-voters-true-costs-of
Published on December 1, 2023
Written by WSJ Editorial Board
.
.
EXCERPT
Things have gone from bad to worse in Germany this week, after a court ruling forced the government to do something truly shocking: level with voters about how much the net-zero energy transition will cost.
This month, the country’s highest constitutional court ruled, one of the coalition government’s main gimmicks for funding green projects violates Germany’s version of a balanced-budged amendment.
That amendment, known as the debt brake, caps the government’s fiscal deficit at 0.35 percent of gross domestic product per year except in emergencies (as defined by special legislation passed with a majority in the Bundestag).
Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s administration had planned to devote €60 billion in emergency borrowing, approved, but not spent, COVID money, to subsidize green projects such as battery production and ‘decarbonized’ steel.
The point was to conceal the true cost of these plans by averting new legislative votes.
The judges saw through this when they ruled that emergency authorization to borrow in the past can’t be repurposed for entirely different projects in the future.
This fiscal moment of truth has exploded into a political crisis in Berlin.
It’s becoming clearer that the unwieldy coalition of Mr. Scholz’s Social Democrats (SPD), the eco-leftist Greens, and the free-market Free Democrats (FDP) of Finance Minister Christian Lindner can’t agree on any other method of funding green priorities.
Meanwhile, Mr. Lindner’s ministry says it believes a separate fund worth up to €200 billion may also be unconstitutional under the same principle.
Berlin planned to use this pot of money for energy subsidies, because German households and businesses are struggled to cope with skyrocketing prices by Berlin’s enthusiasm for costly and unreliable renewable energy.
At least the €100 billion special budget Berlin is devoting to defense is safe, since Mr. Scholz secured a constitutional amendment allowing that spending.
But that might be the only new money Berlin can spend.
Negotiations over the 2024 budget collapsed this week, as politicians grapple with the fallout from the court ruling.
The Bundestag is unlikely to approve, either a new, or retroactive “emergency” declaration, to allow this spending.
That leaves tax increases that Mr. Lindner would oppose, social welfare cuts Mr. Scholz would oppose, or an end to ambitious green spending that Robert Habeck, the Green Party minister for economic affairs and climate action, would oppose.
MORE
I dunno. It’s beating a dead (in this case, decomposed) horse, IMHO.
Better than Mann bashing … timely and potentially useful.
“Story Tip” Mann vs Mark Steyn has a trial date in January. Soderqvist’s reverse engineering is a clue for Steyn’s lawyers. Even if it isn’t entered as evidence, it does point to questions that Mann will have to answer under oath.
Hopefully. But it is DC, so I wouldn’t put it past a Commie Court to reason that Mann did not commit fraud by hiding his data since Soderqvist was eventually able to work out Mann’s methods, albeit decades later.
RE: “… is a clue for Steyn’s lawyers.” commieBob
Stein is sans attornies, he is representing himself–Pro se legal representation.
Dan Kurt
Steyn is representing himself at this point but I’m unclear as to exactly why – so Steyn will be doing any of the cross-examination, with the emphasis on cross if Mann is in the witness box. I don’t think it will be allowed in as evidence this late in the game but Steyn could certainly use it against Mann.
I presume you are all aware that Mann tried unsuccessfully to prevent McIntyre and McKitrick from testifying as witnesses for the defence. Now he will have to try blocking Swedish engineer Hampus Soverqvist.
Since McIntyre is aware of this work that won’t be necessary. Indeed he would probably be the better witness for explaining the issues and countering attempts at objections from Mann”s team. He has long experience of Mann, and will be well equipped to head him off at the pass.
Are you absolutely sure that Mark Steyn actually asked Steve McIntyre and Ross McKittrick to testify? As far as I am aware the only expert witnesses Steyn called were Judith Curry and Abraham Wyner, an expert statistician. Because of the late stage of the trial, Soderqvist would not be able to be called as an expert witness.
It will be interesting to see how hard Mann’s (very wealthy) lawyers fight to prevent this being introduced as evidence …….
Apparently, describing Mann’s data base as “stepped on” is an understatement.
I believe ‘crapped on as from a very great height’ might be as appropriate a description as any.
I wonder if this will force 2 faced Michael into a Mannic Depression?
That would be mannificent – it is his mannifest destiny…..in a mannaical way.
Bryan
There are a couple of lines in here –
https://www.oatridge.com/poems/j/jbs-haldane-cancers-a-funny-thing.php
How does one have 2 faces when one’s head is firmly up their ass?
Rectal-cranial inversion is especially significant for the two-faced! This allows them to observe their fundamental contributions to humanity both coming and going; a true joy for the malignant narcissist!
Two critical, basic tenets of the Scientific Method that one must show one’s work, and that the results are reproducible.
That Mann’s hockey stick has been accepted by other scientists without any way to trace his steps to determine whether he came to a defensible result is a tragedy.
We are paying the cost of the abandonment of the basics of the Scientific Method in trillions of dollars, a lower standard of living, and geopolitical weakness by intentionally becoming dependent on China for lithium and rare earth metals necessary for wind and solar.
We have enough fossil fuels in the US for energy independence that is both low cost and extremely reliable. Energy independence allows us to be somewhat indifferent to the volatile politics of the ME and other unfriendly parts of the world. We are deliberately throwing away our huge economic and strategic advantage because of this corruption of Science by those who know better.
Exactly. Key words in the above article: not reported.
Absolutely 100%. Activist scientists heavily invested in the unproven hypothesis are ultimately to blame. My pitchfork is standing by……
Add the UN and their IPCC.
“activist scientists” – surely the oxmoron of these times just nudging out ‘critical thinking’.
When referring to Mann’s work the term ‘analysis’ is just a short form of ‘anally systemic’, i.e. just produces the usual fertiliser as programmed to do.
It is also a tragedy that the editors accepted the manuscript for publication lacking an r^2 value and without completely explaining the schema so that others could attempt to replicate the work.
It goes a long ways towards explaining why he isn’t working in the disciplines for which he received his PhD.
“Two critical, basic tenets of the Scientific Method that one must show one’s work, and that the results are reproducible.
That Mann’s hockey stick has been accepted by other scientists without any way to trace his steps to determine whether he came to a defensible result is a tragedy.”
This also applies to Phil Jones’ portion of the Hockey Stick: The Instrument-era Hockey Stick chart.
Phil Jones wouldn’t tell anyone how he arrived at this instrument-era Hockey Stick chart “hotter and hotter and hotter” profile, yet it has been accepted as reality by lots of scientists.
The scary Hockey Stick chart temperature profile is the impetus for Western politicians to try to implement a Net Zero policy which is in the process of bankrupting Western economies.
The Hockey Stick chart fraud has done untold damage to Western societies. And it’s not over yet.
Frauds ought to be prosecuted. Especially frauds of this epic proportion, where extreme damage is done to society.
a travesty actually.
Exactly – if it can’t be reproduced then it ain’t science, to paraphrase Karl Popper. Obviously there are exceptions and limits to how far and how finely you judge an effort to reproduce, but Mann’s work falls so far short of this bar that, by contrast to the high bar of the hard sciences, this is a childs macaroni picture.
I’d suggest a third – their “work” has to have some connection to REALITY.
“Showing your work” doesn’t mean much if it is based on crap-posing-as-data, “model” outputs, or bald-faced cherry picking.
OT I acknowledge, apologies – if your premise is correct ( US surrendering to China……) why, iyo, have the US not revealed everything about the WIV lab leak? Whatever the US’s involvement in the evolution of SARS/SARS COV2, what are “they” waiting for….the details are being dribbled out in any case?
Please forgive this non scientist (merely a forester) for asking a stupid question. I just don’t understand what sort of climate/temperature information Mann and others have gotten from tree rings. I’m aware of dendrochronology- a way to date how old a piece of wood is by comparing the rings to other tree rings- and tracing them back, year for year. But how is the temperature determined? Something about the chemistry of the rings? It certainly can’t have much to do with the size of the rings because there are countless things that effect the size of the rings.
I agree with Mr. Zorzin. How the heck do tree rings provide a temperature proxy.
Closely observing the tree growth in the forested areas of our farm, it appears to me that:
1.) Water availability is the most important factor for tree growth.
2.) Temperatures at the extreme affect the growth. Very hot temperatures have killed off some of our old Ponderosa Pines, but the hot temperatures were also accompanied by drought. (We are outside of their normal geographic range.) Very cold temperatures have killed parts or all of some mature trees.
3.) I believe a cooler than average year that had a period of very hot temperatures and drought for 1-2 months would show a smaller growth ring, than a year that had moderately above average temperatures for the whole year.
Have any botanists done a 30-year experiment with trees in a greenhouse to test which parameters are reflected in the tree rings?
They don’t need to. It’s water.
My plant scientist daughter says it is a sliding scale of EVERYTHING. The magic molecule CO2 is near the middle/bottom of the list. Funny thing is almost all factors are bounded for too much/too little. CO2 is only lower bounded.
All other things (apart from heat and water) such as wind exposure, soil fertility, grazing etc, being equal, it’s water way before heat. I don’t understand why there this is even disputed.
If you compare tree rings in one tree, all those other factors are equal.
It’s many things. Water, temperature, sunlight, plant food, length of the growing season, among others.
Please see my comment above yours.
BTW, ”length of growing season” is heat and water
Heat covers the entire growing season, Growing season is more how slowly the heat goes away when you are past peak.
A warm spell early or late in the year can extend the growing season without making much of a difference to the average temperature for the year.
BTW, I was responding to the post you had written, not the one that wasn’t posted until after mine was posted.
Clarity might be assured by (in your reply to a particular post) mentioning the “time” of the posting.
Light. It doesn’t matter how warm it is if it’s dark.
But to be picky againt myself, photosynthesis isn’t necessarily the limiting factor.
https://www.waldwissen.net/en/forestry/silviculture/forest-growth/why-trees-grow-at-night#:~:text=It%20is%20a%20common%20misconception,per%20day%20and%20per%20season.
Not so much “heat” and water as “lack of frost/cold” and water.
Tree rings are most untrustworthy.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=999360643976820
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-23549305
While hiking in Yellowstone, we saw one pine that was obviously a preferred rub tree as oozing sap held hairs from bison bears and who knows what else.
This video shows a huge variety of animals using or passing near a rub tree. Animals urinating nearby provide fertilization while bears and other animals rubbing the bark can damage the cambium layer underneath.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1135649073778249
You are a forester, so know trees. The treemometer proxy guys make a bunch of unwarranted assumptions:
Does climate science have thesis to prove by any means they can get away with? If so what could could be done?
1. Cherry Picking
2. Re-writing data
3. Statistical misdirection
4. Unsupported assertions
5. Repetition of lies
6. Censoring opposing views
Additions to the the list are welcome.
Steve:
Your # 6 contains quite a few moving parts:
Take over the editorial boards of science organizations, gov funding sources and journal peer review.
Take over/convert all the editorial boards of the mainstream media.
Never correct misleading climate statements made by other climate alarmists, whether scientist or layperson.
Gaslight any/all entities that might fund your critics.
Indoctrinate school kids: K –> College/PhD
Rinse and repeat [as espoused by Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”]
Possible solution: defund the climate academics & renewables, but IMO this won’t happen till there is a catastrophic electric grid collapse publically ascribed as being due to reliance on renewables &/or we have another LIA [little ice age].
But you got it in one.
It is the width of the tree rings. Or, more precisely, the width of a very few Mann picked trees. One in the Yamal peninsula works out as the most important tree in the world. Either it got a little more water than others or, perhaps a wandering elk took a crap under it.
Wider rings so must have been hotter
right?
Then there was a bunch of other stuff. Sediment records from a Finnish (?) lake carefully added to Mann’s witches brew which produced a “hockey stick” if you fed in random numbers.
And, of course, the treemometer records from then recent years showed cooling.
So the Mann just truncated that series where it crossed another poxy proxy and, Lo!! The Decline was hid!
See Climategate.
I’m delighted that Steve McIntyre is still knocking about. An absolute Hero! God bless you Steve!
Hmm well. Firstly Steve is a legend and I started reading his site before I came here – brilliant stuff. Secondly, I’m sure that someone with more knowledge can tell me but I don’t think Mann even did the field research. By the way the proxies are discussed on various sites, it seems like these are proxy series that have been collected and made available for research by different scientists? Please correct me if I’m wrong but that’s the impression I got.
As a horticulturist with 40 years experience, I can say without fear of contradiction that most if not all trees (including warm-climate ones) respond more (much more) to water availability than to one or two degrees either side of their optimum temperature. Mann’s tree ring nonsense is to be completely dispensed with as it proves less than zero about past temperatures.
Greatest switcheroo of the last 50 years . Turning tree rings from a date proxy to a temperature proxy
I dont think Mann invented that – splicing was his original sin , but it must be someone else
Not water availability, but sunlight. Been conducting this experiment for the last 30 years with out knowing it.
We have 4 long needle pine shrub plants on the NE side of our house, planted in 1996. Due to the arrangement 1 gets direct sunlight early morning till about 10 AM. 2dn is slightly shaded by the 1st and direct sunlight till 9 am & in summer after 5pm . 3 & 4 get no morning direct sun and summer sun after 4:30 pm. Planted about 6 feet apart.
Same temperature and water being with in 20 feet. Same basic soil and feed.
Plant 1 was over 7 ft high and 12 feet dia. before a major trim and has gottens trimmed at least 5 inches off the top in 3 of the last 7 years.
Plant 2 is 5 ft high and 6 feet wide with space where #1 overgrew. (gets trimmed a couple inches over the last 5 years.
Plants 3 & 4 are 4 ft high and 3 feet dia. (get light shape trimming)
It is the amount of sunlight controlling, not rain or temperature. Same goes for our tomato plants, size depends on morning sun.
Yes light is very important but I was more comparing water with slight heat variation.
Eg, if I took a cross section out of a birch in my garden (warm temperate min. 5C, dry summer) and compared it to one of the same age taken in central Europe (it’s natural habitat – with summer rain and freezing temps) I would willing bet you would be hard pressed to find wider rings in mine.
You have hit on the reason that trees selected come from adverse environments where the trees get minimal growing conditions for the whole year.
That is, near the Arctic Circle or alpine trees near their grow limit.
It still comes down to how much light, nutrition and water, temperature not so much.
“It is the amount of sunlight controlling, not rain or temperature.”
It’s all of the above and much more- so tree rings can’t be thermometers unless they have some fancy chemistry that can determine temperature- which I think is how it’s done with ice cores, in theory. I don’t trust ice cores either.
I agree. That’s why I thought- or heard – that they’re using some fancy chemical analysis that determines levels of oxygen isotopes- blah, blah, blah. Even with something like that, how good could it be? Or maybe that chemical analsyis is done in ice cores. I dunno.
They are making it all up, Joseph.
The Hockey Stick global “temperature” chart is a fraud created to sell the human-caused climate change narrative. It was an effort to erase all the warm periods in the past and make it appear that today is the hottest period in human history.
The Hockey Stick chart is a BIG LIE. The historical record shows it is a lie. The historical record shows it was just as warm or warmer in the past as it is today. The Hockey Stick chart is an effort to rewrite history.
See #5 in my earlier post.
How do tree rings at the equator compare with tree rings well away from the equator? I believe that some tropical trees don’t have rings, or anyway not annual rings. Here’s an abstract of a paper on the subject …
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-27422-5_20
… which I think is saying that tropical tree rings offer important insights but they don’t quite know what those are.
Incidentally, I edited this comment OK, changing a comma to a fullstop. The cogwheel icon does show, and moving the cursor over it says “Manage comment” but clicking it goes into Edit. (I’m on Linux).
Mike:
I’ve never seen mahogany that didn’t have growth rings, or Brazilian or Central American Rosewoods.
The growth ring represents growth, reproduction, food storage and rest periods, not seasons.
That breakdown looks like almost any old growth forest, it’s not exclusive to the equatorial forests. I would also posit that they are including all woody plants.
Oh, a correlation! It must be causation…
And if dry years tend to be hot years?
I have a suspicion they are looking for negative temperature effects so they can claim AGW harms tree growth. Whereas truly hot years during wet annual monsoons likely presage large tree rings.
As someone who cuts trees for firewood with abundant red and white oak on my property, I cut more red oak. Mostly because they are 125-150 year old trees and I suspect that is near their end of life. White oaks are just getting started at that age.
Anyway, most trees that I section have rings that are highly variable.
Any damage to the bark/cambium and the rings are very narrow, years of flush water with abundant sun have very fat rings facing the sun.
Virginia does have a history of periodic droughts and that can be seen in all of the trees, but not necessarily for the full circumference of the round.
Some trees twist as they grow, others exposed to winds have compression wood, all affect tree ring conformity.
Yes, especially when the trees whose “histories” are used and/or emphasized vs. not are selected very carefully.
Ababneh finished her thesis after long delays under hockey stick Co-author
Hughes:
https://www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/Theses/AbabnehDissertation.pdf
The work is centered on evaluating bristlecone pines as temperature proxies and concludes:
“””…Therefore, a combination of factors seems to be limiting tree growth.
Until these limitations are taken into consideration when modeling tree growth, and until
further measurements are obtained that involve a longer instrumental climate record from
the same elevation of the research sites, the positive or negative effects of temperature
cannot be substantiated….
…In contrast, assumptions will have to be made about the reasons behind the decision
made by people to move to such arid and high elevation environment. Such habitats will
vary from one period of time to the other depending in the amount of available plant and
animal resources to sustain family groups thorough out the summer season…”””
There is also the question brought up by McShane and Wyner (and others):
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23024822 this link is only the rejoinder, the related discussion is distributed over many webpages):
“””
[..]Consequently, the application of ad hoc methods to screen and exclude data increases model uncertainty in ways that are ummeasurable and uncorrectable.[..]
“””
Who can say with a straight face that these points suffice to calculate the global temperature at that time (and this is NOT discussed in Mann´s paper nor any of the thousands of follow up proxy reconstructions:
https://climateaudit.org/2008/03/10/mannian-pca-revisited-1/
I appreciate this may sound naive, but looking at the locations of the samples, it appears to me, that there is a significant bias towards cooler locations. Would that be a fair assumption?
I read Rud´s comment as well as the chapter from Ababneh to indicate that Mann et al often used proxies from places with extreme conditions where it is less clear how much their signal depends on temperature.. that analysis is missing.
Over at Climate Audit Vincente spelled out very nicely a question plaguing me as well ever since I heard about PCA analyiss, decentered PCA in particular. Steve did and does a very good jovb explaining details, but this is a fundamental problem:
https://climateaudit.org/2023/11/24/mbh98-new-light-on-the-real-data/#comments
“”
“From ignorance, I don’t understand how Principal Components of a signal can be calculated and then used separately. As I see it, if 5 PCs are retained, for example, the only signal that should be used should always be the combination of those 5 PCs, respecting their weight in the combined signal. If you use PCs on their own you don’t respect the weights of the PCs and you are making up signals. That is the way I understand Preisendorfer’s Rule. PCs on their own are an invention, a nonexistent signal that is used simply because the shape is convenient for obtaining a hockey stick, but they are not “real” signals.
“””
A bit like fitting a 4th order polynomial to a set of data and then just using 4 of the five terms to reproduce the data instead of all five of the fitted parameters. It is not going to reproduce the original fit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%27s_elephant
I like that graph.
I get criticized sometimes for saying that regional surface temperature charts can represent the global average, but as this chart shows, Michael Mann uses just a few locations to create a global average.
I can supply charts from all over the world that show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today and claim this is the real global temperature.
So why is Michael Mann’s paltry few examples good enough to establish a global average, and my much more numerous examples from the written, historical temperature records are not good enough?
The answer is my examples are good enough to establish a global average, but climate alarmists cannot acknowledge this otherwise their whole climate crisis narrative blows up because they are all dependent on the bogus Hockey Stick chart profile being real. It’s the only “evidence” they have of temperature/CO2 correlation. And they hang on tight to it.
The real temperature profile of the Earth is represented by the U.S. chart below on the left. The bogus Hockey Stick chart is the chart on the right. Note the stark difference in the temperature profiles. One shows a benign temperature profile where it is no warmer today than in the past. The other shows a scary Hockey Stick profile where the temperatures get hotter and hotter, decade after decade, and are now the hottest temperatures in human history.
The temperature profiles of unmodified, historical, regional surface temperature charts from around the world show a similar temperature profile to the U.S. chart.
None of the unmodified, historical, regional surface temperature charts show a “hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick chart profile. The Hockey Stick chart is an Outliar.
>> So why is Michael Mann’s paltry few examples good enough to establish a global average, and my much more numerous examples from the written, historical temperature records are not good enough?
Actually they are not and like I wrote McShane and Wyner demonstrated that there is a missing part in the analysis in a peer reviewed article.
I think the question really is how can proxy reconstructions like that still get past peer review?
This is a pretty obvious mistake by omission!
Mann seems to support removing incorrect articles from peer review without a proper procedure, his work has been out there 2.5 decades too long already.
I think you’re mistaking a deliberate deception for a mistake.
Your “The Hockey Stick chart is an Outlier.” statement reminded me of this post here at WUWT from several years ago:
Richard Verney July 8, 2017 at 6:24 am
Given:
1. CO2 is said to be a well mixed gas and therefore
operates in like manner on a global scale; and
2 The US is a large tract of Northern Hemisphere land; and
3. The US is a good representative sample of geography and topography, and is therefore a valid sub set of the behavior of a land mass.
4. The US has the best sampling of data of any significant land surface.
If the US is not showing warming (the US was warmest in the 1930s/1940s), one would need a strong explanation as to why the US is an outlier and not behaving in the same manner as the planet as a whole.
>> The US is[.. ] is therefore a valid sub set of the behavior of a land mass.
First of all most of the surface of this planet is not land, but water which in turn influences surrounding land masses, for example Europe via golf stream, the US does not have that one.
I think this statement has a very limited certainty.
Here are a couple of Tmax charts that show Europe (Norway) was just as warm as the United States in the Early Twentieth Century.
So I think the statement carries more weight than you give it credit for.
Tmax charts from all around the world show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. This is evidence that CO2 is a minor player in determining the Earth’s temperatures. So minor as to be undetectable.
Was that misspelling intentional?
It must have been an accident. I’m sure that he meant to write “out and outliar.”
Well, Steve missed it, or ignored it.
I’m guilty. It was intentional. 🙂
Fitting, in any event!
“there are countless things that effect the size of the rings.”
One of them being CO2, which was in short supply for most of the Mannian tree ring period.
They declared, without any evidence, that wider tree rings were proof of a warmer climate.
“that wider tree rings “
Trees grow faster with enhanced atmospheric CO2.. wider tree rings.
Even if the Hockey Stick were not a statistical FARCE…
… all it would be showing would be the deficit of CO2 back to the MWP, and the enhanced CO2 since about 1900
See #4 from my earlier post
A clue: If temperature were the prime factor we would call it “thermosynthesis”.
“…there are countless things that effect the size of the rings”
Joseph, I’ve cut my own firewood off and on for something like 50 years, at altitudes from 7k feet in Colorado down to 1k or 2k in Appalachia. I don’t remember any tree where the growth bands were of a constant width all the way around the tree. It’s always appeared to me that ring growth varied in width more from the competition of other trees and plants in assorted locations around the tree than from anything else. And, if you took cores and measured the ring widths they would be totally different from cores taken 30 to 45 degrees further around the tree. In addition the competition for both food and water tends to vary both seasonally and annually. Deriving annual temperature from tree ring widths always seems to me to be a fools errand.
Also, as trees age- at some point their growth slows down- even if in the open with no competition. This sort of thing is well research. Forestry researchers have studied tree rings after a thinning to see the effect. Sometimes the “released” tree’s rings will grow faster, sometimes not. That’s why I thought- perhaps- that using tree rings as thermometers must be more than about the size of the rings. So a few years ago I asked a forestry professor who referred me to a dendrochronologist at the U. of Maine. I asked him- he referred me to a textbook on dendrochronology. I ordered it. It said nothing about tree rings as thermometers. If it’s about the chemistry of the rings- I’d love to see that research.
“That’s why I thought- perhaps- that using tree rings as thermometers must be more than about the size of the rings.”
Ring density is another measure used.
I must agree… I haven’t found much “evenness” in the rings from my firewood… almost 40 yrs. cutting and hauling now, and still ‘harvesting’ my firewood.
I’ve noticed that nose rings in adults is a pretty good indicator of some social/psychological issue.
So, Mann’s work = fools errand.
Sounds about right!
Joseph,
That is the “beauty” of the Mannian method. It posits that tree ring widths are partially a function of average temperature and that the juiced up principal components analysis can weed out the temperature signal from the noise of other influences on tree ring width. The cherry on top is kludge that mines for hockey sticks. The saga is epic starting with strip bark bristlecone pines to the single Yamal tree that “ruled them all”. Read Andrew Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion” to get the full flavour of the “teams” machinations to turn chicken entrails into hockey sticks and become “Nobel laureates”.
I think the short answer is, temperature cannot be determined reliably from tree rings. There are too many factors that contribute to tree rings and most are more important than temperature.
Of course, in Mann’s case, he’d have used any dodgy “proxy” that APPEARS to provide cover for the “climate” bullshit story.
That’s why I’m shocked that “scientists” would actually think that tree rings are this useful. Of course their full climate emergency BS isn’t based just on tree rings- but it’s a major element, I presume.
hmmm… as I think I mentioned previously, I went through a lot trouble to try to get better information from a few PhDs in dendrochronology- no luck with that- I even ordered a textbook one recommended- nothing in there about tree rings as thermometers- I thought that the dendrochronologists would at least be able to direct me to research showing tree rings as thermometers- no such luck- a significant reason I’m so skeptical- I kept asking questions- they stopped responding- I never told them that I was skeptical of the entire GW story- just wanted to learn how tree rings can be thermometers!
Only a skeptic would ask such questions. A true believer would just accept what he was told.
Good to see Steve back in the saddle.
Mann was probably the first deliberately rotten climate ‘scientist’, (A Disgrace to the Profession). But he has since been joined by a lot of others who have committed provable academic misconduct. I named several very clear examples in various essays in ebook Blowing Smoke.
Marcott in Science 2013 was particularly egregious. I presented the irrefutable evidence to then Science editor McNutt. Her assistant acknowledged receipt, then nothing. Marcott’s dishonesty got rewarded by a tenure track assistant professorship at U. Wisconsin Madison. Mann’s got rewarded by Penn State.
Not sure, Rudd, but I think the Mann was pipped at the post by evil Maurice Strong , the UN’s Canadian Conference Organiser who bunked off to China after millions of dollars strangely stuck to his fingers whilst running the Iraq “food for oil scam”.
Strong? Surely not a scientist! You correctly huff and puff.
Neither was, is, nor ever will be the eggregious Mann!
Rud said, “Mann was probably the first deliberately rotten climate ‘scientist’…”
Climate modeling agencies had to have known their climate models were trash, and they existed long before Mann and his hockey stick.
Regards,
Bob
And it should be so clear to anybody that this king has no clothes!
Pat Frank has an illustration, what happen when you update old models with new information, reevaluating their predictive power:
https://i0.wp.com/climate-science.press/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/0image-82.webp?resize=768%2C338&ssl=1
From:
https://climate-science.press/2023/05/18/what-i-learned-about-what-exxon-knew/#
And let’s not even mention the “attribution” computer gamers. !
Oh lets mention them! They have a massive problem if either the real data or the computer models change in a significant way, like for example the cloud parametrization between CMIP5 and CMIP6 changing the CO2 sensitivity by about 25%, which means all CMIP5 based attribution must be reevaluated, why is this not happening?
Rud,
I very often like your post, but here I see and share an additional anger on how these people distort something which should be pure and not take sides, the science!
A group of eight climate scientists successfully censoring a peer reviewed and published article by Alimonti et al. earlier this year, circumventing the scientific process like it was done by the catholic church in the middle age:
The names of these people are:
Greg Holland, Lisa Alexander, Steve Sherwood, Michael Mann, Richard Betts, Friederike Otto, Stefan Rahmstorf and Peter Cox
Details of the story can be found here:
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/think-of-the-implications-of-publishing
If a story like that was made up in a novel I would discard that book as far stretched otherworldly trash, especially given that at least three of those names should tippie toe very carefully IMHO when it comes to scientific achievements and ethics. Oh, they won the prices, but did they deserve any of them?
See #6 from my earlier post
Bah.. you made me search all the blog..
So nobody else has to do it, Steve Case has a list with a few 3 word sentences and his
>> 6. Censoring opposing views
might be true, but why I need to go there after bringing a real example, eludes me.
Your list does not contribute anything new at this point in the debate!
And rotten Mann is Ivy League now.
If his case fails then that might change. If Mark Steyn’s remarks were found to have been made in good faith then the implication is that Michael Mann is, indeed, a fraud. Any Ivy League school may well think twice before retaining an established fraud.
Timely, with Mann V Steyn re(re(re))set to finally start trial in January.
Barring any strange “illnesses”..
Who knows what funny thing might happen?
And if Mann loses, will he dodge paying Steyn’s costs, as he did with Tim Ball?
Clearly, a charlatan of very low morals.
Canadian law being different from U.S., and Steyn being still with us, I wouldn’t know. I think that the rules are a little more punitive (given the right judge) and Steyn seems pretty determined. Steyn can demonstrate considerable harm from the suit.
The thing is that a Canadian court judgement is not enforceable in the US, and apparently Mann has no assets in Canada.
So much has come to light over the years but will the judge throw it out as being irrelevant and unknown at the time?
Introducing it as new evidence might be next to impossible at this stage but, if Steyn can get Mann into the witness box, then he should be able to use this to prove the fraud.
In a court of law, I expect Mann can simply take the 5th and refuse to answer specific scientific questions.
In US civil courts, pleading the 5th is essentially an admission of guilt and can be used against you. I have no idea how Canadian courts work, but the US 5th amendment probably isn’t applicable.
Why would Canadian courts matter? It’s being heard in an American court, unless someone’s moved Washington DC over the border. Mann has no need of the 5th amendment right – in a civil case (like this) he can simply refuse to answer a question, he cannot be compelled to answer.
I expect Mann to do what he has always done and lie – he has an overinflated sense of his own intelligence and arrogantly assumes his intellect will allow him to walk away from this scot-free. I don’t think Mann actually realises that the tide may be against him now.
I wish.
See also Steve on the Hockey Stick frontispiecing AR6. Another dishonest fraud.
I know we call it the Hockey Stick for it’s shape but, after 25 years now I think we should call it the Mickey Stick – as in both his name and ‘he’s taking the mickey’.
I suspect that Mann ….knowing the outcome that he wanted….simply worked things backwards to produce that outcome.
(((drum roll))) known as…… “MIKE’S NATURE TRICK” 🙂
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. …
Cheers
Phil
I can’t understand why Climategate didn’t crash the climate scam. It’s never mentioned by the MSM- as if they don’t even remember it.
Very few people ever heard of ClimateGate. Of the few that did, all they heard was the media spin that the only controversy was over who hacked the servers and stole the emails.
” (((drum roll)))” !!! Thanks, Janice. That made me laugh.
Regards,
Bob
Aw, to have made a science warrior like you laugh was a fine thing. Thanks for telling me. Cheers! (hahahah) 😊
Take care.
Janice
Well I’m shocked, shocked I tell you to hear that shenanigans have been going on climate “science”.
Round up the usual suspects.
I vaguely remember some experts in climate proxies speaking out about these scientific con artists shortly after climate gate. I cannot remember specifics – but several tree ring experts said they were contacted by the climate gate co conspirators who wanted them to provide some credibility to the proxies. Essentially the tree ring experts told them where to go saying the proxies were not fit for purpose. Obviously the sham artists were not deterred.
But no worries the MSM and Universities and such only took 6 months to a year to rehab the reputation of these frauds. And flush the whole thing down the memory hole.
Not sure if it involved Mann or “ scientists “ of the same ilk.
Let’s not forget that, as soon as Climategate broke, here in the UK, Prince Charles cancelled all his engagements, jumped into his Aston Martin and roared off to the CŔU in Norwich, so he could try to kiss away Director Phil Jones’ little tears. And pat the other Climategate fraudsters’ tiny heads, whilst even George ‘moonbat’ Monbiot expressed his shock. Briefly.
Prince Charles is, of course, now King Charles Iii.
There followed no less than three Public Enquiries, each Chaired by warmunist stooges, each as blatantly corrupt as the next.
And Steven Mosher (yes, THAT Steven Mosher, wrote together with Thomas W. Fuller, the book “Climategate, The Crutape Letters”, with the quote “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick…” there, straight under the title on the book’s cover. Strange that young Steven then crossed over to the Dark Side. A man who smelled where the real money was.
An incredibly myopic and ignorant deduction of Steven’s motivations.
I’m glad you think so and hope you are right.
Me? As myopic and ignorant as you label me, I can’t imagine why so many of his comments on here appear so frequently to be at best obtuse and frequently plain wrong.
And get heavily down voted, not just by me.
Rarely are Mr Mosher’s contributions more than a single drive by.
As often as not, the drive by’s are barely comprehensible. Really sad, especially considering the fact that he’s supposedly an english major.
If you have a better one, I’d love to hear it ! 🙂
A job that gave him virtue-seeking status (for a very short while), even to pretending he was a scientist…
… but he had to support the AGW ideology to get it and keep it.
He stuffed up big time, and will probably regret it for the rest of his life.
Very sad. !
Steven’s motivations are only known to Steven. Don’t pretend that you know them just because you know what he has said about them.
What we all know here is that Steven Mosher turned into a strong defender of the erroneous and biased climate interpretation promoted by the IPCC and based on models. I couldn’t care less about his motivations.
“Steven’s motivations are only known to Steven. “
One example is that I’m pretty sure I’ve seen him say his views were shaped by his work in BEST although I’m not searching and confirming right now. He’s said plenty of things over the years (and not just at WUWT) that allow us to understand him better.
“Nullius in verba”. People say what they think it is in their best interest to say. And people tend to believe what they say is true even when it is not. I always take what people say as unconfirmed information. It helps me avoid a great amount of disappointment down the road. It is not very different from the “trust but verify” attitude. Several decades ago I realized I could not possibly know what is inside other people’s heads, so I don’t even try.
Some people simply take the opposite stance and play devil’s advocate. That’s not in their “best interests” its a game they play. Some people are transparent in their desire to gain favour, fame and financial gain. Some people are slave to their biases.
And then
This is a good example of your own biases at work. On the one hand you say you don’t even try to understand people and on the other you say you know Mosher is a “strong defender” of the erroneous and biased climate interpretation.
You don’t have to know someone’s motives in order to critique their actions.
That Mosh is a strong defender of the AGW myth is easily discernible just by reading his posts.
Your final quote is merely a comment on humanity in general. It applies to everyone.
“just by reading his posts.”
Would be good if he wrote them in English, instead of a variant of incoherent gibberish.
Yep. Fraud is fraud and should be exposed as such, no matter one’s views on the AGW narrative. I find it very interesting that almost everybody has assumed only a sceptic would have outed the climategate scandal and that Steven Mosher must have changed since then.
He co-wrote the book and he supports the AGW narrative – that’s it, full stop.
Enron had a trick to fool the financial analysts in its last such meeting in early 2001.
They started with the numbers. A bad story. So they worked from the story back to the numbers, willy-nilly’ing them.
So when a major analyst asked for the presentation, the graphics fellow disconnected the numbers behind the bars and lines. Never heard back….
That’s one way to do it ….
Mark Steyn must be pleased that his court case may be resolved in his favor in his lifetime.
I didn’t understand why it would’nt be protected free speech either way be it the blog publisher or Mark independently. Mann really is a knavish little weasel.
Since neither Mann nor Steyn were acting as agents of the government, the 1st amendment was never involved.
If memory serves, Steyn wrote something along the lines of “Mann treated data, the way Sandusky treated pre-teen boys”
Mann then sued Steyn for libel, proclaiming that Steyn had called him a pedofile.
In a sane world, Mann loses.
But this is in the DC district, intentionally stacked with Obama appointees by Harry Reid when he changed the appointment of federal judges (Less the Supremes at that time) to do just that. There were MANY vacancies and Obama could not get any of his past the Republican minority since he was only appointing provable radical leftists.
Harry knew the corruption of the federal government going on at that time and needed the DC court to be friendly to the STATE, not the constitution and law.
This is why the Republicans need to begin holding all sworn testimony for committees outside the DC area, in NE West Virginia, where juries for trials will be picked from conservative populations, not 96% Democrat DC.
Ah, there’s the rub.
A much classier response to insults is to ignore them. I just read a great biography of President George Washington. After he left the presidency, he was insulted daily by left (Jefferson and his allies). They really trashed Washington. He mostly just ignored them. He was of course angry but he knew better to not dignify a response. If Mann was confident that his work was correct he would have done the same.
JZ,
Since its founding, there’s always been a tendency for the Federal government to consolidate power at the expense of the peoples of the states.
Washington, a Federalist, was no exception, but mostly because he deferred way too much to Hamilton. John Adams, the Federalist who succeeded Washington, actually made it a felony to criticize the President.
You, or most likely the author of the ‘great biography’ you just read, may not like ‘Jefferson and his allies’, but it is thanks to people like them that we haven’t yet completely spiraled down into absolute despotism.
One thing you could never accuse Mann of being, is ‘classy’.
The biography I just read (for the 2nd time) is by Ron Chernow. I don’t know enough about American history to have a strong opinion on these battles among the “founding fathers”. I never gave early American history much attention- too interested in European, especially ancient European history (like my Roman ancestors). But I am impressed with Washington “first in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen”. I strongly recommend this biography (Pulitzer Prize Winner):
https://www.amazon.com/Washington-Life-Ron-Chernow/dp/0143119966/ref=sr_1_2?crid=1Y7UKHAT53KI8&keywords=george+washington&qid=1701083375&sprefix=george+washington%2Caps%2C114&sr=8-2
At least according to this book- Jefferson and his allies favored the French and were not appalled by the French Revolution.
There were Francophiles in every country after the revolution – it was held to be a triumph of reason over mysticism, overturning a corrupt, decadent monarchy with a republic, a democracy of science, reason and mathematics, where the inalienable rights of man would be paramount. It’s very interesting that the same man that wrote parts of the French Republic constitution also helped write parts of the American constitution.
then came the guilotine
Washington hated the Francophiles. Ron Chernow’s biography is tremendous.
‘It’s very interesting that the same man that wrote parts of the French Republic constitution also helped write parts of the American constitution.’
I’m curious, who was the ‘same man’?
My understanding is that the American Revolution was heavily influenced by the philosophy of Locke, while the French Revolution was inspired by the philosophy of Rousseau.
Although public schools give equal billing to both for their roles in the Enlightenment, Locke was very much a limited government guy, as opposed to Rousseau, whose collectivism has literally inspired tyrants from Robespierre to Pol Pot and beyond.
Frank, I do apologise for this and I should have checked first but the 2 documents were the US declaration of independance and the french declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen 1789. Thomas Jefferson wrote the first and co-wrote the second with the Marquis de Lafayette just 3 days before the storming of the Bastille. Both documents set out similar rights and principles that influenced the constitutions of both countries.
Richard, certainly no apology required, although I am sorry for inflicting my views of Rousseau on you. In my mind, Rousseau is to Enlightenment Philosophy what Mann is to science – a complete disaster. There, back on topic.
Dr. Manns few apologist friends he has left in the world are silent so far, snicker……..
Wonder what baloney they will conjure up to maintain their delusion that he is a scientist.
They are silent because they know the media will not cover this without them talking about it.
As of now only DENIERS are talking about it.
Well I’m not sure where you’ve been to meet with these so-called ‘deniers’ but I was under the impression that only sceptics were discussing it.
I guess the implied sarc needed to be specified.
Not really, I just find the term ‘denier’ to be intentionally misleading and an extremely pejorative term.
And that, of course, was the point!
The obnoxious delay by the (present) judge in the Mann/Steyn legal case has just backfired. Having this analysis available to Steyn by the time the case is heard is a substantial additional gift.
We can only hope this judge is not as corrupt and biased as some that populate the bench these days. A real man would have sorted things out in public debate multiple ones if necessary. If still not satisfied at that point ,settle it on the field of honor.
A real judge wouldn’t have let Mann swan off to Australia for a year without pursuing his “case” (such as it is) against Mark.
A real man wouldn’t have dragged Mark to court after twice being told by senior medics that he wasn’t fit enough to travel back from France to Canada after major heart attacks, and then again before he was made to fly down to DC for the trial. Dismissing the first medical documentation (French!! Can’t expect me to accept that!). And snidely waving Mark away as having “represented” that he was seriously ill. Then cancelling the trial after Mark, his witnesses and the enormous documentation (only paper copies to be considered!) had landed in DC.
In other words, attempting to convert this alleged libel case, over 12 years old, into a Capital Case. Mann, no doubt, tickled pink.
Hi Martin…I’ve been off for some time but I’m glad I’m back for this thread – and I appreciate your comments.
As for Mann’s delay tactics and his desire to cultivate the DC Circuit, I tend to think of it as ‘Michael’s NURTURE trick’.
cute!
Perhaps, but there is only one man (and it’s not Mann) who would recognize the word “honor”.
And, because he’s Canadian, only if you spell it ‘honour’.
I’m pessimistic about the result of Steyn’s case. Hardly anyone reads or cares about the technical stuff – certainly not in that court and certainly not with that judge.
The fix is in.
Whether Steyn, who following his serious medical crises now looks like a grey, skeletal ghost of his former self – sorry Mark! – whether he has the cash and stamina to spend a few more years appealing the inevitable result of this present case, well I doubt that.
I am very sorry to have to write this.
Perhaps Mann’s shameful refusal to pay the late Tim Ball’s costs in his libel case in British Columbia should be brought to the attention of the court.
Much better honest truth, however sad, than jolly lies.
Being, apparently, ignorant and myopic, I even wonder if Bill & Melinda, or Klaus, or Georgy boy etc. had anything to do with Mark’s heart attacks?
Surely not?
My initial comment was a bit rushed, in the assumption that WUWT readers would fill in all the blanks. My brevity didn’t do justice to the mountain that Mark Steyn will have to climb to successfully defend himself.
Readers just need to consider the two parties which are ranged against each other:
Prof. Dr. Michael Mann
Education: A.B. applied mathematics and physics (1989), MS physics (1991), MPhil physics (1991), MPhil geology (1993), PhD geology & geophysics (1998). Institutions: University of California, Berkeley, Yale University
Academic career: tenure-track assistant professor in the department of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia; associate professor in the department of meteorology Pennsylvania State University; Director of PSU Earth System Science Center; full professor in 2009; Distinguished Professor of Meteorology. Lead author on the IPCC Third Assessment Report
Awards: American Geophysical Union Fellow (2012); Hans Oeschger Medal (2012); Member of the National Academy of Sciences (2020), etc. etc.
Mark Steyn
Went to school. [I am not being flippant – in discovery. Mann’s attorney made a lot of Mark’s lack of scholastic paperwork. Despite being a very talented and widely read man, he has zero academic credentials AFAIK]. It is already clear which way this is going to go.
Now, WUWT readers should wipe their gigantic brains clean of all they know about climate and Mann and Steyn etc. and consider what the layperson finds in that DC courtroom: one guy with on paper at least a stellar academic career; the other guy a nobody, a satirist name caller by profession.
I believe Richard Nixon had quite an impressive resume, as did the highly educated Alger Hiss. Depending on the jury, Mann’s education could help or hinder his case, and Mark Steyn could be seen as the ‘man in the street’ picked on by the educated idiot. You never can tell.
I rarely pay any attention to up/down votes. I have just noticed, though, that nine readers so far have downvoted my comment, leaving me baffled to think of a reason. Have I said something incorrrect?
Surely we can all agree that Steyn is currently very seriously ill; he has endured more than a decade of major professional and personal setbacks each one of which would have been sufficient to wreck most people; I don’t know anything about his finances, but from the financial pain he told us he felt at the cancellation of his court date, we can assume he is not loaded. He appears to be muddling through financially flogging his website bric-a-brac and books. He is bravely soldiering on with his strategy of all or nothing against Mann. We see him photographed outside the court in a wheelchair, gaunt, which white hair and beard.
That courageous stand for honesty was extremely exhilarating for us all in the early days, but the ‘process is the punishment’ as he notes, and the intervening years have been spent in subjecting him to judicial punishment beatings of one form or another.
My suggestion is that he should get a lawyer to do a quick cut and run job, getting him out at the lowest possible cost. He might just emerge with his wrecked health no worse and his personal finances still viable.
If, reader, your hatred for Mann is greater than your regard for Steyn’s welfare, than you dig in your pockets and get him a fighting fund, instead of just waiting for him to drag himself another step of the road to Compostela.
Come to think of it, why isn’t Steyn’s battle a mainstream topic with WUWT? Where’s the solidarity?
It could be your assumption that since Mann has fancy degrees, he must be right.
You don’t even know what the suit is about.
Mr. W: Yeah, Mr. fos can’t understand the downvotes for his “Steyn’s gonna lose” analysis. I still give jurors credit for seeing through expert bs and siding with the high school educated guy who supposedly damaged the rep of a top scientist with his high school education. I found his analysis as somehow advising Steyn to surrender for his health or something, and I’d downvote him if I ever did such a shameful, lazy thing.
You are such a loser.
Focus on titles and alleged academics.
🤣 😂 🤣 😂 🤣 🤣 😂
So you actually believe that having more degrees proves that he was slandered by Steyn.
Why is it that so many people automatically believe anyone with fancy degrees?
Having since I posted the above note read up on the Derek Chauvin conviction, and am just starting to read the Liz Collins book covering the George Floyd case, I’m afraid that I have to agree with fos; the US ‘justice’ system seems to have abandoned justice as a principle and is now being used to advance political requirements. Steyn could indeed lose the case as law and constitution could easily be treated as irrelevant.
‘Tried by ones peers’ does not ensure justice; will they be Mann’s peers or Steyn’s? The peer review of the outcome will be as interesting a read as Collins’ book, and I suspect as revealing of what the US justice system has become, noting particularly that the SCOTUS refused to hear Chauvin’s case.
‘Tried by ones peers’ does not ensure justice
The way jury selection works (I’ve seen it first-hand a few times), jurors are typically chosen to be those most likely to be swayed by emotion. I have been summarily rejected more than once for no apparent reason, but I’ve noted that in every case I was the only juror with “engineer” in my job title.
(Software engineer tbh – I hold no illusions about how that compares with the discipline other sort of engineers whom our lives depend on)
Mann and those working with and for him have done the science community a real disservice. There was a time when I believed without a second thought what came from the science community. Not anymore. Scientists, academics, political leaders and pretty much all instructors have a lot of work to do to repair all the damage done these last three decades. I don’t trust any of them and that is a shame.
Yes in some ways it was a terrible disservice to all. But on the other hand, just as the CoVID debacle, with all the lies and inept decision making by “experts” and politicos did grave harm while enlightening the voting public to the naivety of accepting the edicts of authority as valid, Mann has uncovered/embodied the rotten underbelly of the academic franchise for all to see. That Micky Mannish can and does flourish in the academic world doing what he does without a shred of decency or integrity is a flashing red light showing all that academics is in big trouble.
I don’t have to be a scientist to understand that Piltdown Mann is a fraud.
Wood is built with water and the nitrogen it carries. Heat (in the +/- 1 – 5 degrees range) has little to do with it.
That’s it and that’s all. Only a climate scientist would argue that.
I don’t understand.
Lignin? The structural material of the plant world. There are a lot of Os and Cs and Hs in it. No N in lignin, though, AFAIK.
‘the nitrogen it carries’ – what carries?
Obviously I was not clear. Maybe this is better. Without water and the N it carries, trees cannot grow. If they cannot grow they cannot manufacture lignin. Trees must have access to N. N is dissolved in soil water. If water is limited, nothing happens. If N is limited, plant growth is limited.
It’s not just nitrates, it’s phosphates and any number of trace elements. Any one or a combination of these can be the limiting factor.
Or CO2
Or temperature
or sunlight
or soil pH
Once again. I use N as it is the main nutrient (by far) that plants need to grow.
There is no need to mention the others. We already know they are present in the soil in which a tree grows. We are talking about water as opposed to temperature. Water is more important. N is the main nutrient needed. It needs waters to enter plants. The K levels are in leaves can be misleading as they can accumulate and store K as it becomes available. Is that clear now?
Singling out Nitrogen was an extreme oversimplification.
Why not just say soil nutrients such as N need to be in an aqueous solution for plants to use them?
I give up.
Thank you for finally applying the first rule of holes to your posts.
Thank you for finally applying the first rule of holes to your posts.
The only holes are in your understanding.
You seemed to be on the right track, except for your nitrogen fixation.
God spare me. This can’t be happening. I’m not fixated on nitrogen. You are. I mentioned N because when we talk about plant growth in horticulture we talk about N. When all other nutrients are supplied in sufficient quantities, you can control the rate of growth (width of a tree ring) by changing the amount of N. So when I say nitrogen, be sure that I know everything else needed is a given.
I take it legumes aren’t in your usual purview.
When we grow cereal crops, we care about all the major soil nutrients, as well as the other factors mentioned above – and, in Australia, especially soil moisture.
That appears to be specific to your field, Pointing this out earlier could have avoided a lot of frustration.
I studied the basics of plant biology, but many years ago and very unwillingly.
I think the misunderstanding arises from your rather relaxed use of the word ‘nutrients’. You seem to think that all these ‘nutrients’ are acquired over the root system (for which water is needed as a vector), Making a parallel with human nutrition I would prefer to call all these various elements ‘vitamins and minerals’. You are right that a shortage of one can affect everything else (the barrel staves analogy).
What you are neglecting is ‘food’, whihc means carbon dioxide and nothing else, which is taken in in its gaseous state through the stoma of the leaves. It is from gaseous CO2 that the entire structure of the plant is formed.
Gardeners dump ‘fertiliser’ (vits and mins) on their plants and talk about giving them ‘a good feed’, when in fact they are doing nothiing of the sort – the food comes from only one place: atmospheric CO2.
Possibly it ”seems’ that way to you.
I think I mentioned ”all other things being equal” at least twice.
Pun approved. *
“Nitrogen fixation.” Good one. 😀
No pun intended?! 😄
How much ‘N’ is dissolved in water?
So all the people who have been using fertilizer to add nitrogen to the soil are being ripped off?
There is no use in adding N to the soil if you have no water to dissolve it and carry it.
With the exception of the C carried in by CO2, all nutrients needed by plants are dissolved in water and then absorbed. There are a lot of nutrients needed by plants, not just N.
Right. So we know two people who’ve never studied the nitrogen cycle in school. Read up on the nitrogen cycle before being quite so dismissive, okay? If there was ever a ‘required study’ list for WUWT then articles on the nitrogen and carbon cycles would be on it, along with a few other important topics.
This is the problem with theory and practice. Plants take up N (nitrate and ammonium) which is dissolved in the water in the soil. Without water all the nitrogen in the world won’t help and neither will co2, heat or any other element.
Without nitrogen, all the water in the world won’t make any difference.
Without carbon, all the water in the world won’t make any difference.
Without sulfur, all the water in the world won’t make any difference
etc.
Very good!
Nitrogen cycle wrt Earth’s history
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5412885/
Is Nitrogen the next Carbon?
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017EF000592
Dendrothermology and dendrochronology are pseudo-science.
a. Tree-rings are hopeless as temperature sensors. Tree-ring thickness is determined by moisture, nutrients, canopy cover, disease, pests – and lastly by temperature. To say that tree-ring thickness is directly proportional to temperature is a complete nonsense. A very hot but very dry summer will produce thin rings (ie: cold dendrothermology temperatures). The best tree for dendrothermology would be the willow, but they don’t use those.
b. Furthermore, you can find thick and thin rings within different radii ON THE SAME TREE. The 4 o’clock ‘temperature’ data may well be completely different to the 12 o’clock temperature data. The core-borers that provide the ring-data are only 1 cm in diameter, so they only provide a small snap-shot of the tree circumference, and cannot see nor evaluate the fat and thin ring segments within the same tree. The methodology is so unreliable, that any climate research including dendro-temperatures should be thrown out. (Note: The IPCC removed Michael Mann’s dendrothermology hockey-stick graph, because it was shown to be fraudulent – they hid the 20th century decline in temperatures that the tree-ring data gave….! This was known as the ‘Hide the Decline’ scandal in the Climate-gate emails. I can show you the email.)
c. However, this unreliability also calls into question Dendrochronology. If tree-growth is effected more by local conditions – moisture, nutrients, canopy cover and pests – then you cannot compare an ancient ship’s timber to a reference tree that may have grown many hundreds or thousands of miles away (ie: the Californian bristle-cone pine or Irish bog-oak dendro-data).
There can be no comparison, because you cannot even compare two cores from the same tree! Take a look at the full circumference of a tree, and you will find rings of all shapes and sizes, around the full circumference. And all kinds of ring widths even in adjacent trees. So how can you compare a ship’s timber with a bristle-cone pine in California – when you cannot even compare that timber with a timber taken from the very same tree??
Dendrochronology is snake-oil science, and always has been.
That is why they always ask for a rough archaeological date, before they date a sample.
Ralph
Tree-ring thickness is determined by moisture, nutrients, canopy cover, disease, pests – and lastly by temperature.
This is correct. However, the two most variable annual factors are temperature and water, and it is water that is by far the most important of the two. Dendrochronology is a good method of determining past water availability not temperature variations. This is why Mann’s work is not to be taken seriously.
I read about a dendro study that was done done by the University of Arizona on some Sequoia
that had some fire damaged sections. The they took some sediment core samples
and were able to put the two together. One point I remember from the study
was a 300yr drought about 1000yrs ago. Snake oil science????
Regardless of the width of the rings, it’s still one ring per year.
The study I was referring to was very interesting to me.
https://ltrr.arizona.edu/giant_sequoia_slab
Strange that none of the usual trolls turned up to defend their hero..
Even they must know that there can be no defence of the indefensible – nobody stood by him on an amicus brief, nobody was willing to be associated with a fraud when it finally came out in court.
I find it absolutely amazing that Dr. Mann is still employed. I would be repulsed to be a student in his classroom. What possibly could anyone learn from a fake and fraud? Instead of admitting fault, he would prefer to double down which only proves he is no scientist with any integrity or ethics.
Most would be surprised at how little teaching work is required of highly funded academics, and Mann is certainly highly funded. And even then, the highly funded have staff and grad students that take the “load” off the academic.
Many academics, are not so well funded and must handle higher teaching loads and on top of that don’t have the staff and students at their disposal.
Here’s Mann’s current teaching load.
https://web.sas.upenn.edu/mannresearchgroup/courses/
Is that a parody site like the Babylon Bee? Looks like a middle school class is being offered at Penn?
wow, intro climate science!
I wonder if Einstein ever taught Physics 101? I think they gave him a desk at Princeton with no assignment- other than think deep thoughts.
There’s a big lecture hall at Princeton where they claim it was his favorite room for teaching.
Einstein was not a faculty member at Princeton Univ, he was a member of the Institute for Advanced Studies. He gave some lectures when he received an honorary degree from Princeton in 1921 (in German). When he became a member of IAS he had an office on the Princeton campus while the IAS was being built.
Intro indoctrination, in other words.
Any info on Mann’s move from Penn State to U Penn? The former is well known for men’s football and meteorology, the latter for ‘women’s’ swimming and the Penn-Biden Center. Seems appropriate.
Big move up wokem pole. Ivy League.
You know Biden was a professor there, some time after his big rig driving gig, and for some reason, the Chinese made big donations to fund Biden’s position as well as to place Biden’s name on buildings, etc., as you point out.
Ivy League universities are a favorite place for CCP to launder money.
No! Who knew!? That Biden guy certainly is impressive!!
Btw, has any noticed that China’s planes and ships look a lot like ours?
“ he is no scientist with any integrity or ethics.” Quite widespread now.
Wow Charles, just wow. Finished reading the post over at climateaudit.org and I’m convinced that this needs to be thoroughly discussed by Mann and associates. How can these details be ignored? Perhaps there’s a mistake made by Steve et. al. Who knows but it appears to me the hockey stick may surpass Piltdown Man for the greatest scientific error/hoax of all time.
I first saw the stick when it came out. Being somewhat knowledgeable of recent history, the last 2000 years or so, I immediately saw it as a fraud. Where was the MWP? Where was the LIA? The stick was straight and that was impossible.
Shortly thereafter I discovered ClimateAudit and followed Steve and learned much of the fraud perpetuated by Mann and his ink.
When Steve sort of shut down activity at ClimateAudit, I came here for current “events” and have been coming here ever since. It is nice to see Steve becoming active again.
One other site I spent time on was Beyond Landscheidt, re the prediction of solar cycles and that site, which appears to have provided valid predictions of current solar activity, is inactive also.
It amazes me that the lying statist websites like “RealClimate” seem well funded where sites that deliver truth and open ability to comment are not. Not really, bread/butter and all that.
(where was the Medieval Warming)
Tree-rings could not show this, because tree rings are not thermometers. At best, they are precipitation sensors, showing humidity and rainfall. Hence no LIA or Medieval Warming.
R
Spot on.
There’s no money in the truth, because in reality there is no “crisis” requiring expensive non-“solutions” that benefit the rich and powerful.
Outside a few reputations, the Piltdown Man hoax didn’t cost anybody, anything.
I wish that was true.
But, for a rather extreme comparison, you could argue that the infamous hoax “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” never killed anyone. Unless someone got battered to death with a copy, that is true.
But there are still tens of thousands, at least, who explain their violent antisemitism by referring to the Protocols.
I fear that Mann bears a mammoth responsibility for the evil his lies and sheer arrogant incompetence have nurtured.
I do not believe that you read my post correctly.
Er, Piltdown Man, not Piltdown Mann.
I once held the glass bell jar display case holding the Piltdown Man skull while my father explained what it was – I could only have been about 5 years old at the time but I can still remember it.
Mark Steyn produced a book in which 100 world class scientists describe Mann as ‘A Disgrace to the Profession’. In the upcoming court case do you suppose Mann will cite this book as ‘defamation’? One hopes so.
I doubt it very much. Mann is, essentially, a bully and a coward – putting himself in a position where 100 of his peers lined up to put him in his place would likely cause him to soil himself.
The discussion here establishes that the nature of tree rings is a function of sunlight and water. This is Mann’s sneaky nature trick. He knows that, and that it defacto then does not show temperature variations, so was his method to hide the Medieval warm period. It wouldn’t show up in tree rings, so he could make any claim he wanted.
Absolutely. That anyone (let alone a scientist) might disagree with this conclusion is grotesque.
His nature trick was splicing the thermometer record onto the END of the dendrochronology reconstruction in a spaghetti graph without stating so and with the spaghetti being so confusing you could not see what he did.
The BLADE is thermometer, the stick is the treemometer. It is total BS.
This silliness always crops up in these discussions from people who have never even glanced at MBH98:
Hate to tell y’all that they are 1 (maybe 2 or 3?) Steps ahead of you… this just the last part of a longer reply..
A study by Osman et al. in 2021, which used a new set of marine proxy records and climate model simulations and extended the hockey stick back to 24,000 years ago, showing that the current warming is unprecedented in the past two ice age cycles.
These studies and others have shown that the hockey stick is robust and consistent with the scientific understanding of the human influence on the climate system.
Could you elaborate how this additional publication is one or more steps ahead of errors and misleading by Mann discussed here?
Are you saying that all of the sudden Osman does not need to discuss and solve the problems Mann failed to address?
Mentioned right here in this discussion I see questions of the series presented are indeed temperature proxies and the need for a discussion how much
these few data points for each slice of the past represent the global temperature at that time.. just mashing some numbers together by whatever problematic algorithms does not answer these fundamental questions
It may not be that academically “they” are “ahead”, but the AGW/Climate Change crowd have the dominant narrative in society as proven by the mass of controlled narrative.
Bing Chat in this case was persistent in debunking any skeptical take (text from my posting above came from Bing Chat). So many other cases. Scared populous motivated to vote one way.. and vote they do… and gaslight, they do.. even if they don’t know that they are wrong in their feer.. fear is a powerful motivator.
Being the dominant narrative proves that they are correct. Never studied up on science, have you?
A chat bot is the standard by which science is measured?
Are you through embarrassing yourself yet?
Being the dominant narrative proves that they are correct.
I think he’s(?) trying to say that they are ahead in getting the narrative out, which I think would be correct, but it’s not coming across well.
text from my posting above came from Bing Chat
Maybe you should have led with that?
All they ”show” is that the level of gullibility in some people has no limit.
Sorry Genorock but the Osman (2021) study co-authored by Tierney and heavily based on her 2020 study has been debunked both here on WUWT and on many other sites. Like Mann, it’s all based on proxies, it cherry-picks some proxy series but not others, it makes basic errors and purposefully picks areas subject to considerable bias and uncertainty. It makes a lot of the same errors from the debunked Marcott papers (which it’s conclusions resemble in some areas) and the conclusions are blatantly unsupportable by the poor quality of the proxy series. In short Osman (2021) and Tierney (2020) are a load of contrived rubbish and only serve to show that Mann’s paper is equally as bad. As Wolfgang Pauli said, ‘they are not even wrong.’
Thanks for that update @richard page. Bing Chat certainly was the reference point for my posting. But there is more..
As further explained in a separate posting on this, my post really aimed at showing that the game is a multi-layered operation, and they are experts at the game.. I sent a link to the article behind this posting.. Bing Chat explained it away.. always reminding me of the dangers of Climate Change.. very craftily using “Global Warming” term when it suits.
Are you actually bragging about how you let a chat bot do your thinking for you?
Genorock is obviously one of these people that wouldn’t recognise a scientific study from a restaurant menu. He should apply for a job either as a peer reviewer or a food critic – either way he can make a good living from his obvious ignorance.
Actually, I am a serious skeptic of the catastrophic AGW narrative. To anybody who hasn’t been swept up by the “consensus” narrative, it is an uphill climb.. and the hill is strewn with dismissive people who don’t believe in critical thinking – it does take a persistent, skeptical nature and/or a whole lot of education to cut through the noise.
My posting above was based on a discussion with Bing Chat (gpt-4).. and I spent about an hour more chatting with Bing Chat.. it is consistent in its insistence on the narrative… even suggesting that those that disagree with the “consensus” are Climate Science Deniers.. I of course disputed that label as biased on its part. It of course is unrelenting on the narrative.
My post really aimed at showing that the game is a multi-layered operation, and they are experts at the game.. I sent a link to the article behind this posting.. Bing Chat explained it away.. always reminding me of the dangers of Climate Change.. very craftily using “Global Warming” term when it suits.
In that case I unreservedly apologise for my last comment – in hindsight it was uncalled for but it wasn’t clear from your initial post that you were sceptical of the appalling Osman paper at all. Again, apologies for that.
Mr. rock: From your comment, opening with “Hate to tell y’all”, why do you hate to tell us what we well know? Here, it’s “My post really aimed at showing” that the other side also has a voice, very loudly repeated in our progressive press? Why don’t you try typing out what you mean to say, instead of long walks in the forest of your mind?
My guess is that genorock is nothing more than a chat bot itself. Just examine the sentence structures it uses. Pure academic gobledy gook.
Used climate models to extend the hockey stick???
It really doesn’t take much to impress you, does it.
I just love it when warmistas declare that a single proxy record and a broken model, are sufficient to over turn thousands of other studies going back many decades.
These studies and others have shown that the hockey stick is robust and consistent with the scientific understanding of the human influence on the climate system.
And you lot want to cover the landscape in scorched earth solar panels?
Sydney council making move to cool things down amid urban heat | Watch (msn.com)
Make yourselves useful and plant some vines and shrubberies.
Ah, the continued obsession with Michael Mann’s study never dies, does it? 25 years on, and how many additional reconstructions confirming Mann’s results? And never once in all those years has any skeptic ever found the time to actually produce their own reconstruction that does everything right.
It isn’t surprising that Mann’s acolytes, using the same data and the same methods get the same results.
As to other studies, there are thousands of them. I’m not surprised that you have managed to not read any of them.
He didn’t address the posted article just another empty defense of a junk scientist.
Mr. tommy: And then an endless game of whack-a-mole, with Mr. J popping up the same non-point, again and again. It does help us to see what defense of the indefensible they will make. Mr. J is willfully blind to Mann’s error, and wants you to know that others repeat his result, so he’s blind to their error, too. A very dull, predictable poster, that Mr. J.
From page 79 of Mark Steyn’s “A Disgrace To the Profession”:
“The statistical analysis underlying the hockey stick was thoroughly trashed.” –
Professor G Cornelis Van Kooten, PHD
Professor and Senior Canada Research Chair in Environmental Studies and Climate and Adjutn Professor the Institute of Integrated Energy Systems at the University of Victoria’s Department of Economics. Former Chair of the Department of Applied Economics and Statistics at the University of Nevada. Co-author of The Economics of Nature (Blackwell, Oxford 2000). IPCC reviewer and contributing author.
Professor van Kooten has never been under any illusions about the hockey stick:
Scientists manipulated paleoclimatic data and the peer-review process to make the case that average global temperatures had been stable for a thousand years or more… Despite efforts to block access to data and attempts to prevent critics from publishing their research, the “hockey stick” story has now been thoroughly discredited. There is no scientific basis to support this view of the world. Today’s temperatures are no different from those experienced in the past two millennia.
Within the book, you’ll find approximately 300 pages filled with similar case reports, all of which cast a critical eye on the hockey stick and its purported ‘contributions’ to climate science. I highly recommend picking up a copy, available on Amazon, AlanJ.
https://www.amazon.com/Disgrace-Profession34-Mark-Steyn-editor/dp/0986398330/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2088B1MVOEIXU&keywords=a+disgrace+to+the+profession+by+mark+steyn&qid=1701106462&sprefix=mark+steyn+a+disg%2Caps%2C290&sr=8-1
I’ve read the book, and I’ve followed the discussion around MBH for over two decades. The book is not a scientific manuscript, but a collection of various quotations curated by Steyn from random scientists, basically anyone Steyn could extract anything vaguely disparaging of Mann from. Stay lacks any kind of deep understanding of the issues or any relevant expertise to be commenting in the first place.
But the bigger point is that none of that matters – Mann’s study is just one among many, and all show the same general picture of the global climate for the past two millennia. No skeptic has published a global-scale temperature reconstruction showing anything markedly different. If they want us to believe that Mann is so very, very wrong in his results, that’s what they should have focused on, instead of dithering about for 25 years trying to discredit a single paper. The fact that Mann’s paper has been such a dogged focus instead of, y’know, actually contributing to the sum of human knowledge, proves that the motivation is not to drive understanding, but to sow confusion.
What do you mean, “trying” to discredit Mann’s Hockey Stick? It is utterly discredited already. I notice you don’t even try to rebut McIntyre’s demolition of it.
The Hockey Stick fails to show any trace of the MWP, despite the vast body of proxy and historical evidence for it. Does that not raise even the tiniest doubt in your mind?
Read the extensive posts above which explain why tree-rings cannot be used to determine paleotemperatures.
The conclusions of Mann’s study remain as robust as they were 25 years ago, as has been confirmed time and again by subsequent reconstructions. It doesn’t matter whether Steve McIntyre has made a career of nitpicking the single paper to death, none of the nitpicks have been significant enough to overturn the general conclusions.
Again, if skeptics were actually interested in engaging in the scientific process, they would be publishing their own global climate reconstructions, they wouldn’t have spent a quarter of a century obsessively focused on dissecting every syllable of a single paper. McIntyre could have simply published his objections, then said, “and here’s my global scale reconstruction that I think does it all better.” But, of course, his aim isn’t to increase our knowledge of the climate, it’s to sow confusion in the public discourse over climate change.
The contrarian crowd doesn’t have anything new, they just desperately cling to the past, obsessing over dated literature. Mann himself would say that MBH98 isn’t the best climate reconstruction available today (it’s not even the best reconstruction he has published).
There is no need. Only a fool would still hold a views like yours.
Now, tell me this was only regional. Go on……
Maybe you can tell us what you think this photo proves conclusively?
That it was warmer back then.
You are easily convinced, but even if you are right, so what? We know the planet has microclimates and that these can change. What is doesn’t do is prove the recent “global” warming is not significant.
so what? We know the planet has microclimates and that these can change.
AAAh ha ha ha ha. I knew it. God, it’ really pathetic. Indeed so pathetic, that it does not deserve a response.
“Indeed so pathetic, that it does not deserve a response.”
Would that be because you have no response to what is a factual statement and one you choose not to consider? I’m picking you know little or nothing about the way glaciers grow, but you are so keen to believe that tree stumps found under a dynamic glacier are proof that the climate change scam is real.
The problem you have is, it is not only temperature that can see glaciers grow or recede. And there is also the undeniable fact that while some glaciers are growing at the moment (for a variety of reasons) the majority are not, they (like this one) are receding and have been dramatically for the last 100 years. It is also worth noting that the scientists who made this discovery, did not come to your conclusion. I wonder why? In fact, I couldn’t find any paper on this that agreed with you. Maybe you have a legit (not a climate denier) study that supports your grasping at straws nonsense.
What does that even mean?
Tell me again why that is in any way a problem for me? The fact is the the tree line in the arctic was about 100 miles further north at those times as evidenced by many areas showing as much and dated to the same time and which also agrees with hundreds of other studies showing the same thing throughout the globe. Observation man. Try it sometime instead of speculation. Mann’s crap does not agree with observation. Not in the slightest.
Simon would have us believe that 3 centuries of a much warmer climate in the Arctic 1000 and 2000 years ago is not evidence that the rest of the world was warmer. 🙂 How cute!
I’ll note you have no link to support your nonsense that a tree stump is proof climate change is not real. I don’t find that cute, I find that deliberately dishonest.
I’ll note you have no link to support your nonsense that a tree stump is proof climate change is not real
Wrong again.
1 I never said climate ”change” was not real
2 The definition of climate has little meaning in the modern context.
3 I have always acknowledged a slight modern warming
4 Whether that has ”changed” any ”climate” is highly debatable.
5 Your points of argument are feeble.
”I’ll note you have no link”
Ah yes! A link. Do you need someone else to tell you that a tree stump appearing under a glacier is proof of a warmer Arctic or do you need to find some one who like you, does not accept observational evidence?
Why just not use your own mind and join the dots?
Whatever…. One tree sorts it for ya does it? Problem solved. How lovely.
Whatever…. One tree sorts it for ya does it? Problem solved. How lovely.
One tree? No, many trees in different regions, 1000 year old human artifacts and 100 studies showing a global MWP.
And you got…..Mr. Mann 🙂
That´s Dr Mann for you.. lol sorry couldnt resist..
One tree, now that’s funny. Does Yamal ring a bell?
I’m assuming Mr. Simon had to step out to scrape off what he stepped in.
Yes, he ran off from. I think because he realized he stepped in it, as usual.
Well Mann seemed to think so!!
Why not? One tree is a good answer to MBH98, where a single strip bark pine is responsible for most of the signal!
Mr. Simon: “Microclimates”?? You made up a word to describe regional weather? Gosh, you must be a top scientific linguist.
”microclimate” LOL. A tree line that moved 100 km north was caused by a microclimate… your brainwashed.
How would you explain this? Do you really believe that trees can grow under glaciers?
Here’s another photo you will hate.
You seem to be exhibiting a common misunderstanding. The MWP was not a globally synchronous event, that does not preclude regional warming at various times during the period broadly defined as covering the MWP. But it does mean the MWP will not show significant expression in global-scale climate reconstructions covering the era.
I see. So South America, New Zealand, South Africa, Antarctica, The Arctic, and North America, showing a warmer climate <> 1000 years ago was not globally synchronous was it? Got it. My bad.
Your dishonesty is vivid since NO ONE claims it was a Globally synchronous event, but it was widespread with a growing number of samples from the southern hemisphere still coming in.
Today warming isn’t globally synchronous either thus you can pack in that failed argument.
The modern warming is unequivocally globally synchronous:
This is quite different than the pattern of changes during the medieval warm period, which did not exhibit coherent periods of global warming:
Your map shows south-west Africa at 0 to -3 below the base line.
But….
“The MWP was not a globally synchronous event “
How would you know that?
Mr. abbot: Ever get an answer from Mr. J?
No satisfactory answers. 🙂
Mr. Abbot: Thanks for reply, I’ve been hoping to come back to Mr. J’s colorful drawings above. Just looking at the current world hothouse cartoon, from 1900-2022 (?!), it appears to indicate high resolution data from all points across the globe, right? No indication that 75% to 80% is infilled by AGW cultists at BEST etc. (the MWP map is probably drenched with data points!) Here’s my point- Mr. J wants you and me to put together our own reconstruction, my idea is to take his map, remove all infilled numbers, introduce my own infilling (very science-based infilling only, I’ll assure Mr. J). I bet the all-red-and-orange globe could look all blue and white!! And I bet it would not shut him up!
Looks like I may lose the last bet, he did shut up, instead resorting to the silent downvote. Oh, well, he has so many, guess he can spare one for me.
So stop talking about it and do it – put together your own reconstruction and share your methodology. Get it published in a peer reviewed journal. Do some science.
Mr. J, you told me I had to do alotta reading before I can discuss that with the high and mighty you. I shared my methods, twice. My reconstruction looks just like yours, but the color is mostly blue and teal, very calming.
He ”knows” that because he believes it’s perfectly ok to tack instrument measurement onto low resolution proxies.
Unbelievably stupid.
Again, you have signally failed to provide evidence for your assertions. Why are McIntyre’s conclusions false? You don’t say.
People who actually know something (unlike you) have posted explanations of why tree rings have no value for temperature reconstructions.
Explain why the Hockey Stick does not show any sign of the MWP.
Which conclusions do you refer to, specifically? And can you cite word for word McIntyre himself stating them?
Oh, I very much doubt those people know much, but regardless, MBH is not a tree ring-only reconstruction, it is comprised of multiple different proxy types.
Explained elsewhere. The MWP was not a globally synchronous event.
And let me restate: my conclusion is that MBH98 is a quarter of a century old at this point and there are newer studies confirming its findings. I’m not trying to defend MBH98, (although think the methodology used was generally sound), rather I’m pointing out that we can stop arguing about it at this point, since it’s quite dated and there are much and more numerous works we can consider.
>> I’m not trying to defend MBH98, (although think the methodology used was generally sound)
At this point that might be a difficult endeavor (here you are very wrong, for example the R2 statistics show quite clearly that there was no signal even if you believe a higher PC in a decentered PCA has any meaning, which is not proven at all, Proxy selection, proxy quality, proxy density are all lacking too)
>> more numerous works we can consider.
You can consider anything you like and feel free to share it with us too, but this tread is about how wrong Mann´s work was and in particular here his work ethics, hiding some crucial information about his proxies for 25 years trying to prevent reproduction of his reconstruction which once more and now even more clearly shows that his method is bad and therefore his conclusions baseless..
Before now skeptics could not reproduce all numbers exactly, just the overall trend and consequences of bad selection choices and lacking methods, there was a principal chance of some magic behind closed doors, now we know that is not the case, this study used bad proxies
=> see Ababneh´s thesis which discusses bristlecone pines, a flawed methodology and still does not get a meaningful result without hiding the R2 verification numbers (which are abysmal low) and therefore i´ts conlcusions are wrong.
This work should be withdrawn or corrected!
Yes it was.
As was the Little Ice Age.
As was the Roman Warm Period.
As were the Minoan and Egyptian warm periods and the Holocene optimum.
Explained elsewhere. The MWP was not a globally synchronous event.
Sorry, it was. China experienced the MWP in the 12-13th Centuries as shown by historical records of citrus cultivation, as did Europe and Greenland at the same time.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global-phenonmena-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/
Why do you insist on lying?
He’s not lying, he’s prevaricating for a nobel cause.
“At the same time” is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Those places experienced some degree of warmth at various times during the period defined as the MWP, but at no point did the globe as a whole experience warmth approaching today’s. Take all of the individual graphs in the linked map, combine them together into a global-scale reconstruction, and you will get the same picture that everybody else does. There is No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/12/more-evidence-that-the-medieval-warming-period-was-global-not-regional/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/03/yet-another-study-illustrates-that-the-medieval-warming-period-was-not-regional-but-global/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/20/another-indication-of-mwp-and-lia-being-global/
You don’t understand, anything that disagrees with the climate narrative is by definition anecdote at best.
Only things the left agrees with is entitled to be called data.
The argument being made is that the MWP was not a globally synchronous event, this does not preclude various regions from the world from having exhibited warming at some point or another during the span of time broadly defined as the MWP. If it warmed in one place at one point in time while cooling in another, those events cancel at the global scale. This is why the conversation around the timing of the events you cite is so critical (but it’s also why this website and other contrarian venues so steadfastly ignore it).
Why should the MWP be globally synchronous? The current (very slight) warming certainly is not.
As I mentioned above, the MWP occurred concurrently in Europe, Greenland, and China.
Antarctica is cooling: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/28/new-antarctic-all-time-cold-record-flies-in-the-face-of-media-reporting/
There is evidence for hot and cold periods in the written, historical temperature record.
So your claim is that hot and cold periods did not start until 1850.
That doesn’t make any sense. The temperatures before 1850 behaved just like the temperatures behaved after 1850.
Well, no, prior to the Industrial Revolution, humans weren’t injecting mass quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, so temperatures certainly did not behave the same during the preindustrial common era as they did after industrialization.
There is evidence of regional warmth at various points in the written historical record, there is no evidence of globally synchronous warm periods in the past 2000 years.
‘The MWP was not a globally synchronous event”
How would you know that?
That’s the second time I have asked this question.
I have received no reply.
That causes me to think that AlanJ has no evidence to back up this statement that the MWP was not global. He is instead just voicing his opinion.
I provided a response to this question directly above your comment asking me.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2
That isn’t my claim, so why would I be trying to back that statement up? My claim is that the MWP was not a globally synchronous event.
Here, we see Mr. J double down on the idea that his cartoon maps are evidence. Mr. J, does your current map show where data is collected to support the colors and lines? As I say above, let me do the infilling, and we’ll cool off your cartoon. As to the second cartoon, the funny part is how he presents it- take a sediment core, a couple trees, and you’ve got, like, 500 years of temp records. Like it’s a hard fact. Hilarious that he doesn’t see how stupid it is to pretend you have data to make a map of the MWP..
AlanJ needs to read a little world history instead of looking at those distorted maps.
I would ask him to provide some evidence that it was colder in some area of the world than it was in Rome during the Roman Warm Period, but we know there is no such evidence, although he apparently thinks there is, or wants us to think so.
I’ll just link it again since you apparently missed it the last two times:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2
Eels and catfish can’t hold a candle to whoever wrote the abstract to Neukom’s paper.
It actually seems to be claiming that the coldest periods didn’t occur everywhere at the same time.
Similarly, there are many claims that the 1930s were the warmest period of the 20th century in some locations.
Today, it is almost uniformly warm in the Northern Hemisphere during summer. Some areas get a little hotter as various high pressure systems stop moving and hover over one particular area which heats everything up underneath the high pressure system, and can make things very hot.
But High Pressure Systems don’t stay forever in one place, they move on to the next place after a short time and overheat it.
The same when it is winter in the Northern Hemisphere, the cold is uniformly spread out with some areas receiving more cold air from the artic than others, but this again does not last but a short time and then the cold areas move around the Northern Hemisphere and supercool other areas.
So if it is warm in the United States then it should be assumed that it is similarly warm in the rest of the Northern Hemisphere.
The same thing applies to the Roman Warm Period and other warm periods in the past: If it was warm in Rome, then it was warm in the rest of the Northern Hemisphere at the time.
I am not sure you understand what the climate is.
Mr. J: Wow, that tree on Yamal and a few sediment cores not only tells the temp there, it tells us that it was a globally synchronous event and, of course, excludes non-sync……. sorry, can’t stop laughing at Mr. J.
If it please, may I do a quick impression of our Mr. J? Ahem….. ahem…. here we go…..”Mann ’98 is not valid, but it’s been re-done, so it’s valid. But let me repeat, I don’t say it’s valid.”
Thanks, folks, I’ll be here all week.
MBH98 has flaws, but the conclusions are robust and have been repeated by numerous subsequent studies. It was an important paper in the history of the field, but it is not the final word on paleoclimate reconstructions.
Again, I am trying to affect a charitable disposition toward your intellect and assume that you are merely pretending to be a buffoon and actually do understand my words, but it does get harder and harder to maintain.
Mr. J: If one of the “flaws” is pre-selected proxies, then there’s only one robust conclusion- Mann predetermined the result.
I may be a buffoon, and you’ve been bested by a buffoon, over and over. Here, you actually demonstrate that my impersonation of you was spot on, that’s how well I understand your word salads.
Like most alarmists, Alan gets quite upset when people refuse to accept whatever he chooses to say as pure gospel. He simply can’t believe that non-climate scientists are still permitted to disagree with him.
I don’t care if anyone accepts what I say or agrees with me, but I find it odd and slightly frustrating that people here seem to not actually grasp what it is that I’m saying, and insist on attacking straw men and never responding to my actual arguments. Disagree with me all you wish, but be sure you understand what it is that you are disagreeing with. Again, my assumption is that they’re trolling, just pretending to play dumb, so I don’t take it too seriously. Trolling by way of pretending to be a fool is just a peculiar thing to do, though. I don’t know why you’d make yourself the butt of your joke.
He never will as he doesn’t know and didn’t read the article heck; he will ignore the article completely.
He is trolling with no evidentiary evidence at all wonder why he is still here.
Mr. tommy: He’s still here to explain the science of green beans. See below.
So they remain just as insipid as 25 years ago. Got it.
“He’s dead, Jim”
“Well, you bring him back to life, then”
“The tyre is flat”
“Well, you build a car, then”
“It’s out of petrol”
“Well, you build a car, then”
“The battery is flat”
“Well, you build a car, then”
“The milk is off”
“Well, you build a refrigerator, then”
“The fuse is blown”
“Well, you wire the house, then”
Wasn’t it Phil Jones who said he was going to keep skeptic papers out of the journals, even if he had to change the definition of peer review?
From comments regarding recent posts, that had to do with attempting to exclude something from on of the IPCC reports.
Some selective memory may have been involved…
“I don’t like your green bean casserole. Thanksgiving is ruined.”
“Well why don’t you make it next year, Jim? At least I’m doing the work and trying to feed everyone.”
“Ugh I hate your green bean casserole.”
“Again, Jim, if it’s so bad, why don’t you make it? Stop complaining and show us how to do it right.”
“Ugggghhhhh the bad green bean casserole is back everybody! ”
“Ok Jim, why don’t you bring a batch next year and we will let everyone compare?”
… 22 years later…
“If I have to even look at your green bean casserole again I’ll be sick.”
“…”
You can see why everyone might start to wonder over the years if you actually know how to make green bean casserole or if you just like complaining about other people’s hard work.
You’re seriously suggesting that you can’t comment on a dish unless you can make it yourself?
Well, there goes all food critics, food competition shows, restaurant ratings, etc.
Not in the slightest, I’m saying that if all you ever do is bash someone else’s work without ever lifting a finger to do any work yourself or to demonstrate how the work can be done better, you are useless. Saying, “I think you are wrong and here’s how I’d do it the right way” is a fundamental tenet of scientific discourse, and you contribute nothing if you cut the statement off at the fifth word.
If we’re going to do food analogies, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy6uLfermPU
or, perhaps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT3OQECSDoQ
Well, you cook one, then
“The conclusions of Mann’s study remain as robust as they were 25 years ago”
There’s some truth in that. They are no more robust now then they were then.
“The contrarian crowd doesn’t have anything new, they just desperately cling to the past, obsessing over dated literature.”
Yet here you are, endlessly flogging a dead horse trying to defend the indefensible. Try looking in a mirror now and again.
Your lies are a sign that you swallowed the climate cult bullshit because it has been repeatedly discredited by Climate Audit, also by The North Report, The Wegman Report and more that you seem to have forgotten.
The WMP and LIA was much more robust than his stupid paper that has a tiny sample size using pine tree data that occupies a tiny region of the American West and the Tree Ring data was taken from DR. ISDO who made it clear it can’t be used for temperature proxy as it was a proxy for something else:
LINK
Your ignorance is noted.
The article here shows another angle on how his paper is junk which you ignored because you have been so brainwashed to follow junk science.
Again, there are numerous reconstructions of the climate of the past 2000 years, and none of them shows a globally coherent MWP with temperatures approaching those of the modern era. We could entirely cast out MBH and still have the same understanding. This obsession with picking apart a dated paper is a waste of time.
You can’t even read what I posted because you are so invested in lies you promote since the data Mann used the tree ring data incorrectly as it wasn’t for temperature data at all.
Mann’s paper does have a minimal sample size for a large planet and only in the northern hemisphere while there is a growing number of papers showing the existence of the MWP and LIA in the SOUTHERN Hemisphere Mann never sampled.
It is clear you never read the North Report where they said the Bristlecone tree ring data shouldn’t be used as temperature data.
Should be,
Mann’s paper does NOT have a minimal sample size for a….
I’ve read what you posted. You want to quibble over a 25 year old study. I’m saying there are newer studies using larger datasets and improved methodologies that confirm the findings of MBH. We don’t need to quibble of MBH any more.
Translation: You can’t address the well known flawed paper from 25 years ago just because……
You are in free fall now and it will end badly as you are as usual defending a dead paper.
I’ve actually not lifted a finger in defense of the paper, because whether we agree on the methodology used in MBH is irrelevant, since the paper’s results have been confirmed by numerous subsequent studies.
Mr. J: Having read your posts, I can confirm that you tendentiously refuse to address the errors in Mann ’98, even though the flawed methods were carried into all subsequent papers that so impress you. Shall we look at Marcot?
You need to look at every single global-scale reconstruction published in the last 25 years and demonstrate that the methodology are invalid and that the conclusions are incorrect (and provide the authors an opportunity to respond). Then you need to produce a global-scale temperature reconstruction whose methods and conclusions are robust and ensure that it undergoes peer review, and demonstrate that your methodology is objectively better than everyone else’s. Do that and we will have the beginnings of a solid discussion underway.
You need to look at every single reconstruction published after Mann, and demonstrate that the methodology are invalid and that the conclusions are incorrect. Here are some……
Cold Air Cave, Makapansgat Valley of South Africa
Cold Air Cave, Makapansgat Valley of South Africa
Continental Margin Off Southern Mauritania
Lake Tanganyika, East Africa
Dengloujao Reef, Leizhou Peninsula, China
East Coast of Korean Peninsula
Eastern China
Karakorum Mountains, Northern Pakistan
Kyoto, Japan
Lake Gahai, Northern Tibetan Plateau, China
Lake Qinghai, China
Lake Sugan, Northern Tibetan Plateau, China
Lake Teletskoye, Altai Mountains of Southern Siberia, Russia
Lake Teletskoye, Altai Mountains of Southern Siberia, Russia
Mid-Eastern Tibetan Plateau
Mixing Zone of the Kuroshio and Oyashio Currents, Off the Coast of Japan
Pearl River Delta, Shenzhen Bay, China
Permafrost Regions of Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, China
Yakushima Island, Southern Japan
Yamal Peninsula, Western Siberia, Russia
Zaduo County, Qinghai Province, China
Cave Stalagmite, New Zealand
Apennines, Italy
Austrian Alps
Central Scandinavian Mountains, Sweden
Dürres Maar, Germany
Egelsee Bog, Central Switzerland
French Alps
Grotta Savi, Southeast Alps of Italy
Jämtland, Central Scandinavian Mountains, Sweden
Khibiny Mountains, Kola Peninsula, Northwest Russia
Kong-B, Kongressvatnet, West Spitsbergen, Svalbard, Norway
Lake Cadagno, Piora Valley, Southern Switzerland
Lake Joux, Jura Mountains, Switzerland
Lake Korttajarvi, Central Finland
Lake Laihalampi, Southern Boreal Zone of Finland
Lake Neuchatel, Jura Mountains, Switzerland
Lake Pieni-Kauro, Kuhmo, Kainuu Province, Eastern Finland
Lake Redon, Central Pyrenees, Northeast Spain
Lake Silvaplana, Upper Engadine, Eastern Swiss Alps, Switzerland
Lake Skardtjorna, Western Spitsbergen, Svalbard, Norway
Lake Stora Vi�arvatn, Northeast Iceland
Lake Toskaljavri, Northern Fenoscandia
Lake Tsuolbmajavri, Finnish Lapland
Lapland
Loch Sunart, Northwest Scotland Coast
Longyearbyen, Svalbard, Norway
North Icelandic Shelf
Northern Fennoscandia
Northern Icelandic Coast
Northern Icelandic Shelf, North Atlantic Ocean
Northern Icelandic Shelf, North Atlantic Ocean
Northern Scandinavia
Northern Sweden and Finland
Northwest Spain Peat Bog
Piancabella Rock Glacier, Sceru Valley, Southern Swiss Alps
Polar Ural Mountains, Russia
Seebergsee, Northern Swiss Alps, Switzerland
Spannagel Cave, Central Alps, Austria
Spannagel Cave, Central Alps, Austria
Swedish Scandes
Tagus River Estuary, off Lisbon, Portugal
Tornetrask Area of Northern Sweden
Tornetrask Area, Swedish Lapland
Vardø, Northern Norway
Voring Plateau, Eastern Norwegian Sea
West Coast of Norway to the Kola Peninsula of NW Russia
Boniface River Area, Northern Qu�bec, Canada
Boothia Peninsula, Nunavut, Canada
Chesapeake Bay, USA
Columbia Icefield, Canadian Rockies, Canada
Cr�te, Central Greenland
Donard Lake, Cape Dryer Region, Baffin Island, Canada
Dye-3, Southern Greenland
Eastern Sierra Nevada Range, California, USA
Fog Lake, Baffin Island, Canada
GISP2 Ice Core, Central Greenland
GISP2 Ice Core, Greenland Summit
Great Bahama Bank, Straits of Florida
GRIP Ice Core, Greenland Summit
Hallet Lake, Alaska, USA
Iceberg Lake, Alaska, USA
Jenny Lake, Southwest Yukon Territory, Canada
Lake 4, Southampton Island, Nunavut, Canada
Lake Erie, Ohio, USA
Lake WB02, Northern Victoria Island, Nanavut, Canada
Lower Murray Lake, Ellesmere Island, Nunavut, Canada
Moose Lake, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, South-Central Alaska, USA
Pigmy Basin, Northern Gulf of Mexico
Upper Fly Lake, Southwest Yukon Territory, Canada
Bermuda Rise, Northern Sargasso Sea
Carolina Slope, Western North Atlantic Ocean
Continental Margin Off Southern Mauritania
Eastern Norwegian Sea
Feni Drift, Rockall Trough, Northeast Atlantic Ocean
Fram Strait, Atlantic Ocean
Indo-Pacific Warm Pool
Makassar Strait, Sulawesi Margin, Indo-Pacific Warm Pool
Mixing Zone of the Kuroshio and Oyashio Currents, Off the Coast of Japan
Northeastern Caribbean Sea, South of Puerto Rico
Cariaco Basin off the Venezuelan Coast
Jacaf Fjord, Northern Patagonia, Chile
Lago Sarmiento, Torres del Paine Drainage Basin, Southern Chile
Laguna Aculeo, Central Chile
Laguna Escondida, Patagonia, Chile
Nevado Illimani, Eastern
I’m wondering if you know what a global climate reconstruction is.
I’m wondering if you have the slightest trace of self-awareness.
I’m wondering why you don’t consider both poles, and every continent in between global.
If you have a bowl with flour in it, another bowl with water, another with salt, and another with yeast, do you have a loaf of bread?
Typically this kind of combinatorial reasoning is developed early in childhood, but it’s possible you’ve missed some important years of executive function development. That or you’re being intentionally obtuse.
No, but what if you have 4 bowls of salt? What do you have then?
Wonderful, so then you realize that having a bunch of individual proxy records does not mean that you have a global-scale climate reconstruction.
Duck, Dodge and weave.
That is what Mann claimed in MBH98, right? Can we agree that he shouldnt have done there?
It is not what Mann claimed in MBH98. The individual proxies in MBH98 are combined into a global reconstruction.
>> having a bunch of individual proxy records does not mean that you have a global-scale climate reconstruction.
this is exactly what MBH98 is! A couple of proxy reconstructions (with some very bad proxies) and missing analysis how the this represents a global temperature, you seem to agree that this is not how science should be done!
As McShane and Wyner put in their unrefuted peer reviewed article
“””
[..]Consequently, the application of ad hoc methods to screen and exclude data increases model uncertainty in ways that are ummeasurable and uncorrectable.[..]
“””
That is not what MBH98 is, it presents a multi-proxy network, not a selection of individual proxy records we are meant to sift through by eye. The individual proxies are the components that are used to produce the analysis, they are not the analysis.
At this point it is clear that you are all playing dumb, because there is no way you’re genuinely simple-minded enough to not grasp the concept I am relaying here. I don’t know why you think pretending to be a fool is a good strategy, but more power to you.
Mr. J: Why do you say we don’t grasp your point? We get it enough to deconstruct it. Your so impressed with the idea Mann’s results are repeated, here we see about two dozen posters take you apart. The fact that you don’t get it is painfully obvious here.
My figure above shows an example of your “multi-proxy network” to me it looks very much like
>> having a bunch of individual proxy records does not mean that you have a global-scale climate reconstruction.
Can you give a clear definition, when a bunch of individual proxies become a “multi-proxy network” and it´s okay to use them?
If you cant, you are not alone! Neither man nor his fellow proxy reconstructors ever bothered to make such an analysis!
Oh that of course means that there is no real difference between a “multi-proxy network” and a a bunch of individual proxies so far!
Several of these so called global multi-proxy networks use a single tree to represent that entire planet for a 400 year period.
Either Alan is using words that he doesn’t actually understand the words that he is using, or he’s not at good at lying as he thinks he is.
What you showed was a map of proxy weights for the year 1400 in MBH98, it was not the full proxy network used in the analysis. I provided a very nice and easy to follow analogy earlier in the thread, and I’ll try it one more time before abandoning the idea and resorting to even simpler language. It does get taxing to keep explaining very simple concepts to you all as though I’m speaking to a classroom of inattentive children.
If I have a bunch of flour, water, salt, and yeast, I don’t have a loaf of bread. I have all the components I need to make a loaf of bread, but I can’t stand back and look at my ingredients and tell people what I delicious loaf of bread I’ve made. That’s what you’re doing by linking to a bunch of individual proxies. We cannot eyeball each proxy and try to discern a picture of global climate during the MWP.
You need to combine them in some way and perform an analysis on them. If you want to plot the proxy reconstruction on a map, you need to perform an analysis to determine how much area each of your proxies represents. If you have multiple proxies representing the same area, you need to combine them in some way and present the combined proxies as the representation of that geographic area. If you want to plot the proxy reconstruction as a time series chart, you need to perform an analysis to figure out how to combine all of the proxies – how much each one should be weighted, how much area of the globe it represents in the average, etc. This is what Michael Mann did. You can disagree with the way he did it all you want, but not doing some form of such an analysis is not an option. That’d be like telling a baker you don’t like their bread so you’ll just be consuming the ingredients individually and raw, as they’re a much better loaf of bread. Maybe the ingredients can be combined in a better way, but you swallowing them raw is not that way.
Hopefully this is a little easier for you to follow.
You are beginning to bore me. But watching you descend into complete farce is interesting.
So, how did the makers of your global MWP map arrive at the decision that South-west Africa was generally colder than south-east Africa? They could not have used individual proxies according to you, because they do not reflect the ”global” pattern (I can’t believe I’m even writing this) Hmmm? I mean how do they work out what colour the little squares should be?
When you have a global map illustrating mean temperature over a time slice, you can visually see the global pattern. If instead you’re looking at a collection of time series, you cannot see the global pattern of change over time without combining those time series in some way. Some of the series might be warm at the same time as others might be cool, canceling each other out, and you can’t just eyeball it. Is this genuinely a concept you’re struggling with? Or are you taking the piss? I can never tell on this website.
Were are the individual data sets, a combination of which, show a particular temperature in a particular region on your map. I would like to see one.
No, the samples I gave you all show warmth over and above today (more or less) between 1000 and 1400.
Prove it. Present a statistical analysis of these records showing a global mean temperature greater than today between 1000 and 1400.
>> When you have a global map illustrating mean temperature over a time slice, you can visually see the global pattern.
I cant, could you kindly point it out to me:
all I see is shady science!
This is not a map illustrating mean temperature over a time slice, it is a map showing proxy weights for the year 1400. Hopefully that clarifies for you. Let me know if you need more help reading figure captions.
I’m wondering what your motivation is
He has no motivation he is simply a stupid man hanging onto a dead paper.
It’s hard to even laugh.
I’m wondering what pleasure you get out of being so obviously wrong
Duck, dodge and weave. A masterful performance.
Something Mann didn´t even remotely do in the MBH98 paper we are discussing here?
When I want the beginnings of a solid discussion underway, I’ll look at every single one of those items and let you know. ‘Til then, I’ll be content to note how very lonely it is for the Mannonites here, 400+ posts, and only you and … Simon and……………that’s it! Your approach, to make up for it with high volume repetitive comments, is working, so you think.
My comments would be neither high volume nor repetitive if you and your compatriots could get together and elect a single champion to voice your inane arguments instead of all piling on with the exact same replies to everything I say, but alas. I do appreciate you acknowledging that you aren’t after serious discussion, though, it’s always nice one folks here just say the quiet part out loud and save us all some time.
A serious discussion about the fact that Mann obviated the MWP from his preposterous graph even in the face of overwhelming evidence?
Are you serious?
Mr. J: As others have discovered, you are a gaslighting troll. “Discussions” with you are a waste of comment space. Now, I like batting at pinyatas like you, but the site isn’t mine, and Mr. tommy is close to shutting you out. That would not diminish the site one bit, as your gaslighting prompts many corrective comments, then it becomes a battle against your repeated bs. I don’t have compatriots here, only many independent thinkers who agree that you are a fool. We don’t “get together” and don’t get talking points from paymasters, evidently you do, and project it on us. I’d call on my “compatriots” to ignore you, but I’d probably be the first to reply to your mendacious cupidity.
A good response to silly trolls–on both sides. I’ve been called both a climate denier and a warmist by various trolls.
First they define science as any paper that supports their position, then they define “serious discussion” as one that supports their position.
Absolutely, and we start with Mann´s MBH98 right here right now, so stop distracting and add any defense you can mount, so we shall eventually agree that was a very flawed paper and move on to the next!
(If we ever get to that I would vote for Mann´s paper in 2008, 10 years alter, all errors were pointed out to him, let´s see if he actually behaved any better .. Wasnt Einstein who said repeating your mistakes makes you an idiot? )
Either you have a split personality and your other self has been posting, or you are one of the worst liars on the planet.
I pick “B”.
What a liar you are.
what a load of drivel.
>> You want to quibble over a 25 year old study.
Yes, because it has many errors and the main authors lied about and withheld important details the whole time!
>> there are newer studies using
We get to them and there is much to quibble about most of them as well.
For now show me one, which took McShane and Wyner´s peer-reviewed published critique to heart in a mathematical way:
“””
Consequently, the application of ad hoc methods to screen and exclude data in-
creases model uncertainty in ways that are ummeasurable and uncorrectable.
“””
Again some truth! Indeed we SHOULD cast out MBH98 for a better understanding.
>> none of them shows a globally coherent MWP
from Lamb (1982) to Buentgen (2020) and even later there are dozens of studies concluding that there was indeed a MWP and LIA, unfortunately they are not much better that MBH98, when is comes considering the uncertainty from the proxy selection, but at least their methodology is not made up on the fly and they dont lie about it for 25 years
Unless there is proof that scientists in that book have objected to Steyn’s ‘interpretation’ of their words, it’s challenging to accept your assertion. How does the phrase ‘could extract anything vaguely disparaging of Mann from’ apply here? Can we express the idea more directly, such as saying ‘The statistical analysis underlying the hockey stick was strongly criticized’ for greater clarity?
No, but ongoing initiatives seek to grasp the broader perspective without succumbing to political influence, as you observe: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/11/11/book-review-climate-of-the-past-present-and-future-a-scientific-debate/
Mann, Marcott, Tierney, Osman, so many others have used pseudo-science, poor proxies, appalling methodology and bad practice to try to prove a hockey stick of past temperature reconstructions.
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE STUDIES HAS BEEN DEBUNKED OR RETRACTED.
Mann’s has been debunked so many times it has become a running joke in academia. And yet, every few years, another educated idiot beclowns him or herself by trying to produce a paleo temperature reconstruction. Then, inevitably, makes the same damn mistakes and fraudulent choices and their paper gets debunked and chucked into the trash.
What about the PAGES 2k reconstruction?
What about it? Care to elaborate?
Go to Climate Audit and see that Steve McIntire showed Pages used, while trying to hide the fact, the same treemometers and up side down sediments that are in Mann’s crap.
SO, Pages 2K was not independent. It came up with the same results because it used the same data selected to give the same results, without listing all the “data” they studied and rejected.
You can’t make cherry pie if you don’t eliminate all the apples, grapes and pecans.
“it has become a running joke in academia”
Have to remember, that AlanJ only PRETENDS to have anything to do with rational thought or academia..
… otherwise he would KNOW that Mickey Mann’s HS is the butt of many a piece of ridicule.
Funny how people using the same bad data and the same discredited methods keep arriving at the same erroneous conclusion.
As to your claim that nobody had produced any counter studies. It’s hard to find what you refuse to see.
Alan J is a good example of hive-mind religious thinking. No amount of empirical observational evidence (such as what I posted above) will penetrate.
But it’s fun watching him being made a fool of – notwithstanding the fact that he cannot recognize it.
Isn’t it amazing how so many ”studies” can still arrive at the wrong conclusion?
And Steve McIntire time and again showed that NEW published studies claiming to be independent of Mann use the same proxies again and again to replicate MBH 98.
A little time at Climate Audit by anyone not familiar with that site would be beneficial to your understanding of the Team.
Not you personally Mike, just everyone in general who is unfamiliar with Steve’s work.
No, you are badly mistaken there have been a number of papers that doesn’t support Manns paper at all but then you wouldn’t know that because you are a classic armchair mannian supporter.
But you don’t cite any of them 🤷
Which means you never saw or read them while they were well known by people here years ago thus your youth is becoming obvious.
“You wouldn’t know her, she goes to another school.”
Mr. J: Thanks for confirming Mr. tommy’s “youth” conclusion. A high school taunt??!!
See above.
Cite another reconstruction paper to what purpose exactly?
How would that help or contradict the fact that Mann´s paper is flawed in several ways?
Either if they make the same mistakes or if they dont does not help Mann in any way!
The Wegman Report you never read specifically pointed it out that all those “replications” were based on the same worthless shit Mann papers was exposed on and they were not true replications as they were his close friends at the time, thus no true independence was ever established.
Since then, many of them have fallen away from him because he is a rolling asshole.
The talking points memo emphasis’s that you are to proclaim that these studies are independent.
That they aren’t really independent doesn’t matter. Protecting the narrative is more important than reflecting reality.
I’ll eagerly await your citations of the specific sections of the Legman report making these claims, and of your proof that any issues identified in the Wegman report substantively alter the conclusions of Mann’s study.
Oh, and the Wegman report was published in 2006. We are currently in the year 2023. You might have missed a few studies in the interim.
Agreed, so when are you going to end your obsession?
Read the very first comment on this page if you want insight into the deranged fascination people here have MM, and the joy they get from abusing him.
“Yippeee! A New Mann-bashing thread. I’ll be back later to read the post and to enjoy the comments.
Regards,
Bob”
AlanJ is 100% correct to point out….. Mann’s study was 25 years ago and has been reproduced using numerous different techniques and data. And yet here we are. Trapped in a time capsule chocked full of teeth gnashers and head bangers all screaming at the sky that MM is a bad man and should go to bed without any dinner. Time to move on.
No much like AlanJ, you showcase your ignorance by overlooking the significance of the hockey stick graph in contributing to the body of evidence predominantly supporting human-caused climate change. The IPCC held a different. The hockey stick study was considered so robust that earlier research, which had acknowledged the existence of a relatively warm Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age, appeared to take a backseat in subsequent IPCC reports in favor of this study.
Yep it was significant, that is true, but more importantly, it has, by and large, proved to be a fair representation of the past, at least that is what numerous independent reconstructions have shown. So… time to move on, or at least quote the more up to date information. Or you can keep kicking MM…..
Your assertion that Mann’s results have been replicated numerous times is not persuasive; it essentially relies on an appeal to authority. Why did the scientists in Steyn’s book, all of whom possess esteemed credentials, criticize the hockey stick graph?
You criticize Simon by falsely claiming they’re making an appeal to authority and then immediately present a textbook example of the fallacy. Is the irony lost on you?
Ah, now you get it! It’s interesting how, when someone with a differing opinion employs the same argument, the flaws become more apparent. The irony in this realization is quite intriguing. The bigger point I’m making is I have yet to see either of you object to McIntyre’s findings, instead all you guys have offered thus far is “replicated over and over again” or “it’s been 25 years, move on!” The main point I’m trying to convey is that I haven’t observed either of you expressing objections to McIntyre’s findings. So far, the responses have centered around phrases like “replicated over and over again” or “it’s been 25 years, move on!”
So you were employing a logical fallacy as a learning exercise? Got it.
The reason I’m not addressing McIntyre’s “findings” is because they are irrelevant – it has been 25 years, MBH’s results have been replicated multiply times by numerous independent researchers, so it is time to move on. That’s the argument I am in making in this thread. You can completely reject MBH98 and our understanding of the climate evolution over the common era remains unchanged.
If McIntyre or any other contrarian were genuinely interested in contributing to the scientific process or advancing human knowledge, then at some point in the past quarter of a century, they would have turned their efforts toward actually performing novel research and produced a reconstruction free of any of the issues they complain about in MBH98, not continually picking at the single paper. The fact that McIntyre has nothing new to bring to the table in 25 years exposes his real motivation.
McIntyre and other contrarians prioritize exposing perceived flaws in the arguments of AGW proponents rather than contributing to the advancement of human knowledge. While AGW has garnered a much larger audience than the handful of blogs representing skeptics, both sides generate a mix of good and bad articles. McIntyre’s primary objective revolves around critiquing the IPCC’s decision to highlight the influential MBH study, aiming to reveal its statistical shortcomings. Prior to 2001, numerous studies acknowledged the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) as global phenomena, until the Third Assessment Report (TAR) chose to emphasize the MBH study in their report.
You are overgeneralizing and placing all climate skeptics into a single category. Some resort to a ‘scattergun’ approach, throwing various arguments without thorough consideration, but there are others, like Judith Curry, who recognize the politicization inherent in the climate debate. Among skeptics, there are those genuinely committed to seeking the truth, as evidenced by the link I shared with you yesterday.
By singularly focusing on one paper published 25 years ago. It’s next to useless, and no other field of science has professional contrarians making careers out of sitting on the sidelines, hurling rotten vegetables and contributing nothing of value.
Not at all. I’m saying that any contrarian who has spent 25 years bashing Mann’s early paper without ever actually trying to contribute to the field by conducting research and publishing findings is not interested in doing science and is actively hurting the field and is acting at odds with the scientific pursuit of human understanding. McIntyre and ilk are saying, “I want us to know less about the climate than before scientists started doing research.”
Allow me to provide the complete context of my post, as it appears certain sentences have been selectively cherry picked:
Prior to the discovery of evidence showing that the MWP was not a globally synchronous event, scientists speculated that it might be a globally synchronous event.
This is just how science works.
There is MASSES of evidence showing that MWP and the much warmer Holocene optimum were indeed global. !
Neither was there any evidence against it.. skipping 25 years forward. .same situation.. just there are a few papers in support of the MWP out, but they commit just some of the same mistakes Mann did in MBH98,
nothing new, Mann´s flawed paper still has to go!
>> By singularly focusing on one paper published 25 years ago.
Yes and the evidence against it is very clear, it´s just you and alike repeating the same over and over again, who gets in way of science!
That paper is bad, flawed and Mann lied about and withheld crucial information for 25 years it, at least the paper has to go!
You have anything to add to this?
Let´s look at the next one!
Nice try, but you are making an ad hominem attack that has no depth.
You want to make an impact, address the CONTENT of the refutation of Mann’s work, not the people that wrote it.
Doesn’t matter how many hundreds of studies debunking the HockeyStick are created, the true believers will still declare that there is no science that goes against them.
No study in favor or against MBH98 matters in this discussion here about the flaws of the MBH98 paper! There are flaws, it is useless regardless of what other scientist find!
Every scientific paper has flaws. That does not make them useless. Mann’s paper certainly had flaws, but it made meaningful contributions to the field and to our understanding of the earth’s climate evolution. Science is iterative, each new study building off of those that came before. Not even Mann himself would say he got everything right, but despite all of the picking of nits and wringing of hands and wailing and gnashing of teeth from the contrarian set, the basic conclusions of Mann’s paper have been confirmed over and over and over again.
>> Every scientific paper has flaws.
Not true and irrelevant, let´s stay on focus here!
>> Mann’s paper certainly had flaws
Good, it´s time to correct them or withdraw the paper!
>> it made meaningful contributions to the field and to our understanding of the earth’s climate evolution
It certainly did not, beside showing how gullible people are!
It´s main conclusions are not statistically relevant, especially as Mann yet has to consider the mathematical consequences of his proxy selection procedure!
Without that every conclusion in it is irrelevant, so the whole paper is irrelevant and on top of that Mann lied about and distorted the process to get there, he knew his method was weak from the beginning.
>> the basic conclusions of Mann’s paper have been confirmed over and over and over again.
You really like to repeat yourself! So I am telling you once more, that whatever was written in other articles is irrelevant for this discussion, Mann´s paper must stand on it´s own, but it does not, so it must be corrected or withdrawn!
>> Mann’s paper certainly had flaws
>> it made meaningful contributions to the field and to our understanding of the earth’s climate evolution
Sounds like he is saying that the results matter more than how the results were generated.
He can’t which is why he never does it.
He is trolling us eventually he will wear out his welcome here since he is a dishonest person.
You keep lying since there is something new and it wasn’t McIntire who found it but then again you didn’t read the article.
LOL.
Are you really trying to say that Mann or his MBH98 was never part of an appeal to authority? Maybe I misunderstood..
>> it essentially relies on an appeal to authority.
It also omits the fact that MBH98 has been shown to be wrong in various ways, as per Simon’s argument that would disqualify his other papers. .but this is not how science works, they neither help not harm MBH98, it needs to stand on its own or withdrawn!
Specious claim, no such reconstructions ever existed.
Nor, as usual for silly, does he link to any of the alleged reconstructions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
All using the same FAKED data sets and anti-science statistical gibberish.
And all DELIBERATELY CONCOCTED by agenda driven “scientists” with the aim of supporting their high priest.
and they still are irrelevant for this discussions!
MBH98 is flawed, no matter what other studies find,
flawed studies must be corrected or withdrawn!
See AlanJ’s list below. I’m guessing that should be enough for any reasonable person. How did you find it ATheoK?
list of what, unless it is a list of Mann´s flaws in MBH98, the list may be not very relevant for the discussion here!
“proved to be a fair representation of the past, “
NOT EVEN REMOTELY REALISTIC.
Bears no relation to any know historical events.
Proven to be a load of statistical mal-derived hogwash.
But that is just the sort of thing that you would “believe” in..
… and laugh about with your little “uncle”.
BARK BARK
The dog is barking now.
Darwin’s Origin was seminal, but it is not considered to be the final word in evolutionary biology. Scientists have pointed out flaws or outdated ideas in the work, but their main focus is on presenting new ideas that drive our understanding forward. If science had spent the last 164 years obsessed with every minor issue in the manuscript instead of engaging in novel research, we would be in a sorry state indeed.
There were criticisms of the hockey stick study at that time. Regardless of one’s stance on the study and its methodology, the reaction from the AGW community was notable:
Phil Jones:
Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something…..
I will be emailing the journal to tell them that I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A Climatic Research Unit person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans Von Storch.
Michael Mann:
The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn’t have cleared a ‘legitimate’ peer review process
anywhere. That leaves only one possibility–that the peer-review process at Climate
Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn’t just De
Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own department…
The skeptics appear to have staged a ‘coup’ at “Climate Research” (it was a mediocre
journal to begin with, but now it’s a mediocre journal with a definite ‘purpose’).
Bear in mind, their intentions were set in motion before they had a chance to thoroughly read the paper. Perhaps, this contentious episode sheds light on the limited presence of published scientific studies by skeptics in recognized journals.
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1047388489.txt
Their reaction was to privately trash a terrible paper and express concern over the fact that it somehow passed peer review, and that they were losing trust in the journal. That seems like a really good reaction. Jones does a nice job summarizing the basic issues in the paper in the email you’ve quoted:
Well, yes, it isn’t enough to write papers, they need to actually be good to be published in recognized journals.
Of course the definition of a “terrible paper” has always been, any paper that they disagree with.
Not at all, as I quoted from the email you’ve cited, Jones provided extremely good reasons as to why the paper was terrible, as have numerous other scientists in the years since it was published. That you can’t see further than “they disagreed with the paper” is evidence of your own prejudice.
“That you can’t see further than “they disagreed with the paper” is evidence of your own prejudice.”
Ummm …. Yup.
Simon, the sad little yes-man, pipes up.
Did your “kind uncle” tell you to say that ?
Seems like just another mindless brain-fart !
No, they thought one ‘bad’ paper was evidence of hijacking a journal. As Mark points out below regarding their definition of a ‘terrible’ paper, such a prospect puts them in a really bad light doesn’t it?
What they actually express is that the paper is so irredeemably bad that there is no innocent explanation for its publication. The journal’s editorial board agreed as more than half resigned in protest.
They’re and your definition of “so irredeemably bad” is subjective and the cause of the contention. Can’t an “irredeemably bad” paper just be easily refuted by good, old-fashioned scientific merit?
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1051156418.txt
These scientists are not ‘anti-greenhouse’; that is a label used to disintegrate their reputations. It’s clear their goal was motivated not by objectivity but by bias.
Jones did easily refute the paper with good, old-fashioned scientific merit. He completely dismantled it in a few sentences in the emails you’ve quoted, but you’re choosing to ignore that.
This was a casual term used in a private email between close colleagues, there was no reputation to disintegrate. Again, the emails are crystal clear: Jones and Mann thought the paper was very bad science, so bad that it couldn’t have possibly gotten past genuine peer review. There is no plot or conspiracy revealed in these emails, they show scientists worried about terrible science being published, and the implications for the reputation of the journal. Again, half of the journal’s editorial board resigned in protest over this paper, so Mann and Jones weren’t alone in sharing these thoughts.
Again, this is all subjective on what they consider to be a ‘bad’ paper, or more specifically the best way to calibrate multi proxy data. The email I cited dating 03/11/03 showed that they (through admission) did not thoroughly examine the paper and still arrived at a conclusion that the journal had been hijacked.
It’s not subjective at all. Jones, in the emails you quoted, provides completely objective reasons why the paper is deeply flawed. It has nothing to do with proxy calibration. Jones says he “looked briefly” at the paper, meaning that the issues were so glaring they were immediately apparent. If someone serves me a plate of food covered in mold, I don’t need to take a bite to assess whether they’ve seasoned the dish appropriately. I already know it’s rotten.
You think that is a good analogy for this situation? How would you know rotten science just by briefly ‘skimming’ any paper? Like just reading the abstract of the study and then forming that conclusion? All you’ve done this whole time is quote those two figures from the email cited. You haven’t explained WHY the paper is bad, just like you haven’t for McIntyre’s work. It speaks to the fact that all of your arguments in this thread have been appeals to authority!
I think it is a very apt analogy. These scientists are renowned experts in this field who have dedicated their entire lives to studying the subject. Sussing out bullshit in their own field is child’s play.
Well, Phil Jones did. In the emails you quoted. You keep ignoring his words. But in any case, the paper is decades old, and was the subject of tremendous controversy around its publication. I’m sure you’re well aware of the various rebuttals and are merely feigning ignorance, but in good faith I’ll cite one for you to examine:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2003EO270003
PDF copies of the manuscript can be freely obtained by Googling.
“These scientists are renowned experts in this field”
The field of expertise of Mickey Mann and Phil Jones is CLIMATE BULLS**T.
They really can’t abide it when someone publishes something that ISN’T !! !
Oh, the irony
EXACTLY! OMG this guy!
I’ll take your lack of response and false indignation as the closest thing to a concession I could hope to achieve on this forum. Cheers.
Michael E. Mann published the hockey stick study 25 years ago; it received widespread attention gaining recognition from the IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, etc. Several studies previously acknowledging the exist of a relatively widespread MWP and LIA are shoved by the wayside in favor of this; a notable point in climate science. Flash-forward to 2003. A Canadian statistician, Steve McIntyre, takes interest in the hockey stick and attempts to reproduce results by Mann et al, but fails. 20 years later, here we are talking about a new development in the hockey stick SAGA.
On Nov. 27, you write:
Several others take note of your response and itsappeals to authority and ad-hominems, respectively. You are unable to see these fallacies so I show it to you and Simon. You then argue that McIntyre’s findings are irrelevant (even thought that’s what’s being discussed in this post), simply because others have reproduced his finding. While it may seem like I’ve taken you down a rabbit hole, I’ve just been trying to understand your grasp on the whole issue, AlanJ. SB’s paper being characterized as ‘bad’ is subjective based on one’s opinion on Mann’s methodology, which has been widely touched by McIntyre which you have yet to criticize. Describing SB’s paper as “bad” is a subjective assessment linked to one’s stance on Mann’s methodology, which has undergone thorough scrutiny by McIntyre—the very figure you’ve deemed ‘irrelevant’ to critique.
My very first comment in this thread stated that Mann’s study is a quarter of a century old, and since that time there have been a multitude of studies confirming its findings, so the singular focus of climate skeptics on this one paper is unwarranted and does little to drive the science forward. I have not once wavered in this position.
In regards to Soon and Baliunas, the badness of the paper is irrespective of the goodness or badness of MBH98. We could decide that MBH is the worst paper in the history of science and it still would not change the fact that Soon and Baliunas is absolute garbage that never should have passed peer review. The fact that you’re are cheerleading Soon and Baliunas because it says things you want to hear is evidence of your bias, not mine.
Crash and burn. Today is not your day, my friend.
Sure it is.
Not correct, even Internet 2.0 agrees with me on this one, as shown in the attached photo. Regardless since this has been just a game of whack-a-mole and you won’t address the main point, this is my last reply.
While I appreciate that you turned to ChatGPT in an act of desperation, my point is still correct. SB attempt to dispute the findings of MBH by extracting proxy records from a literature review and claiming that the records show a MWP warmer than today. But they fail to establish that all of their proxies are temperature sensitive and fail to demonstrate that the identified periods of warmth in the individual proxies are globally synchronous. This is the issue Jones pointed out in the email you quoted from him (remember, the part you keep ignoring), and it is one of the main points brought forth in the rebuttal paper I linked to you above (which you’ve also roundly ignored). So regardless of whether MBH is robust, SB is an abject failure.
Probably for the best, you’ve shown an admirable tenacity in defending your indefensible position, but I imagine it must be getting exhausting.
“But they fail to establish that all of their proxies are temperature sensitive”
You are talking about Mickey Mann again, obviously
Temperature is just a tiny part of tree ring proxies.
They are actually a very bad temperature proxy, so it is logical Mann would use them.
CO2, or lack thereof, has a far greater effect on growth.
Even if Mann’s crap fabrication was not full-on statistical malfeaces….
… all it shows is the stunted growth due to very low CO2 during the MWP, and the increase in growth once CO2 reached above a bare subsistence level.
Funny how he defines an abject failure as being a victory.
Of course that’s the way he always ends his visits here. Declaring victory and then retreating as rapidly as possible.
He’s actually proud of the fact that he never reads any paper that he disagrees with.
If Jones and Mann thought it was “bad” science, it would because they didn’t like the facts being bought forward.
Although, both of them have an intimate connection with some of the worst science around….. their own work. !
The emails show two anti-science CON-men not wanting their lies brought to the fore.
“the paper is so irredeemably bad that there is no innocent explanation for its publication. “
You are of course, talking about Mann’s farcical hockey-stick paper.. right ? !!
“Their reaction was to privately trash a terrible paper and express concern over the fact that it somehow passed peer review”
And yet they still worship one of the TRASHIEST anti–science papers around.. the Mickey Mann farcical pseudo-statistics hockey-stick paper.
Now there is a paper, so rife with mal-statistics, that it should NEVER have been considered for anything but the circular file.
Michael Mann, on a trip to Australia, said… ”You will living either in a Mad Max world (permanent desert and fire) or a Water World. (Permanently flooded).”
….He wasn’t quite sure which one.
25 years of HOGWASH and Statistical balderdash..
… that is what the AGW scam is based on
Thanks for showing us all that fact… but we are all well aware of it.
Maybe you should ask your “uncle”.. if you can get another brain-fart into your conversation.
How do other reconstruction papers help the current discussion here exactly? We discuss that Mann´s paper is flawed in several ways.
Other publications either if they make the same mistakes or if they dont does not help Mann in any way!
When Mann published this piece of fiction or garbage, depending on your point of view, he lied and ommitted swathes of information that a reputable scientist would always include with, or make available. It’s always been a bit of a mystery what he lied about, what he missed out and why? Now we know – even a poor scientist knows when you get statistical analyses that appallingly awful you should junk them and start over – Mann published and hid the evidence. He condemned himself.
They will always ignore this part as it conflicts with their programming to always defend junk science no matter what.
I know, they have no response to facts.
The climate change alarmists have to defend the Hockey Stick chart to the death because that’s the only “evidence” they have to point to that favors their CO2-is-dangerous narrative.
The climate change alarmists have to erase the past warming of the Earth because it blows up their meme if they don’t.
HIDE the decline! Something has to exist before one can hide it. So Phil Jones and company were hiding real things from real people in order to sell the Human-caused climate change narrative.
A little Cabal of Temperature Data Mannipulators have turned the world upside down and done serious damage to economies and societies in the process.
They all ought to be thrown in jail considering what their climate change lies have cost the world.
Did you hear Kerry’s statements to Congress. He was ask what the current CO2 parts per million was. He said, “404,” and then added that “It’s higher than in the last 800,000 years.” The representative replied, “But it has been over a thousand parts per million millions of years ago.” To that Kerry replied, “But there were no humans back then.”
Do you realize how stupid these people are? A 404 parts per million with people will end all life, but over 1000 parts per million with no people won’t. These people are complete loony toons.
They think they have it all figured out.
But they are dead wrong.
This is what delusion looks like.
How bizarro of you.
Mann never shared all of his data, any of his code or any of his statistical formulae.
Proper reconstructions seeking to reproduce research results require all of the information to perform a reconstruction.
Simply put, only fools believe reconstructions are virginal.
Hampus Soderqvist, through sheer determination reproduced everything Mann tried to keep hidden about his fraudulent hokeystick.
Soderqvist and McIntyre verified Mann’s research as totally bupkis, Not worth the paper upon which it is printed, or digitally stored..
When I first saw the Mann hockey stick graph, there was a proxy curve under the pasted-on temperature curve. It appeared to me that the proxy curve rose at 1/3 the rate of the temperature curve. If you multiplied the entire proxy curve of Mann’s by 3, then the MWP and Little Ice Age would return.
However, looking at the current Mann plots, that proxy curve no longer exists. So did I imagine the original proxy curve or did they edit it out? I wouldn’t put it past them!
Co2-mann
Okay guys and gals, I need a reset.. my earlier posting on this story made some think that I might be a BOT… I led some to seriously think that I am in the tank for the catastrophic global warming (“climate change”) fear crowd. That was an incomplete write-up with an accidental tap on the submit button!
I can confirm that I am not a BOT.. and my biggest concern is that that the mass of humanity has largely bought the scawy narrative that Mann is so proud of.
What I see here is a highly informed crowd (with receipts) who are disgusted by the direction that the dominant “climate science” narrative has combined with media, tech, politics, education, etc. to scare everybody else.
In my queries with Bing Chat, I asked it to make an argument against the Mann hockey stick.. it only presented theories of “deniers” but insisted that the dominant narrative is correct. Bing Chat would not even describe natural sources of co2 without explaining the dangers of “man-made” co2 – telling me on every query about co2 that c02 is terribly dangerous.. the full line.. Bing Chat even explained that it has emotion.. and at least in this regard, it’s persistence on parroting the AGW and Climate Change narrative it certainly wasn’t displaying attributes of a brain! That is a sliver of what we are up against.
We may be right that catastrophic climate change is wrong, but righteousness doesn’t always win the day sadly, but I do believe that it can win the future, if we are honest with the challenge and provide a clear vision.. AND have a marketing plan AND an ability to market it.
What I haven’t seen yet, is a marketing plan. Maybe somebody can correct me on that.. I would hope so.. love the work that so many are doing from Koonin to Heller to Watts to Nelson.. the list goes on.. great stuff and effective in their ways.. but the mountain is high.
We need something bigger…is the co2 coalition the main option? I would honestly donate 4 figure $ to a smart effort. Might a series of ballanced PSAs improve understanding?
I also believe that the creators of chaos have the advantage when the topic is complex – as in climate. It is hard to just hope.. hope for politics to self-correct.
Thoughts?
The CO2 coalition is not the only option. If you spend some time on this site you’ll come across some of the others. But please do bear in mind that that it is not a mountain but a large pile of mediocrity. The mountains are the intellects that produce first-class scientific studies following the scientific method – and they are sceptical intellects, not mediocre followers of a religious cult nor the scientific prostitutes.
Thank you for clarifying. Climate skeptic websites serve the purpose of providing a platform for skepticism, acknowledging that the arguments presented may appear inconsistent or contradictory. It’s noticeable that these discussions in the debate often align with political ideologies, with Republican views often associated with skepticism and Liberal views with alarmism. Navigating articles and studies from biased perspectives requires a mindful interpretation of their conclusions. This politicization of science is a regrettable reality. To reclaim a more objective approach, I suggest following figures like Dr. Javier Vinos and Andy May, who strive to maintain humility and distance from political influences. Reach out to them. Their commitment to pursuing truth amid the challenges of ego interference represents a hopeful beacon. As we continue these efforts, it’s anticipated that the truth will gradually emerge. Your dedication to this pursuit (if you are serious about it) is truly inspiring.
Climate web sites have another useful property.
Example comes from claims above that the MWP was/was not homogenous over the globe.
To test this, you look at many places on the globe, then rank them
Trouble is, when a place does not have any or much abundance of proxy material, it does not often get into a peer-reviewed paper that for example “The Australian mainland has few useful proxy tree studies reported.” This is because we do not have any/many. We lack high mountain ranges with treelines that go up and down with climate
So, if an author claims that there was no evidence of a MWP warming at a place, it might be because there are no suitable proxies. Look at PAGES2K to see their absence on the Australian mainland.
So, authors can count Australian mainlansd as either not showing MWP or showing it, depending on ideology.
You tend not to see these matters in formal publications.
Geoff S.
On the topic of revisiting old things
How about an update to this wonderful post of a few years ago!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/some-failed-climate-predictions/
It is on the right on the home page.
I recently posted on the excellent and recently updated ‘Climate Audit’ website:
“Piltdown Man 2, that is Piltdown mann, has been fully revealed.”
Now the greatest falsification of science ever.
Bottom line, Mann was wrong from start to finish.
If, at some point, he realized he was wrong, he lied and continues to lie.
Whether he lies because of his enormous ego or to keep promoting “The Cause”, only he can say.
But any honest evaluation can only conclude, Mann was wrong from start to finish.
Why would he hide the evidence for more than 25 years then lie about that and what was used unless he already knew he was wrong?
This site says the hockey stick is bullshit. I agree. But Mark Steyn fights the public battle mainly by himself. Where is McIntyre? Where is McKitrick? McIntyre posts again on his site (great), but who cares? Does anyone read McIntyre’s blog? Say something publicly McIntyre. Write a paper, or an article. Give an interview. Where are Steyn’s public defenders generally? Speak up. You’re all celebrating a new revelation on this blog, and I am too, but who really cares? Why aren’t the big guys speaking publicly? Pat Frank, Will Happer, McIntyre, any of you? Where are you guys? Do an interview, write an article. Not a peep. Steyn has been explaining the obvious deception of the hockey stick for years, but with few public defenders. Apparently nobody wants to say the word “fraud” publicly. Steyn is going to go down in flames in DC I suspect, but it would be great if he at least had some public defenders. This is good thread with almost 400 comments bashing the hockey stick and celebrating this new revelation. I like that. But I fear poor Mark Steyn still fights the battle mostly on his own. Thankfully he is very good at defending himself.
Site editor, please delete my previous comment. I went overboard.
Not to worry, gc. We all go overboard on occasion and for very good reason;
Thanks for including me among the big guys, gc. I’m touched and undeserving to be reckoned with Will Happer. Tom Nelson recently interviewed me on his podcast, and Matt Balaker podcast interviewed me a month prior.
I’ve never published on temperature proxies, except here, and then only to show that the method is bereft of science. See also the WUWT post.
So, whatever my expertise, it’s not directly relevant. But if Mark Steyn ever wanted my testimony, I’d make myself immediately available.
No, he has a number of defenders as the media themselves supported him when he was being sued by serially offended thin-skinned Mann and also lawyers who are supporting him.
Mann has made a lot of money, kept his cushy job and sold books SINCE he sued Steyn which shows he wasn’t hurt by the alleged libel at all which makes his case dead on arrival if the D.C. ever finish their stalling it would conclude very fast in Steyn’s favor.
Some of us remember paleo and the public circus-
Public Servant Not To Blame For “Paleo Pear & Banana Bread” Line In Terrible Government Ad – B&T (bandt.com.au)
Post no 508 and counting: not read all…..has this been cc’d to M.Steyn Esq.,I wonder ..his lawyers will be all over it I reckon – apologies if someone else has pointed that out too.
In commercial properties you have 2 options for expected hot days:
Precool the building overnight so it starts out in the high 60’s, or simply close the outside air dampers during the day to reduce the heat load. The first is ethical and increases energy use, the second is unethical and impacts air quality.
Only govt bldgs could get away with what occurred.
Years ago my math prof said, if your eye can’t see it, but your math can, then your math is wrong.
The hockey stick remains one of the best sales jobs in the history of science. If the facts aren’t on your side, baffle them with BS. Proof positive you can polish a turd.
Global Population has a much better fit to Glabol Average Temperature than does CO2.
It is however, much safer to claim you are going to get rid of fossil fuels than to let the general population find out your real purpose is to get rid of the general population.
The hockey stick looks funny, here is a better image not funny at all.
The Grim Reaper originally from the Black Death plague which Bertrand Russell praised next to war for population reduction. “Climate” takes the First Prize.
I read the original post over at Climate Audit. This and many other posts show how sloppy the work is that people are relying on to call for a fundamental change in our energy availability and reliability. Mann must have had grad students doing a lot of the work and not keeping track of which data sets they were using. Even if the work were good science, it would be immediately suspect in any other field due to the poor record keeping. However, it is neither good science nor well-researched and documented. certainly not something we should trust to spend trillions of dollars and make most people on earth poorer.