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.