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
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.