Video of Dr David Deming’s statement to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works on December 6, 2006. Dr Deming reveals that in 1995 a leading scientist emailed him saying “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”.
A few years later, Michael Mann and the IPCC did just that by publishing the now throughly discredited hockey stick graph.
That’s certainly plausible, but it may be too early. Mann was 30 in 1995, and got his PhD no earlier than 1996. The Medieval Warm Period was targeted by UEA folks like Phil Jones earlier, there may be answers in the Climategate Emails. Mann came to UEA’s attention in the midst of them and wasn’t completely welcomed.
I found this here ….
https://climateaudit.org/2010/04/08/dealing-a-mortal-blow-to-the-mwp/
“Subject: the new “warm period myths” box
Hi Keith and Tim –
…
In reading Valerie [Masson-Delmotte]’s Holocene section, I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature. The sceptics and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for current warming too – pure rubbish.
So, pls DO try hard to follow up on my advice provided in previous email. No need to go into details on any but the MWP, but good to mention the others in the same dismissive effort. “Holocene Thermal Maximum” is another one that should only be used with care, and with
the explicit knowledge that it was a time-transgressive event totally unlike the recent global warming.
Thanks for doing this on – if you have a cool figure idea, include it.
Best, peck
And a follow-up …
“SORRY TO SCARE YOU. I **ABSOLUTELY** AGREE THAT WE MUST AVOID ANY BIAS OR PERCEPTION OF BIAS. MY COMMENT ON “NAILING” WAS MADE TO MEAN THAT ININFORMED PEOPLE KEEPING COMING BACK TO THE MWP, AND DESCRIBING IT FOR WHAT I BELIEVE IT WASN’T.
OUR JOB IS TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT IT WAS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE DATA. IF THE DATA ARE NOT CLEAR, THEN WE HAVE TO BE NOT CLEAR. THAT SAID, I THINK TOM’S FIGURE CAPTURED WHAT I HAVE SENSED IS THE MWP FOR A LONG TIME, AND BASED ON OTHER SOURCES OF INFO – INCLUDING KEITH’S PROSE. THE IDEA OF A FIGURE, IS THAT FIGURES CAN BE MORE COMPELLING AND CONNECT BETTER THAN TEXT. ALSO, THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO LOOK AT THE MWP, AND AS LONG AS WE DON’T INTRODUCE BIAS OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT WILL DILUTE THE MESSAGE IN THE END, THE IDEA IS TO SHOW THE MWP IN MORE WAYS THAN TWO (THAT IS, THE EXISTING FIGS IN THE TEXT THAT KEITH AND TIM MADE).
So according to that he did not say “We have to get rid of” and all thit it may imply, rather ….
“would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature.
Mr. Banton: As the sportscasters say, “Let’s go to the video.” In the video, a guy named David (not Keith, not Tim) testifies he got an email; commenters name a suspect; you “rebut” this by saying “this email doesn’t say that”, as if that is the one and only email sent by ‘peck.
The other trolls are asking you to stop embarrassing them.
Err, I though that Climate Audit was on your side.?!
LOL how very LOL
The Climate Audit Blog
Mr. Banton: The voices in your head are evidently carrying a conversation that I can’t follow. You cite a CA something from 2010 as if that is the only possible source for something ‘peck said. Does it matter if it was ‘peck? Your idea that I deny something about Steve McIntyre is just another sign that voices in your head are a real problem for you. Finally, you assume all the time, as a good CliSci does.
“The other trolls are asking you to stop embarrassing them”
And how about you post some links to science that back-up your position?
Or at least something sensible to refute what I say.
Becasue this “Troll” does that.
Rather than using your snide ad hom attack and handwaving technique.
I mean “The other trolls are asking you to stop embarrassing them.”
is just you just being pathetic, presumably in an attempt to *win* whatever it is that you think can be validated by it.
News: The choir here is not the arbitors of truth (and BTW neither am I).
But hey, there are certain standards and morals that should be common to all here.
Try showing them.
Try laughing at yourself. Trolls don’t post links?? I’m supposed to post a link that “refutes” some post from CA from 2010, and if I don’t, I’m denying something about Steve M. Then I lack morals. Thanks for giving the choir here, who (you concede) have standards and morals, a real good laugh. I don’t need to waive my hands to draw attention to your ….
I couldn’t finish, laughing too hard.
” IF THE DATA ARE NOT CLEAR, THEN WE HAVE TO BE NOT CLEAR.”
Apart from other indications of a troubling mindset among these agenda-oriented scientists, this sounds like an admonition to be intentionally vague and perhaps dismissive in describing phenomena for which we don’t have hard data. It certainly aligns with the ongoing efforts to blame undesirable events on climate change, perhaps the fuzziest notion (in current parlance) used to stoke alarm.
just after that the article notes:
“To a third party, it’s hard to understand why someone who wants to “deal a mortal blow” to the “myth” of the MWP would take exception to being labeled as someone who wanted to “get rid of” MWP. The objective in each case seems pretty much the same.
Maybe it’s just a vocabulary thing. …
Be that as it may, while Overpeck was concerned that Deming might produce a “fake email” purporting to show Overpeck seeking to “get rid of the MWP”, Overpeck hasn’t challenged the authenticity of the Climategate email in which he aspires to “deal a mortal blow” to the MWP.”
In David Deming’s written submission to the Select Committee: “I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.””. So Jonathan Overpeck or whoever it was said it to David Deming and not necessarily to anyone else including Keith and Tim.
A few years later, Michael Mann and the IPCC did just that by publishing the now throughly discredited hockey stick graph
‘University of Pennsylvania professor Michael Mann … in an interview with Peter Dominick on a podcast last week, calling for all Democratic candidates to face a litmus test on committing to pack the Supreme Court …
… Mann said. “It isn’t just good enough to be a Democrat. You’ve got to be a Democrat who would be willing to expand the Supreme Court … ‘(Jonathan Turley via Fox News Aug 30).
This utterance ought to end any doubts that Mann’s output is or ever has been primarily about climate.
Manns skill to rig the game in his favor is not limited to climate – because his game has always been politics.
The lord of the tree-rings took a sharp scientific look at another piece of wood then sacrificed a chicken and came to the ultimate conclusion that the Supreme Court needs to be packed – to save the world.
While this might well be true – (probably)..the same can be said (probably) of most skeptics….. that all things climate are now political. In general, conservative thinking rejects the CC science, in the same extent that socialist thinkers support it! Arriving at truth (or something close to it) has become almost impossible, due mainly to political bias. For some reason people are offended because they believe science should rise above bias. Sadly though, science is performed by people, and not all people (including scientists) value integrity. Science has become the new religion. By replacing ministers of religion with scientists, we expect them to be ultimate truth seekers. Sadly, not all of them are!
You are 100 % right with your first argument, but the sceptics haven’t been political for the 1st decade.
They haven’t even been organized.
Michael Crichton never bothered to politicize(and he could have been very useful politically and be the most popular denier by a mile – an Anti-Al-Gore) it but pointed out the flaws and its religious and political dimension.
I don’t go along with your assumption that the truth can no longer be found:
Something is true or not – and it does not matter how huge and polarized the crowds are.
As we better not talk in absolutes to avoid kneejerk responses and radicalisation, we take a look at the real relevant stuff, red and dancing elephants in the room.
The relevant frame is:
Food production is rising, rising and rising all the time since the AGW narrative started,decade after decade.
A scenario impossible in a climate chaos emergency scenario with permanent floods, droughts, rainbombs, storms.
And food is all what it is all about if you care so much about humans.
The elephant in the room:
THEY do absolutely nothing that is necessary to counter the predicted negative massive impact.= increasing farmland, built desalination plants,channels,reservoirs, pipelines.
Even worse. They do the opposite – shutting down farmers, destroying dams.
Which means they don’t believe their own predictions.
Just like Paul Ehrlich – the guy who predicted the end of humanity in 4 different ways, then wrote a book(Eco-Science) about forced depopulation to counter the population bomb via forced sterilization etc.
His co author, John Holdren became Obamas climate tzar and both of the promoted the ice age of the 70ies thatll kill us all.
And here we get to the scientific impossibility.
While it is already highly unlikely that science operates in extreme,
It is impossible in an empiric, logic based system,
where you get from one extreme(ice age doom) to another(AGW doom).
Now the Scientific American released a scientific article claiming that the Ice age scare never happened and is only based on a single Newsweek article.
But when you go to Tony Hellers website RealClimateScience,com you can find hundreds mainstream articles about the comming, man made -of course,Ice Age.(click 1970s ice age scare in the black box of the website) .
Ask yourself : who is lying?who is intimidating,shaming and gaslighting?
and who is permanently overreacting?
THan you know where you can not find the truth.
And if there was no runaway effect in 700 mio years of life on this planet with up to 17x higher concentration(7000 +ppm, today 430) – how can a 25% increase(0.01% of our atmosphere) do shit?
Points well made Sir!
I completely agree that the narrative within mainstream science, and within mainstream media has been forced, so that the truth of the matter cannot be fully brought into open and honest analysis. There’s too much riding on it now, politically and ideologically.
I just want the mainstream media to quit constantly claiming catastrophe, when in fact rising CO2 really is not such a bad thing. I want the media to stop labelling every little weather perturbation as evidence of catastrophic climate change. But then, maybe their stories just wouldn’t sell. After all, there’s not much to write about in admitting things aren’t as bad as we first thought! There is however potential for a story in exposing political mismanagement, and poorly advised policy makers, based on what exactly?
The fact that that everything is being done to prevent even a basic debate, let alone an analysis is a massive indicator (and IMO) proof that truth is not on the side of the warming narrative.
And it also indicates that AGW was from the get go political,ideological for the sake of social engineering/ indoctrination.
This also explain the absolutely unusual, aggressive approach of the scientific mainstream community.
Scientists do not behave like that.
They don’t force their opinion.They don’t shut down opposition.
They don’t use dirty, deceptive tricks and shaming – let alone fearporn or kicking people out of their jobs for wrongthink.
But in terms of climate science(and later Covid) all the same strategies are being used that are used to sell wars.
Shock&Awe – there is an ultimate evil.
We will save you from the evil(Putin,AGW.Iran,Saddam,Assad etc)
and if you are not with us you are against us.
And we have the same extreme inconsistencies we have in politics.
Saddam / Noriega used to be Americas best friends (= Ice Age)
and became Hitlers(= Global Warming) at one point.
Reality is – they were never the good guys(Ice Age)
nor the bad guys (Warming ).
It’s not them who changed nor has the climate.(that’s why the skiing equipment market has more than doubled since the end of snow was declared; in countries with declining populations)
The thing that has changed was the reporting, the expertise.
All of a sudden ALL mainstream experts/politicians/journalists etc start to make the same “mistakes” and act like rabid dogs.
This is always an indicator that we deal with a controlled manufactured narrative – as it is impossible that so many people make the exact same mistake at the same time (especially politicians who have a legion of very smart highly educated advisers).
And only a manufactured, forced and controlled narrative can go within only 13 years from 42 experts meeting on dec. 3rd 1972 at Brown University to write an open letter to Nixon urging him to melt the arctic ice by covering it with soot(back then melting arctic ice was a good thing)
to ” we must block the sun with particels(those particels that were blamed for the ice age)to save the planet from warming, as Edward Teller(H bomb dude)already suggested in 1985.
If there are massive anomalies/contradictions and experts refuse to acknowledge them than It’s 99% likely that the official narrative is wrong.
The only lost cause here, Paul, is this article.
Mann and the IPCC are not erasing the MWP or the LIA, contrary to what this blog post claims.
Both appear in climate reconstructions, but the magnitude of their warming and cooling was modest compared with what we’re experiencing today. Let’s be honest: this is little more than red meat thrown to the WUWT comment section.
They managed to delete the warmer 1930s,40s period from their “global” fake-fabrications (such as GISS).. even though a large proportion of the raw land data from around the world still has the 1930s, 40s peak.
Their is a mound of proxy data clearly showing the Medieval Warm period was warmer than now..
But their cult religion tells them to keep trying the fakery.
We must fight back against this religion-based revision of reality.
FFS nitwit:
It’s right there on the post!….
And no where did I say I agreed with it.
And even if I did that is my purogative.
“If you don’t like that point, then show where you have used historical facts as part of your reasoning”.
What for?
The thread is about ““We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period!”
And so I posted a (purported) transcription of the email in question).
“This IS an open channel you nitwit. I WILL post wherever and whenever I wish to do so.”
Perfectly fine by me nitwit – just that you will recieve a similar response back or my usual reponse with you which is to ignore.
How about you do that with me.
Then we will both be happy.
Hubert Lamb notes in his ‘Climate , History and the Modern World’ page 260
”
“It was during the second and third decades of the new century that the climatic warming became noticeable to everybody”
“In Spitsbergen the open season for shipping at the coal port lengthened from three months in the year before 1920 to over seven months of the year by the late 1930s”
Love weather history!
It gives us the proper perspective on things. Unfortunately, too many people don’t know this history, and as a result, get spooked by climate alarmists.
It was just as warm in the recent past as it is today. This demonstrates that CO2 has no discernible effect on Earth’s climate or weather. That’s what Earth weather history says.
I have had this video pinned on my Twitter account since I have had a Twitter account, 2013 IIRC.
It pretty much says enough all by itself, IOW it contains sufficient information, to disabuse anyone of the notion that AGW theory is an legitimate scientific endeavor.
Once one has been so disabused, all that is left is the truth: The climate crisis is a grift, a hoax, a swindle, a lie, and just plain not true. Not merely a mistake, but a deliberate fabrication, every part of it, every word, every last tiny bit of it all.
And the people responsible for originating it, and who have participated in perpetuating it, are among the worst human beings who have ever lived on this planet.
The scope of this crime against humanity, when all is considered, is shocking and, by this point nearly incomprehensible.
And this video, or more precisely, what the video reveals, is only one of dozens of separate lines of evidence or categories of information, that all by themselves strip naked this deception.
Taken as a whole, the evidence is overwhelming and ironclad, that every part of the CAGW fraud is entirely made up and, most importantly, it is wrong. Deliberately wrong. Every word of it.
The Earth is not too hot, it is too cold.
A warmer planet is not more dangerous, it is safer.
A colder planet is not better, it is deadly.
CO2 is not too high, it remains far far too low.
More of it is not in any way bad, it is in every way beneficial.
There is no climate crisis, the world is having a placid and benign phase.
Nothing unusual or unprecedented is occurring, everything happening is within historical norms.
Everything warmistas say is the opposite of what is true.
That cannot happen by chance.
Every prediction alarmists make is recycled nonsense, and not one of them has ever come to pass.
Everyone that has any part in it is a lying, grifting criminal, and/or an inanely gullible dupe, and/or a profoundly miseducated rube.
We are going on 40 years of this, and it is way past time to put an end to it.
The harms will only multiply.
The problem is that “calibration” is only good for when instrumental records are available. Environmental conditions are changeable and will affect the calibration outside of the calibration interval. There is no way to validate those environments prior to the interval thus making an assumption that the calibration holds for all time very suspect. I should add, that the uncertainty even in a calibration period is likely to be plus or minus at least a degree or two which makes comparisons to instrumental records extremely uncertain also.
They are also completely ignored for those portions of the record where they don’t align.
Even the man who collected the data Mann misused stated in his report that tree rings are NOT proxies for temperature.
For many reasons, that those who study science over propaganda are well aware.
1) There are dozens of things that impact growth rates. Temperature is just one of them.
2) All plants have an optimum growing temperature. Being above or below that point retards growth.
3) Tree rings only record conditions during the growing season, they say nothing regarding the rest of the year.
4) It is well known that enhance CO2 encourages plant growth. CO2 levels were rising during the period that tree growth was increasing.
That’s right, some trees are thermometers and some trees are not.
To create a proxy reconstruction of course use only those trees that correlate generally with the assumed thermometer record of the 20th century (duh), smooth the selected trees’ disparate pre-20th century records (that are all over the place) and voila: a ‘hockey stick’.
You can’t use temperature data for the reasons Chris gives. The hockey stick with its flat handle has been successfully recreated using random data with the latter half correlating to recent temperature data. For example Lucia and Co did it….But you know this.
You must correlate against another quantity but they don’t.
The calibration only holds for the time period where measured temperature exists. Outside that interval, there is no calibration possible. The uncertainty rises to the point where the tree rings are not fit for purpose.
What you are proposing is exactly what climate science does, when an instrument leaves the factory, it is calibrated for all time.
Here is Briffa’s tree ring data since 1900..
… anything much before that is constrained by low CO2.
.
1930s, 40s warm is there.. warmer than 1990
Cold in the late 1970s
Note that the climate cult scammers are still trying to justify the removal of the MWP using a totally unscientific fabrication.
Two of them are here now.
It might we have.
But I cannot begin to look until I know for which part of the world it’s for!
And Jim – pray tell why that little fact is not obvious to you?
(not that I expect a sensible answer)
Because I can’t fathom it.
Unles you just wanted to put in a reflex attack and didn’t think it through.
May be being to kind there tho.
Well, the U.S. regional chart has the same temperature profile as Briffa’s profile: Cold early 20th century, warming through the 1930’s, then cooling through the 1970’s, then warming from the 1980’s to the present. And the temperatures in the 1930’s were just as hot as today. No net increase in high temperatures since the 1930’s.
The AMO has the same profile, too.
Of course climate alarmists don’t acknowledge this particular cyclical movement of the climate because it shows we have nothing to fear from CO2.
Yes, they do have the same pattern.
All the regional, written temperature records, from all over the world show the same pattern: which is it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today.
Climate alarmists erase this pattern with their bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart which looks nothing like the regional temperature profiles.
One has to wonder how the climate alarmists got a Hockey Stick chart temperature profile from historic data that has no Hockey Stick chart temperature profile.
Considering that the creators of the Hockey Stick chart had nothing to base their reconstruction except the written temperature record, one has to ask, where did they get the data to drastically change the temperature profile?
I think it is clear that the Hockey Stick chart creators included bogus sea surface temperatures in the mix as a method of making CO2 amounts and temperatures correlate. They could not have done that using regional surface temperatures alone.
The Hockey Stick chart is a Big Lie, created to promote human-caused global warming/climate change. It looks nothing like the real world.
This Big Lie has cost humanity TRILLIONS of dollars in wasted spending with no end in sight.
Somebody ought to go to jail for this deception.
NOT! Mann replication has been attempted many times, and each time has been found faulty. Gergis in Australia comes to mind—her paper was forced to be rescinded and was never republished gross error corrected. Marcott 2013 in US comes to mind (see my essay ‘A High Stick Foul’ in ebook Blowing Smoke for the proof of his gross academic misconduct by simply comparing his PhD thesis to the Science article from which it was expressly derived).
Nick, you need to do better, as some of us have studied this as long as you, and also still have good memories. You really discredit yourself here with your last sentence assertion so easily proven false.
There are two basic Mann hockey stick shaft problems, both indisputably historically qualitatively factual, that Mann ‘erased’ with the ‘straight’ shaft of his spurious hockey stick using provably bad data (US strip bark bristlecones, a single Briffa Yamal larch) plus a faulty ‘blade’ statistical method (centered PCA) later proven to almost always produce spurious ending hockey stick blades from any otherwise neutral trend red noise data. The seminal ‘proof’ paper used 10000 artificial red noise time series fed into Mann’s centered PCA method. (For those who do not know elementary statistics, time series white noise is supposedly truly random [statistically assuming a normal random noise distribution], while red noise is autocorrrelated—simple translation, next year is likelier to be like this year than not. Climate temperature time series have by definition red noise.)
Says you. Now refute the historical MWP, the LIA, the red noise Mann centered PCA mathematical flaw. Those simple bold reply statements are NOT a word salad. They are specific simple, pointed challenges to you, Eldrosian. You come here, come prepared with more than generic aspersions. Sorry if I tried to clarify with more words than necessary for ignorants like you that you deem a ‘word salad’. Eat your veggies, or shut up.
He is not a “troll” merely by annoying you … so long as he posts science that supports his argument, and it pertains to the subject of the thread.
That you reject any science posted by him (or me, or a few brave others who are not singing with the choir and can be bothered to put up with the likes of your post) is of course taken for granted.
And now you can call me one (Troll that is).
“An internet forum troll is a user who intentionally posts inflammatory, offensive, or off-topic messages to provoke emotional reactions and disrupt normal discussions.”
That’s a ridiculous comment!
At least try to come back with a rational response to each point made in what you claim is a “word salad of BS”.
While I understand that you might be frustrated with much of the “fire from the hip” comments on this site, the specific comment you have denigrated does NOT fit (fire from hip) category, so you end up failing to establish any kind of reasonable contribution. This approach from both sides of the divide does nothing to help readers arrive at any kind of reasonable conclusion.
Let’s try some other fun LIA facts.
During the Great Northern War between Sweden and Russia it was possible to march armies, with all their heavy gear, any direction you liked across the entirety of the Baltic during many winters, because it was done so.
During the 18thC the Tagus estuary at Lisbon froze over at least once.
During the same time period the Dutch cut docks from the coastal ice a number of time because the coast was so ice locked that ships couldn’t get into Amsterdam.
Even better, back during the cold period that pretty much coincided with the Dark Age the Bosphorus froze over hard and thick enough to march an army across it, because it was done. And the main current flow of the Bosphorus is 1.45m/sec at it’s narrowest point, it’s not hanging around.
The matter at point is whether the the world as a whole was affected by LIA cooling.
The consensus is that it was …. caused by a series of large volcanic eruptions which fed-back into an atmos. ocean coupling and hence into a hemispheric Rossby wave-train that persisted…
“Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL050168
“Our results suggest that the onset of the LIA can be linked to an unusual 50-year-long episode with four large sulfur-rich explosive eruptions, each with global sulfate loading >60 Tg. The persistence of cold summers is best explained by consequent sea-ice/ocean feedbacks during a hemispheric summer insolation minimum; large changes in solar irradiance are not required.”
Mann’s 2000 year history has indeed been replicated many times. Here are just the examples highlghted in the AR4 in 2013 (Fig 6.10; many more since). They do (all) show, as Mann did, a MWP and an LIA, but not on the scale that would satisfy the imagination of people here.
Your counter examples (Gergis and Marcott) were sound papers – Gergis had to recall and republish because of claiming too much. But more to the point here, they were not replicating Mann’s HS.
FWIW, the High Arctic Agassiz ice-core record provides another independent replication of the hockey stick pattern:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1616287114
No tree rings used here either.
Not a global reconstruction, but still notable.
Temperatures in the High Arctic tend to show an amplified response to radiative forcing, owing to the various feedbacks that contribute to Arctic amplification.
Except that the blade is at the beginning of the time series rather than at the end. Obviously different processes were at work, but even that paper uses a different methodology for smoothing the earlier ice core temperature time series than the methodology for smoothing the industrial era and most recent time series through 2009.
Mann’s 2000 year history has indeed been replicated many times.
This graph and others like give start testimony to climate sciences’ ignorance of measurement uncertainty.
Look at the y-axis. It shows a resolution of 0.1°C. This is a joke. USCRN stations and those like it, only have a resolution of this magnitude.
The y-axis show a minimum accuracy of ±0.05°C. Again, another joke. USCRN stations have an accuracy of ±0.3°C. How is one supposed to believe that environmental conditions over that period of time stayed so constant that an uncertainty influence would not be added.
The scientific use of error bars on graphs exists for a reason. If they were added to this graph, there would be no scientific significance to be claimed.
Mann’s 2000 year history has indeed been replicated many times.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a convincing reconstruction that was all proxy data. Every reconstruction that seems alarming has always had the thermometer data overlayed at the end and that’s not a valid comparison.
In fact the tree-ring data shows a decline when it should correlate and that invalidates the use of tree-rings and makes it advocacy as far as I’m concerned.
Nick…
It’s been a while since I replied to you. How are you doing?
Yes several (like 3) people replicated Mann’s Nature “trick” and it was done by using the same data that he used. What McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) did was use all the data available in 1997 to MB and H instead of a carefully selected subsection of it. When M&M used all the data the MWP reappeared and the hockey stick vanished. Quelle surprise…
Reproducing someone else’s errors is a valid way to demonstrate that the methodology was flawed. In that way it is useful. You point out that several people (like 3) have replicated Mann’s published temperature reconstruction without mentioning that to do so, they had to ignore the available data and use only Mann’s carefully filtered sub-set of it, and to re-centre the results for his principal component analysis (PCA) on a 20th Century date instead of over the whole data set. Without this mathematically illegal step, the MWP is still clearly visible, even in his filtered sub-set!
The combination of an utterly biased selection and indefensible weighting of tree ring growth series together with the PCA re-centering, the MWP is visible everywhere. The ONLY way he could have produced the hockey stick was to write the conclusion first and develop then test multiple methods backwards in an attempt to justify it. This is obvious to anyone who looks closely. And in the end, there was no legitimate way to make it disappear, so he resorted to three illegitimate procedures to create the conclusion. That process is a fraudulent one.
Lest anyone casually use the word “fraud” without a complete understanding of how it applies in this case, I rest mine with the following:
1. A false representation of material fact
2. Knowledge of falsity (scienter / the “guilty mind”)
3. Intent to induce reliance
4. Justifiable/reasonable reliance
5. Damages/injury
We have all suffered actual harm.
Another perspective is to not assign malice when incompetence will do.
The ONLY way he could have produced the hockey stick was to write the conclusion first and develop then test multiple methods backwards in an attempt to justify it.
There is another way and that is to simply use the proxies that correlate to modern temperatures. Nick incorrectly advocated for this earlier.
What happens is that the proxies are largely random and the ones chosen happen to correlate to recent temperature increases but in the past they don’t and consequently all cancel out and produce the flat hockey stick handle.
This has been proven by using random data, choosing from that, the data that corelates to recent temperature increases, giving the hockey still blade and noting the handle indeed is flat.
Another invalid approach tried is to remove the trend from the proxy data and correlate against variance. Hilariously Pages2K (I think) said they did that but on inspection from (I think) Nic Lewis, it turns out they didn’t. What a devastating debacle for them from those in the know.
LIA proxies also show up in Tasmanian and New Zealand trees, which is about as far from Europe as you can get that sort of data, which undermines the “it was a local European” effect.
Then there is the Indian temple data from the head of the Ganges.
It’s the last temple before you get to the head of the Ganges where it comes out of the glacier that spawns it, and it has been the last stop for supplies for pilgrims making the trek for a couple of thousand years. From their records of food supplied to pilgrims going up you can track the distance of the glacial face as it has gone up and back, and it is distinctly closer during both the Dark Age and the LIA.
“The historical record shows there was definitely a NH LIA ‘dip’. In fact, the proxy record shows the LIA was likely global.”
You are correct. The globe cooled:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph_(global_temperature)
Agree . . . and will also point out that NO REAL SCIENTIST would believe the accuracy of measuring “global mean temperature” in 1850 would be comparable to the accuracy of measuring such today, yet the graph asserts the anomaly temperature is known to a precision of about 0.1 C based on plotted transients during this time interval (the red curve).
Beyond this, I would ask anyone to provide the objective evidence that Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999 had the ability to derive smoothed temperature anomalies (the dark blue curve) to a resolution of better than 0.05 C from year 1000 to 1850 AD.
Just ridiculous!
#1) Again, Rud’s position is that temperatures cooled into the LIA.
#2) Yes. The uncertainty bars in MBH99 are based on the residual variance from calibration against the instrumental temperature record. As you go back in time, fewer proxies are available, less temperature variance is captured by the reconstruction, and the residual variance, and therefore the estimated uncertainty, increases.
It’s not “techno-jive”; it’s a description of their methodology.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999gl900070
Residual variance isn’t measurement uncertainty.
“2) Less temperature variance due to less data is exactly backwards for measurement uncertainty.”
You misunderstood me.
I meant that the reconstruction explains less of the instrumental temperature variance when the proxy network becomes weaker. The unexplained residuals therefore becomes larger, which corresponds to greater reconstruction uncertainty.
They test the combined proxy network against instrumental temperatures that they actually know.
And then incorrectly, or more accurately unscientifically, assume the variance holds for the periods they dont know when in fact, that is certainly not true due to the nature of proxies that respond to many factors, not just temperature.
If they dont know those factors, those must be assumed to increase uncertainty to the limits of their impact which makes the proxy data near worthless.
Proxys are interesting but no more than an indication of conditions rather than a mechanism to calculate actual temperatures for comparison to today.
Apropos of the mention of Mann’s Hockey Stick or Shtick in the video, I thought I would try to liven up the comments section and revisit another 20th century curve, The Keeling Curve, whose supporters rely on to advocate for climate alarm. It has been presented from my perspective as a prototypical Hockey Stick, before Mann’s, implying that at least for centuries before the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 levels remained stable < 300 ppm, around 280 ppm (which Will Happer calls a CO2 famine-for plants and life on earth), but then began increasing to now > 400 ppm (recording from Mauna Loa since 1958).
It seems that even many of us on here who reject the climate alarm view of the world from anthropogenic CO2 (thinking with good reasoning that the temperature influence from CO2 is grossly exaggerated) tacitly accept the Hockey Stick reconstruction of atmospheric CO2 by Keeling and supporters with increases since the 1800’s to the present from human CO2 emissions.
However, the Keeling curve assumes that mankind is responsible for the CO2 increase, whereas other natural factors challenge this, including oceanic outgassing from warming, and land-based sources, such as soil respiration, as discussed in a recent paper I read:
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=152909
I also read an older discussion by Beck challenging the assumed stability of CO2 levels before the 1950’s:
https://www-f9.ijs.si/~margan/CO2/Refs/180_yrs_Atmos_CO2_Analysis_by_chemical_methods_Beck_2007.pdf
I note that many have either ignored or rejected old reports of CO2 measurement, that reported CO2 levels > 400 ppm in years during the 1800’s, blaming outmoded measuring technique or local contamination, and I observe a bit of “Hockey Shtick” in the reported Keeling Curve graphs that tack Keeling’s Mauna Loa tracing showing modern rise onto previous flat CO2 estimates from ice core proxy studies.
Thoughts?
Your post is very reasonable and deserves a response other than the dislike you had when I came back on here. I’m not really qualified to respond in full, but I will just say that I know of no one who posts on this site who doesn’t believe that the Keeling curve is accurate. I think that the seasonal variation “teeth” show how precise it is. It might be ten years ago now, but an argument between a poster named Ferdinand Engelbeen (sp?) and a mathematician whose name I don’t recollect raged for at least a year. It was quite civil mostly. There’s that and there’s data from a satellite that was sent up there to analyze CO2 distribution, The result, as I recall, was that it wasn’t quite as well-mixed globally as it had been assumed to be.
The keeling curve just measures CO2 levels, it makes no assumption as to why the CO2 levels are changing.
BTW, when you add up all the fossil fuels that are being burned, man is releasing way more CO2 than is showing up in the Keeling curve.
Why do assume that the CO2 increase must be natural.
Let’s leave the bad science to Nick and Eld.
Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear enough or you interpreted what I was stating different to what I intended. My questioning of the Keeling Curve significance was not so much whether I was challenging the validity of the CO2 increases since 1958 and whether the increase is either entirely natural or anthropogenic, but that the Nishioka reference above discusses natural explanations of increasing atmospheric CO2 as a result of warming with potentially < 5% of recent CO2 increases being anthropogenic. Also, the old Beck reference challenges the modern interpretation of CO2 levels being flat at < 300 ppm since the 1800’s until increasing since the 1900’s-that I interpret as another Hockey Stick plot-and that the Beck reference suggests isn’t valid if CO2 levels fluctuated to levels in the 1800’s to > 400 (similar to today’s levels). I don’t accept any of this at face value, but note that both references clearly challenge the AGW/climate alarmist view of emissions causing increasing atmospheric CO2 and subsequent warming, which is why I posted this.
You are right to ask this question. I think the answer is still that it hasn’t been fully nailed down yet. The fact that the purported “climate scientists” and hangers-on haven’t fully addressed this with the 3 trillion dollars they’ve had to spend on it is mind-boggling.
My conclusion from the data, is that Moana Loa is spot-on accurate out there in the Pacific. I would believe that over the fluctuating historical values you describe, but you should check out the OCO-2 data (the 2014-launched satellite). There is definitely heterogeneity, presumably as it’s on it’s way to being well-mixed.
Let us know what you find in the Open Thread next Sunday. There are scientists more qualified than I to address your question.
Yep
.
The furthest left one is at 385ppm …
… now imagine the scrawny little runt of a tree at 280ppm.
That is what tree rings before about 1900 are based on.
At that low level of CO2 trees cannot grow properly, that cannot respond to warmer temperatures, so you get a near flat line like the handle of the hockey stick.
They are not representative of temperatures, but of low CO2 level.
You’re a gift that keeps on giving, Mr. Nice:
[T]he evidence is very clear that, on net, the changes going on in the atmosphere, including all the climate changes, are a risk to a lot of major production systems and to a lot of food insecure areas.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/is-co2-plant-food-why-are-we-still
Is that you under the tree?
That was actually David Lobell, Mr. Nice. That one:
https://profiles.stanford.edu/david-lobell
The Benjamin M. Page Professor at Stanford University in the Department of Earth System Science and the Gloria and Richard Kushel Director of the Center on Food Security and the Environment might know a little more about plant food than a contrarian Aussie who keeps posting random photos from his phone.
The problem with the “risk” assessment is that there is no proof that the risk potential has revealed itself. Grain harvests are continually improving all over the world.
The fact that multiple things are required for plant growth is nothing new. However, each one of those individually can reduce plant growth. Soil minerals, CO2, water availability, sunshine, etc. all must work together to maximize the potential growth. The greening of the earth, while not totally due to increased CO2, is an indication that increased CO2 is an important factor. The tree growth shown in bnice’s image does not lie.
Thanks SW.Bob.. CO2 is one of the 3 major ingredients for plant growth..
CO2 is PLANT-FOOD.
Anyone with even the most basic understanding of plant biology knows that.
Plants grow best in around 1000-1200 ppm
.
Low CO2 severely constrains plant growth, and makes them less able to cope with rises in temperature.
What trees that are currently alive were present in the 12th to 15th centuries?
Where are these trees located geographically?
Is there any contemporaneous evidence from writings of people?
What about oral history through stories?
What about human activity like construction or exploration?
Proxies are all well and good if they can be calibrated sufficiently well to be useful, they also need to be widespread geographically and temporally.
‘Treemometers’ are a staple of climate alarmists. Unfortunately, they are very poor in reality. Stuff like adjacent tree shade, water, soil composition mess them up worse than modern surface thermometer records—also not fit for purpose. What tree rings are useful for is regional dendrochronology as used by archeologists—NOT regional dendroclimatology as used by ‘climate scientists’
“‘Treemometers’ are a staple of climate alarmists. “
And apparently Mike Larkin, too:
More treemometering for Sir Rud:
> a very readable review of various studies that have reconstructed Colorado River flows at Lee Ferry over the last 500 years from tree ring data.
Who will tell Roy is now an alarmist?
Absolutely. At the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest here in California you can touch tree stumps from the Roman Warm Period, but you have make a short walk UP the hill.
https://www.visitmammoth.com/directory/ancient-bristlecone-pine-forest/
Highly recommended area to visit. Mammoth Lakes is wonderful – lots of accommodation because it’s a very popular ski resort. Also not far from the “other” side of Yosemite, via the Tioga Pass.
From the article: “A few years later, Michael Mann and the IPCC did just that by publishing the now throughly discredited hockey stick graph.”
No, not thoroughly discredited. Michael Mann’s portion of the Hockey Stick chart has been discredited, but too many people still believe the instrument-era portion of the Hockey Stick chart represents reality.
Reality says it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today. The instrument-era Hockey Stick chart says just the opposite. Who you going to believe? The written, historic record, or a temperature chart made up in a computer by climate alarmists?
Not that again:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/DemingAffair
Contrarians definitely need to get better material.
Ask for a sammich and sometimes you shall receive:
While we are interested in the descriptive trait of contrarianism (i.e., the extent to which individuals engage in contrarian behaviors and viewpoints), some of the constructs we reviewed focus on dispositions and behaviors that may drive contrarianism but are not necessary for or determinant of contrarianism. For instance, the need for uniqueness (NFU) describes an individual’s desire to strive for distinction from others (Snyder & Fromkin, 1977), which may lead to contrarianism in some cases, but not in others; for instance, efforts to demonstrate uniqueness may inadvertently produce conformity.
Source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2025.113396
Nothing to do with what you self-servingly call “realism”.
Tony’s illustrates the last bit quite well!
Willie: Thanks, you have proven our point so well! Answering my demand with your own, priceless! At the outset, your other user name denied that the quote ON VIDEO came from some email, demanding we produce the email or denounce Steve McIntyre. The author produced the video, but 200+ comments later, you chumps are chasing your own tails (to our great amusement, even if the audience shrinks) with another absurd demand for links.
My demand for a link was patently absurd, and you got it, now go ahead and pretend you didn’t.
Well that brought the historic climate deniers out from under their rocks .. yapping and baying.
All very funny watching their antics trying to subvert the history of the MWP and Holocene.
.
.
.
I have at least 50 more similar proxy graphs from all around the world.
They have an abortive fake proxy average with tainted surface temps attached.
Naturally the alarmists are going to try a stunt like this, and if they haven’t already done so, they’ll try to eliminate the Roman and the Minoan Warm Periods as well. And while they’re at it, they might as well dispense with any ice ages into the bargain. With such tactics it becomes very easy to attribute any climate variations strictly to human activity, i.e.; excessive fossil fuel use.
