Take that, climate-deniers!

Climatologist Michael Mann is fed up. Actually, he’s been fed up a long time, given that he’s been the subject of mean-spirited investigations and slander for years now. We probably need more of this kind of rebuttal:

These are just lies, regurgitation of dishonest smears that have been manufactured by fossil fuel industry-funded climate change deniers, and those who do their bidding by lying to the public about the science.

Mann wrote that in an op-ed for the Vail Daily. It’s not the New York Times, but that’s the point. The climatology community needs to respond every time some ignorant editor agrees to print anything that distorts the facts about anthropogenic climate change and the scientists who devote their lives to studying it. And not just in the big venues read by the chattering classes.

The author of the offending letter that got Mann’s goat is one Martin Hertzberg, who claims to be a scientists, but keeps writing things like “The entire theory that ‘greenhouse gases’ in the atmosphere can reradiate energy back to the Earth and thus cause more heating, has been proven to violate the laws of thermodynamics, and thus to be completely devoid of physical reality.” [Citation, please.]

We can ramble on on these here science-oriented blogs ’til the cows come home (or the chicken come home to roost, or some such metaphor), but the battle needs to be waged on the streets, so to speak. As much as the Internet is vital medium, papers like the Vail Daily (circ. around 15,000) aren’t small potatoes. For millions of Americans, they are where the action is and we shouldn’t ignore them.

Comments

  1. #1 Abdul Alhazred
    October 4, 2011

    Yes indeed. We need a dictatorship that takes credit for good weather and uses bad weather as an excuse for persecution.

    That’ll save The PlanetTM for sure.

  2. #2 Art
    October 4, 2011

    IMHO a lot of the confusion, and the reason so many people tacitly accept the denier argument is that it so often goes completely unchallenged on small internet forums, barrooms, casual conversations, and the endless streams of hack e-mails.

    I’ve found it quite interesting the response I get when I answer an assertion by issuing something as terse as ‘You are wrong and have the science backward’. I’ve had people send a private message in support, at least one claiming they had never considered that the deniers might be wrong, and several requests for more information. The later I sent to http://www.realclimate.org.

    The entire enterprise a typical case takes a couple of minutes to post a one line forum entry and answer a couple of messages.

    The common response within the forum was even more interesting. The main denier assembled a huge tract of assertions and links making a detailed claim. Took him more than an hour to assemble. I scanned it, and concluded that he hadn’t read the links he had presented, and said so in the open forum. He erupted in a series of rants that escalated to the point where the board administrators, sympathetic to his case, were forced to ban him. When he came back under different name they banned him permanently. FTW.

    I am not claiming any great victory. I’m pretty sure I didn’t win any heart or minds. But the other side, at least for a few hours, on that obscure forum, couldn’t claim that ‘everyone knows’ or ‘it has been proven’.

    The point here isn’t that you can have fun screwing with people politely, even though that is part of it, it is that climate change, creationism, birthers, truthers, etcetera, control a lot of minds because in large number of spaces only their side gets heard. They win the field because they are the only ones playing. Something as simple as a one line assertion that the denial claims are wrong maintains doubt and keeps a foot in the door. The exchange I had in that case didn’t take ten minutes total. I kept returning to the forum every hour or so to scan the messages but I was doing other things the balance of the time.

  3. #3 CapitalClimate
    October 4, 2011

    Thank you, Abdul, for your highly scientific statement.

  4. #4 dean
    October 4, 2011

    Abdul doesn’t seem to understand what a dictator is. Given his comment, he probably doesn’t understand much about science either.

  5. #5 Sundance
    October 4, 2011

    Have you given any thought to why Mr. Mann continues to fight the release of UVA data and emails that have been requested under FOIA? I have just read some of his legal arguments and IMO it doesn’t look good for Mr. Mann. In any case it is better for science that all of Mr. Mann’s data and emails be made public. I really don’t understand why he is blocking transparency in science that has been funded by taxpayers do you?.

  6. #6 Greg Laden
    October 4, 2011

    We must disperse to the barrooms and challenge these challenges!!!!

  7. #7 MobiusKlein
    October 4, 2011

    Yes, Sundance, I have thought about why M. Mann would not cooperate. Think about a certain scene from “The Crucible”.

  8. #8 blueshift
    October 4, 2011

    Hi Sundance,

    No, in fact I have not wondered why Dr. Mann is fighting the FOIA requests to UVA. Perhaps I haven’t thought about it because Dr. Mann hasn’t worked at UVA in years and has no relevant input into whether the emails are released by UVA.

    Similarly I don’t worry about the transparency of his data or methods for two reasons.

    1) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/mann.html

    2) If I really wanted to know whether his results were accurate, I would try to see if other data sets and methods yielded the same results (hint, they do). Simply running the same data through the same program isn’t going to tell me anything interesting.

  9. #9 Abdul Alhazred
    October 4, 2011

    I understand what a dictator is all right.

    Like those fellows in Africa who are allegedly entitled to “climate reparations”.

  10. #10 dean
    October 4, 2011

    “I understand what a dictator is all right.

    Like those fellows in Africa who are allegedly entitled to “climate reparations”.”

    No, you still fail on that definition.

  11. #11 Sundance
    October 4, 2011

    #8

    Hi blueshift, I couldn’t find the part in your link where Mann splices two different sets of data in order to “hide the decline” that the post 1960 tree proxies show.lol I’ve read dozens of other peer reviewed papers that disagree with Mann’s paper but I don’t even care about that anymore because for me it has become all about the absurdity and entertainment value of the UVA proceedings.

    Mr. Mann is out on left wing web sites begging for money to pay for his attorney’s fees to prevent the release of public (not private but public) data and emails from UVA. I could be wrong but somehow I don’t see this tactic increasing the public trust in climate science do you? I also suffer from congenital curiosity as Mann suggests in his legal brief that release of UVA public records would “damage” the reputations of other climate scientists. I’m sadly intrigued by such Mannian mystic musings and can’t help but root for the release of these UVA public records just to see what the heck Mann is talking about. I guess I’m easily entertained. :-)

  12. #12 caerbannog
    October 4, 2011


    I’ve read dozens of other peer reviewed papers that disagree with Mann’s paper…

    Yeah, just like my cat has read War and Peace.

    Frankly, I don’t even think that you’d even know where to *look* for a peer-reviewed paper….

  13. #13 Buffalo Foam
    October 4, 2011

    Abdul is 100% correct. This whole global warming nonsense is a lame attempt at finishing building a world socialist government without borders. This whole idea was started before the 1900s and the same stupid communists and freedom haters are using every single excuse and strick in the book to get their domination funded and promoted.

    Global warming is simply a scare tactic desined for raise money for socilaists who will later make slaves out of those who helped put them into power. It is nothing more than a gigantic marxist wealth redistribution scheme.

    Everyone involved should be put into hard labor camps – preferrably in siberia.

    If it were up to me there would be some major crackdowns on this socialist movement. People would be in prison for their treason and crimes. Ethanol use would be banned and the people responisble for watering down the gas with this crap would be given 20 lashes and sent to work in the mines to dig up gold to redistribute to those whom they hurt.

    I wish every time some creepy commie dickhead mentioned global warming or global cooling or climate change (which is it already?)a fucking brick would fall from the sky and crack their puny skull open.

    Perhaps a crack to the skull is what made them come up with such a satanic idea as socialism in the first place.

    All these stupid braindead morons protesting in washington make a world of sense. They hate capitalism and big business, yet they practice capitalism when they buy t-shirts, poster materials, and food. They practice capitalism when Verizon Wireless hosts their pathetic ranting ceremonies. They hate big business, yet they cannot seem to do without cell phones and the big businesses and capitalism that made cell phones available. What morons.

    I say that all big business should counter-protest these thugs by denying them cell phone service, media coverage, and food/water/shelter. Let’s see how long they will last without big business.

    I say cut them off.

  14. #14 caerbannog
    October 4, 2011


    Abdul is 100% correct. This whole global warming nonsense is a lame attempt at finishing building a world socialist government without borders. This whole idea was started before the 1900s and the same stupid communists and freedom haters are using every single excuse and strick in the book to get their domination funded and promoted.

    Global warming is simply a scare tactic desined for raise money for socilaists who will later make slaves out of those who helped put them into power. It is nothing more than a gigantic marxist wealth redistribution scheme.

    Cue the Twilight-Zone music — we have another black-helicopter tinfoil-hat loonball here: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/upload/2009/04/weekend_diversion_do_tinfoil_h/tinfoil-hat.jpg

  15. #15 Mr original douche
    October 4, 2011

    Sniff sniff. Smells like Douche. Douche boy must be doing his gullible Parrot routine again.

    Wow. If I could just keep up with douche boy’s original science thoughts. But his original science thoughts are soooooo……….Nothing.

    Squawk. Squawk!!! Ima doucheboy parrot. With ZERO original take on anything.

    WatttaDouche. Boy.

    We’re not laughing WITh The Gullibles. Were laughing AT them

  16. #16 Mike Haubrich
    October 4, 2011

    Hi blueshift, I couldn’t find the part in your link where Mann splices two different sets of data in order to “hide the decline” that the post 1960 tree proxies show.

    That’s because you are an idiot. You are looking for the wrong person’s work.

    Read Mann’s response to get some more information. Also could you please research into what “hide the decline” means?

  17. #17 Richard Simons
    October 5, 2011

    Buffalo Foam – presumably your comment was a spoof?

    Everyone involved should be put into hard labor camps – preferrably in siberia.

    Is this a reference to Vavilov and the effects of Lysenkoism, another attempt by politicians to deny science (and we all know what the consequences were that time around)?

  18. #18 Bishop Hill
    October 5, 2011

    The letter to which Mann was responding was highly inaccurate, blaming things done by CRU scientists on Mann. To that extent Mann had a case. The fact that he had been responsible for similar misdeeds (hiding the divergence problem in the Third Assessment Report for example) is some defence of the criticisms made of him, however.

    To say that Mann is guilty of fraud is probably going too far – I certainly don’t make that criticism in the Hockey Stick Illusion. That said, what do readers here make of the CENSORED directory? This was a sensitivity analysis known to be performed by Mann, in which he removed the bristlecones from the dataset. If you do this, Mann’s primary result – of no MWP – is reversed. However he reported in the paper that his result was not dependent on any particular tree ring series.

    Without getting into emotional terminology like “fraud”, I wonder if there is any common ground that this is culpable/less than optimal/a problem?

  19. #19 Bishop Hill
    October 5, 2011

    To Sundance and Blueshift

    I think it would be good if everyone could agree a few facts up front. It was Jones that spliced instrumental and proxy data without notice to the reader, not Mann. Mann truncated the divergence problem in AR3. Briffa truncated it in AR4.

    The sine qua non of a proxy is that it tracks instrumental temperatures. If it does not track temperatures then any temperature reconstruction on which it is based is worthless. Can we agree that truncating the evidence that Briffa’s MXD series was not tracking temperatures after 1960 and then pushing a temperature reconstruction based on it under the noses of policymakers is culpable/less than optimal/a problem?

  20. #20 Wow
    October 5, 2011

    I think it would be good if everyone could agree a few facts up front.”

    OK

    Fact 1: You’re not a bishop.

    Fact 2: Jones gave indication of the splicing of instrumental data and proxy data.

    Fact 3: Mann didn’t truncate the divergence problem. When a temp proxy no longer is a proxy for temperature, you stop using it. You’d prefer garbage in so you can whine about it.

    Fact 4: Briffa didn’t truncate it either. They used the data that was available and of proven quality.

    Fact 5: The temperature proxies DID track temperatures until well after the 1960’s and still tracks well for all proxies not in the northern temperate lands and all proxies not one small selection over the globe

    Fact 6: We can agree that you are a moron with an axe to grind.

    Fact 7: Briffa cannot as a matter of definition both truncate proxies after 1960 AND show those proxies after 1960 at the same time. Proving by the way Fact 6.

    Fact 8: the policymakers knew what was going on because any scientist interested in the subject already knew of the bristlecone pine in the northern temperate latitudes and near the treeline had other visible effects on growth other than temperature after about the 1960’s but were reliable before then when compared against ACTUAL temperature readings and other proxies.

    Fact 9: You have pushed a load of codswallop for political ends.

  21. #21 Wow
    October 5, 2011

    “Have you given any thought to why Mr. Mann continues to fight the release of UVA data and emails that have been requested under FOIA?”

    Yes.

    There are several.

    1) FOIA only covers certain items. It doesn’t allow a fishing expedition for dirty laundry, especially when it’s been shown that those demanding the linen basket are quite willing to bring along some dirt to help their search.

    2) FOIA doesn’t allow breaking of contract law.

    3) FOIA doesn’t allow breaking of copyright law.

    Now, if you want FOIA to cover anything by anyone who has had any government payments, please let us know and arrange a campaign to change the law.

    Expect government-aided companies like, say Boeing, Monsato and GSK to complain. Not to mention “Bishop” here.

  22. #22 Bishop Hill
    October 5, 2011

    Wow

    “Fact” 2: No he didn’t. Even the Russell panel said so.

    “We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain – ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text.”

    “Fact” 3: The divergence was certainly truncated in AR3 and Mann was lead author on that section of the report.

    “Fact” 4: The divergence was truncated in AR4 and Briffa was lead author responsible for that section. The bit about “proven” quality is nonsense. Nobody has been able to show that whatever is causing the divergence problem is restricted to post-1960 (read D’Arrigo et al 2008). The whole study is thrown into doubt.

    Fact 5. This doesn’t excuse including the Briffa study.

    “Fact” 7. You are incoherent. The study should have been thrown out completely.

    “Fact” 8: You are incoherent again. Policymakers knew because scientists knew? I’m not sure you understand what you are saying anyway. The bristlecone series are included in Mann’s paper up to 1980. You seem to think that he just ignored the post-1960 bit. I don’t think so. (Hint – 1960-80 is part of the calibration)

  23. #23 Wow
    October 5, 2011

    Your fact again is lying by omission and inference.

    “Mann’s Nature Trick” was promoted long as “proof” of nefarious dealings.

    Now, since this was a Nature paper promoted in a somewhat prominent source, in what way was Mann not telling people what he did?

    Fact 3: you can’t truncate the divergence problem. You remove it. By removing the known bad proxy data. You just want to pretend a problem.

    Fact 4: See again “Fact 3)

    Fact 5: Since there’s nothing to excuse, yes, it doesn’t excuse it. Data Quality Control is probably an anathema to you, though.

    Fact 7: You don’t like what you read.

    Fact 8: You REALLY don’t like what you read. Policy makers knew because they’d been told. It had even been in the Nature journal. Just because you’re an ill-read moron doesn’t mean everyone else is.

  24. #24 Bishop Hill
    October 5, 2011

    Sorry, we’re talking about hiding the decline in the Briffa MXD series (Jones did it in the WMO report, Mann in AR3 and Briffa in AR4). Why have you switched to talking about MBH98?

    The divergence problem. I have just explained that the whole series is bad data unless someone can show that the problem is restricted to post-1960. They haven’t. This is the nub of your points 3,4,5 and 7. You think the problem is restricted to post-1960. The scientific literature says otherwise.

    “Fact 8″. Where had policymakers been told? And where was it discussed in Nature? Not in MBH98. And how can one determine if the rest of the series is reliable when the reasons for the growth spurt are “a mystery” (Hughes and Funkhouser). So there you go, you need to provide me with two citations and a reasoned argument. Away you go. :-)

  25. #25 Wow
    October 5, 2011

    Lets see if I can understand your confusion here.

    Do you believe that there is only one proxy used in the historical temperature reconstructions?

    Do you believe that if a proxy goes wrong that ALL proxies are worthless?

    Do you believe that using bad data in a system is NOT in fact an example of how GIGO happens?

    Do you believe that using data beyond the realm within which it works is good practice?

    Or are you just making stuff up because you’re a lying sack of crap?

  26. #26 Wow
    October 5, 2011

    “I have just explained that the whole series is bad data unless someone can show that the problem is restricted to post-1960.”

    No, you have just stated that.

    But, since there are other proxies, the concordance of the bristlecone pine data for the entire globe apart from northern temperate latitudes is proven and the utility of the bristlecone pine data up to beyond the 1960’s measurable and acceptable for pre-1960 data, your demand to show “that the problem is restricted to post-1960″ has been done.

    You, however, do not wish to allow this to impede your witchunt against the IPCC and prominent scientists whose conclusions you do not WISH to believe.

  27. #27 flatcat
    October 5, 2011

    #26

    In addition to those points, the “post-1960 divergent” tree-ring data faithfully record the climate signatures due to documented pre-1960 volcanic eruptions; the volcanic signatures in the “divergent” data have been compared to the volcanic signatures in other (tree-ring and non-tree-ring) proxy data, further confirming the validity of the “divergent” data for years up to 1960.

    Bishop Hill is delusional, incompetent, or a liar (and that’s an “inclusive” or, BTW).

  28. #28 Bishop Hill
    October 5, 2011

    Wow

    Lets see if I can understand your confusion here.

    “Do you believe that there is only one proxy used in the historical temperature reconstructions?”

    I didn’t say that.

    “Do you believe that if a proxy goes wrong that ALL proxies are worthless?”

    I didn’t say that either.

    “Do you believe that using bad data in a system is NOT in fact an example of how GIGO happens?”

    No I agree. That’s why the whole series needs to go. It’s not reliable.

    “Do you believe that using data beyond the realm within which it works is good practice?”

    No indeed. See my response to the previous question.

    The point remains: what is the source for your claim that the divergence problem only affects post-1960? You say I have “just stated” the opposite. But I have given you a citation in the peer-reviewed literature. Are you disputing it? On the basis of what?

  29. #29 caerbannog
    October 5, 2011

    Sundance,

    If you and your fellow deniers weren’t such incompetent hacks, you’d download the data that Mann used (it’s all freely available) and from the description of the basic procedure that Mann used, you’d code up your own routines in Scilab/R/whatever and generate your own independent results. Since Mann has released all of his code/data, things are even easier due to the fact that you can “crib” from his work. (All of the software needed to perform this work is free for the downloading, btw.)

    That’s how proper auditing/validation of scientific results is performed.

    But you guys are too incompetent to do that (even though Mann and others have already done the “heavy lifting” for you), so instead you want to resort to “sniffing Mann’s underwear” by trawling through email messages for passages or confidential/private exchanges that you can dishonestly lift out of context.

    Mann’s emails may contain confidential exchanges with students regarding grades, maybe some “frisky bits” sent to his wife, etc. None of that is needed to verify Mann’s work. But performing a proper verification requires a certain level of scientific/technical competence, which you obviously don’t possess.

  30. #30 Bishop Hill
    October 5, 2011

    flatcat

    D’Arrigo et al (2008) suggest that this is because the density parameter is senstive to solar:

    “The density parameter may be particularly sensitive to
    changes in solar radiation (e.g., dimming), as appears to
    be the case following volcanic events (e.g., Jones et al.,
    1995).”

    When you think about it, the response of the density is far too quick to be temperature.

  31. #31 Wow
    October 5, 2011

    “”Do you believe that there is only one proxy used in the historical temperature reconstructions?”

    I didn’t say that.”

    That would be why I ASKED “Do you believe…”.

    You’re not very good at this “reading” thing, are you.

    “The point remains: what is the source for your claim that the divergence problem only affects post-1960?”

    The actual data. It;s down there in the Nature article that talks about the problem, ferchrissakes. And, if you don’t like that, then there is the 2003 papers that run without any bristlecone pine data and gives the same answers. There is the actual paper itself which plots several lines,one for each set of proxies.

    You’ve even been given the link to the bloody data by blueshift.

    Go on, do some work yourself for a change rather than whine that you don’t know squat.

  32. #32 Wow
    October 5, 2011

    “D’Arrigo et al (2008) suggest that this is because the density parameter is senstive to solar:”

    Well, why hasn’t he proven it?

    It MAY be due to alien lizard lords pheremones interfering with tree ring growth.

    “When you think about it, the response of the density is far too quick to be temperature.”

    Only if you don’t think and would rather believe that there’s something wrong.

    Go on, why is the response far too quick to be temperature?

  33. #33 Bishop Hill
    October 5, 2011

    Wow

    Ah I see your problem! You think that the bristlecones and the divergence problem are the same issue!!! That’s too funny.

    I think you need to go and swot up a bit. The divergence problem is an issue with the Briffa MXD series, which comes from pine and larch of various kinds situated in boreal forest in Northern Europe. These are heading downwards post-1960.

    The bristlecones grow on high altitude sites in the Western USA. They are heading upwards in the late twentieth century, but everyone agrees that this is nothing to do with climate – including Mann’s co-author Hughes!

    Now, if you will excuse me, I think I’m going to die laughing. :-)

    P.S D’Arrigo is a she.

  34. #34 Wow
    October 5, 2011

    “which comes from pine and larch of various kinds situated in boreal forest in Northern Europe”

    So still only a limited area (even more limited than the problem with bristlecone pines), and still doesn’t mean the ice cores are wrong, so therefore while they and the ice cores, the thermometer readings, and other plants and other locations continue to all agree, the proof of their applicability is proven.

    So again, your whine is groundless: the only lack of proof is that you can’t handle the proof (so don’t bother going looking for it).

    “Now, if you will excuse me, I think I’m going to die laughing. :-)”

    One can only hope.

  35. #35 Marco
    October 5, 2011

    Mann didn’t truncate a damn thing of the Briffa-series. He got the data up to 1960 from Briffa (actually, from Tim Osborn). This is long known. Heck, it’s in the UEA e-mails. Literally. As in “no way of misreading this”. Mann didn’t truncate. Period.

    Question thus becomes: is it “problematic” that Andrew Montford and Steve McIntyre, both supposedly such good climate “auditors”, missed such a glaringly obvious thing, being in the e-mails they supposedly eviscerated in all their supposedly gory details?

    And another obvious thing:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/106/48/20348.full
    Key quote:
    “Increasing temperature at high elevations is likely a prominent factor in the modern unprecedented level of growth for Pinus longaeva at these sites.”
    Co-author on that paper: Mann’s co-author Hughes.

    Now, how does that fit with the claim that
    “The bristlecones grow on high altitude sites in the Western USA. They are heading upwards in the late twentieth century, but everyone agrees that this is nothing to do with climate – including Mann’s co-author Hughes!” ?

    Well, let’s just say it doesn’t fit, and we have another potential problem with the interpretation of a climate “auditor”.

  36. #36 Wow
    October 5, 2011

    “Well, let’s just say it doesn’t fit, and we have another potential problem with the interpretation of a climate “auditor”.”

    We also have problems with these “auditors” who missed Wegman’s plagiarism and Monckton’s multitudinous errors (http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html).

    Not very careful auditing of science…

    Unless of course, they’re admitting these denialists are not about the science.

  37. #37 Bishop Hill
    October 5, 2011

    Hello Marco

    I’m not sure where you are getting the idea that Osborn sent truncated data to Mann. Email 0939154709 from Osborn, which I understood to be the last one from CRU to Mann at the time, includes data up to 1994. (My annotated version of the emails is on a now-defunct PC and I have yet to recover it, so it’s possible I’ve missed something. Which email do you think includes the truncated data?)

    The Salzer paper is from 2009 of course, so can have no bearing on the question of Mann’s conduct in 1998.

  38. #38 Buffalo Foam
    October 5, 2011

    what is a fossil fuel?

    Do you mean oil? If so, oil is NOT a fossil fuel. Granted that dead animals do rarely get fossilized and trillions of them did about 4500 years ago when Noah’s flood covered the globe, but rarely does an animal get fossilized.

    Oil is a natural product prouced within the earth. This was settled science way back into the 1970s. Government never wanted this truth to get out becuase they wanted people to think we were running out of oil to maintain their power and level of taxation and regulation. If people knew about oil being a natural product that would never run out, wall street would lose billions and so would government that depended on tax revenues from rich dudes.

    Liberals always talk about so called science, but so often use their version of it to promote some fascist agenda. Global warming is not real. it is only real in the minds of the stupid little peasants that the super rich and super dickheads control.

    Evolution is another lie. It is a lie designed to replace one God with another. It replaces the true God with darwin, a self absorbed racist Godophobic jerk. It amazes me that so many followers and disciples of darwin are now worshipping at this new pagan altar known as global warming. There clearly is no such thing as an atheist. Everyone has a God, just somepeople have a true God.

    So called atheists do have a God. A god is anything you place above and beyond yourself and worship it as being a higher calling and service. So, technically global warming is a pagan religion and evolution is a pagan religion, and darwin is the God.

    Take that, Genesis deniers!

  39. #39 NJ
    October 5, 2011

    BF@38:

    I call Poe!

  40. #40 Marco
    October 6, 2011

    Andrew, what you understand is clearly very little. See
    951763817. In it, Osborn clearly states “I’ve already truncated the series at 1960 because of the problems with the recent period”. He also refers to the older e-mail you cite. Quite bad for an “auditor” to miss that obvious e-mail and that comment.

    Regarding Hughes’ opinion on the bristlecone pines: you made it sound Hughes still holds that opinion. Moreover, “a mystery” is not the same as being sure it contains no climate signal.

  41. #41 Wow
    October 6, 2011

    Technically you can’t call a Poe, NJ. Nor can someone get away with claiming a deliberate Poe.

    The Poe is by definition accidental on both the part of the poster and the ones reading the post.

    I.e. someone states something so ridiculous that they assume NOBODY would consider it serious.

    Some other reads it and believes it to be serious and responds.

    The original poster now faced with someone taking his words seriously has now created a “Poe”.

    If a poe is done deliberately, then that’s not a Poe, that’s Trolling.

    And if you call it a Poe, then you do not consider it to be serious, therefore it isn’t a Poe, it’s a sarcastic post.

    It’s a bit like “deliberate serendipity”. By definition, can’t happen.

  42. #42 Bishop Hill
    October 6, 2011

    OK, I’ll buy that. If I’m following correctly, Osborn sent the full version of the series to Mann in October. Mann truncated this and included it in the First Order Draft.

    Later on Osborn sent a different version, with the post-1960 section already truncated. (I assume this was the version that was used in the final report, but I’m not sure.)

    I guess we’re talking about the difference between “Mann truncated” and “Mann arranged to have truncated”.

  43. #43 Wow
    October 6, 2011

    “Osborn sent the full version of the series to Mann in October. Mann truncated this and included it in the First Order Draft.”

    What “full version”?

    “I’ve already truncated the series at 1960 because of the problems with the recent period”

    Doesn’t say anything about a “full version”.

    Aaaw, are you talking about the message you BELIEVE was sent, ‘cos the reality is devastating to your case?

    “I guess we’re talking about the difference between “Mann truncated” and “Mann arranged to have truncated””

    No, we’re talking about the difference between denialists like yourself whining incessantly about bad data being included (surfacestations.org) then whining incessantly about how bad data was removed.

    And how the data is in agreement with other overlapping proxies before then is proof of the data from before 1960 being an accurate proxy for temperatures where thermometers have no record.

  44. #44 citizenschallenge
    October 6, 2011

    “The author of the offending letter that got Mann’s goat is one Martin Hertzberg, who claims to be a scientists, but keeps writing things like “The entire theory that ‘greenhouse gases’ in the atmosphere can reradiate energy back to the Earth and thus cause more heating, has been proven to violate the laws of thermodynamics, and thus to be completely devoid of physical reality.” [Citation, please.]”
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    For an annotated copy of Martin Hertzberg’s letter, featuring authoritative links that dispute the man’s nonsense please see:

    Martin Hertzberg… a denialist in action
    http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2011/10/martin-hertzberg-denialist-in-action.html
    ~ ~ ~

  45. #45 Sundance
    October 6, 2011

    @#29

    Let me return to my original point for both you and the author of this blog as the hockey stick has highjacked the thread. My original point is that I find it amusing that Mr. Mann has decided to go out into the public domain in order to call others liars while he is using attorneys to block the release of his emails and data that were generated when he was receiving public funding at UVA.

    I am for completely openess when public monies are involved. For example the XL Pipeline emails were just released by the DOI based on FOIA. I think that is great and I would like to see the same thing with regard to Mr. Mann’s emails. Why does Mr. Mann believe he should be exempt?

  46. #46 Bishop Hill
    October 6, 2011

    Wow

    You are going to make yourself look silly again. Go and find the email from October 1999 and read it – the email number is in the thread above. (Hint: there are two different emails)

  47. #47 John McManus
    October 6, 2011

    There was a time when I prided myself in the art of stealth: ripping the guts out of some lying bastard by agreeing in print but slanting my story in such a way that they ( even Bishops) are seen to be whining assholes.

    Now I an so ashamed. Buffal Foam is good at it: I am not.

  48. #48 Cardinal Dale
    October 6, 2011

    Few WUWT commenters feel Viscount Monckton and Lubos Motl deserve the Peace, Physics & Medicine Nobels for curing Bright’s Syndrome by stopping climate change in 11 dimensions using faster than light cosmic ray neutrinos from the iron sun.

    The consensus is rather that they should receive the Physics gong for correlating telluric currents and chemtrails.

  49. #49 NJ
    October 6, 2011

    Wow@41:

    Actually, my call of “Poe” was in and of itself sarcastic.

  50. #50 Wow
    October 7, 2011

    Ah, fair enough. That then would make it an actual Poe in 39!

    Bishop, compared to you, the Village idiot looks pretty damn smart. You wouldn’t know silly from your arse.

    You’ve already been butthurt by Marco twice and me twice. Yet here you are, all “concerned” about something that might possible make me look silly, yet you can’t find the citation or meaning that would do so.

    You’re making yourself look idiotic again.

  51. #51 Wow
    October 7, 2011

    “while he is using attorneys to block the release of his emails and data that were generated when he was receiving public funding at UVA.”

    Ah, see, your problem is that is a fabrication. Contradicted by the facts. Incorrect. Or, in other words, a lie.

    The emails have no bearing on the complaint and the data is available.

    That you self-defined “skeptics” deny reality and complain about data not being available despite you being pointed to the place you can get them here on the thread shows why you’re a lying sack of crap like Bishop here.

    “I am for completely openess when public monies are involved.”

    Tax breaks are involving public money. So I guess you’ll demand all the emails and internal documents of Texaco, yes? And the Heartland Institute, yes?

    Oh, no, you’re not.

    PS where is the demand for the personal emails of the Koch brothers who are funding the XL pipeline?

  52. #52 Marco
    October 7, 2011

    Andrew, AGAIN you are wrong, and clearly missed some important facts that completely destroy your narrative. And I am extremely kind to you when I state “missed”.

    To start with, the first draft did not even contain the data Osborn sent in October!

    Want that again? Well, here it is again: the first draft did not even contain the data Osborn sent in October! It was an older data set, something easily seen by the fact that it starts in 1600, not in 1400.

    Maybe this particular issue is a fact that *could* be missed (although it requires significant number blindness). However, not if you also read the response from Mann to Osborn’s October e-mail (the response is 939141116). Oops, Mann tells Osborn it is likely too late to make a revision and use the new data. You’d think an “auditor” would then check whether Mann used the ‘old’ or the ‘new’ data. Clearly, you (and McIntyre, who also has been following this fake narrative, completely destroyed by Deepclimate) are a really, really bad “auditor”, because you didn’t get even in the slightest skeptical about your own narrative.

    Tell me, Andrew, is it because you are just stupid, or is it because you had a narrative which simply HAD to be true, and all contradictory information simply could not enter your brain?

  53. #53 Sundance
    October 7, 2011

    @#51

    I wrote a rebuttle with several links to specific quotes regarding Mr. Mann’s attempt to block a court ruling requiring the UVA to release all emails and data but it has not shown up and looks to have been blocked by a spam filter or moderator. The gist was that I did not lie, you are a deluded putz and you have no idea what you are talking about with regard to the UVA/Mann FOIA case. All the information can be found at the American Tradition Institute web site including the legal briefs.

  54. #54 JayAlt
    October 8, 2011

    The FOI requests were orchestrated by bloggers & by lawyers at conservative think tanks with no ability or intention to ever use the material. They were duplicative to waste the time of Mann and other scientists. Similarly, the posts of Benny Hill and David Cassidy waste my time so I don’t read beyond the initial mistakes. However I thank Marco and others for taking the time to correct their errors, for the sake of readers who might otherwise accept false claims at face value.

  55. #55 Bishop Hill
    October 8, 2011

    OK. I think I’ve got you now. Let’s set down the story in full.

    Version A of the data was in the ZOD (1 September) and was untruncated.

    After ZOD someone – Jones, I believe – sent Mann Version B of the data. As we haven’t seen this correspondence, we can’t know whether Version B was truncated or at source or not. This was the version used in FOD.

    Osborn then sent Version C on 5 October. This was not truncated. Mann said it had missed the deadline. In February, Osborn sent what was in essence Version C again, except that he’d done the post-1960 truncation already.

    Version C was used in the SOD and the final report. Whether Mann took the October data and truncated it (ignoring the later February data) or used the pre-truncated February data instead is not clear.

    This rather brings me back to the point I made in #42 above. We’re talking about the difference between “Mann truncated” and “Mann used data that he knew to have been truncated”. This is not a distinction that seems important to me.

  56. #56 Marco
    October 8, 2011

    It is very clear Mann used the February data, because that was the data he requested (geesh, you’d think the fact that the Fenruary e-mail contains the request to Osborn (Briffa) to send him the new data would ring some bells).

    “Mann truncated” versus “Mann used data that he knew to have been truncated” is a distinction that is important, just not for the people who want to make a false narrative to malign specific climate scientists.

    But most importantly, using a few simple examples I have shown that you made a lot of false claims, and, being kind again, because of ignorance and insufficient research. It’s a pattern with you, Andrew…

  57. #57 Sundance
    October 8, 2011

    @#54 said, “They were duplicative to waste the time of Mann and other scientists.”

    JayAlt if these documents were truly duplicative why would the UVA spend over $1/2 million to fight their release and then, when the courts ruled in favor of the release of the documents, Mann began his campaign to block their release? Does that seem like sound reasoning to you? It doesn’t to me.

    My understanding is that Mr. Mann’s records were requested under FOIA in early 2010 as the UVA was preparing Michaels’s records for release to a FOIA request from Greenpeace. It just seems really odd that the UVA was preparing to release Michaels’s records but didn’t plan on releasing Mann’s records. When Michaels asked the UVA why they were releasing his documents but refused to release Mann’s documents Michaels was told, “some people’s records are treated differently than others.” At some point after this all became public, the UVA changed its mind and no longer wanted to release anyone’s records. While Michaels questioned the UVA’s differencial treatment between him and Mann, he never tried to legally block the release of his UVA documents to the best of my knowledge.

    In the end a court ruled in favor of release of Mann’s records.

    I make no claim of understanding motive for anyone’s actions in this matter so I can only deal with the impression that this whole affair gives to the public. None of the actions by the UVA or Mr. Mann gives the impression of openness. It gives the impression that UVA intended to be selective in which records it was willing to release. It gives the impression that Mr. Mann has something to hide when he tries to block a court ruling for the UVA to release his documents.

  58. #58 Bishop Hill
    October 8, 2011

    Marco

    Why do you think the distinction between “Mann truncated” and “Mann used data that he knew to have been truncated” is important. They seem equally culpable to me.

  59. #59 Wow
    October 10, 2011

    “”Mann truncated” and “Mann used data that he knew to have been truncated””

    It’s rather like “Bishop Hill murdered someone with a knife” compared to “Bishop Hill used a knife that was used to murdered someone”.

    Also, in what world is both GIGO and quality control on data repugnant to a self-defined “skeptic” like you AT THE SAME TIME?

  60. #60 Wow
    October 10, 2011

    “In the end a court ruled in favor of release of Mann’s records.”

    Really. Court orders are public record.

    You’ll be able to give us the link to that statement.

    FOIA doesn’t allow someone to break the law. Ergo confidentiality, copyright and contract law (including NDA) still apply and overrule. It is also not a fishing expedition. Since nobody has managed to find a reason for the release of information not already released other than “there’s got to be a pony in here somewhere”, the court order does seem rather unlikely the way you say it.

  61. #61 James
    October 10, 2011

    Recommended reading for all “deniers”:
    * Climategate email 1024334440.txt, where Briffa and Cook discuss the quality of Mann’s research.
    * A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 Years Reliable? By statisticians McShane and Wyner.
    * The Hockey Stick Illusion.

  62. #62 caerbannog
    October 10, 2011

    The McShane and Wyner publication has no credibility, as deepclimate pointed out in an analysis in M&W. (http://deepclimate.org/2010/08/19/mcshane-and-wyner-2010/)

    Here is one of the claims made in that paper:

    M&M observed that the original Mann et al. (1998) study … used only one principal component of the proxy record.

    Anyone who has looked at MBH 98/99 knows that this is clearly and obviously wrong.

    Another claim made in the paper

    M&M made a further contribution by applying the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction methodology to principal components computed in the standard fashion. The resulting reconstruction showed a rise in temperature in the medieval period, thus eliminating the hockey stick shape.

    Again, FUBAR on the part of McShane and Wyner — if you take Mann’s eigenvalue thresholding procedure and apply it consistently to the properly-centered SVD output, you get the same results that you get from Mann’s decentered SVD. If you screw up the analysis by blindly taking the top one or two principal components (without considering the eigenvalue magnitudes), then, yes, the “hockey stick” does get muddled up. But to mess up the “hockey stick”, you have to f*@& up the analysis.

    The bottom line is, the problems introduced by the “decentered” approach originally taken by Mann are inconsequential if you threshold the eigenvalues correctly.

  63. #63 Marco
    October 11, 2011

    Andrew, it makes a difference because it destroys your narrative of Mann – the pinnacle of all evil climate scientists. Moreover, guess what would have happened if he HAD used the whole data set, with the reference to a paper that did NOT show the whole data set?

    But most importantly, this little discussion of ours has shown that you (and McIntyre) are really, really, really bad auditors, completely ignoring those easily found e-mails that destroy your hypotheses.

  64. #64 Marco
    October 11, 2011

    caerbannog, see also Eduardo Zorita’s take on McShane & Wyner. Eduardo is no friend of Mike Mann, but his comments on the paper as a reviewer would have meant a reject in *any* scientific journal (with a note that next time they submit a paper that criticizes another paper, they might actually want to read the paper they criticize).

    See here:
    http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/08/mcshane-and-wyner-on-climate.html

    I especially liked
    “This paragraph, and later other similar paragraphs, tells me that the authors have not really read the original paper by Mann, Bradly and Hughes (1998).”

  65. #65 Bishop Hill
    October 11, 2011

    Marco

    If I understand you correctly, you argument is:

    i) I have (allegedly) said that Mann is uniquely bad.
    ii) But (you say) Osborn is just as bad because he deleted data.
    iii) Therefore I am wrong – Mann is not uniquely bad.

    The flaw in this line of reasoning is that I have never said that Mann is uniquely bad (or I can’t recall having said so – perhaps you can point me to what makes you think I have said this?) It appears to me that truncating data and using data that you know to have been truncated are equally culpable.

    If I can rephrase slightly the question I asked in the previous comment:

    Do you think Mann’s use of truncated data in AR3 was acceptable?

  66. #66 blueshift
    October 11, 2011

    “It appears to me that truncating data and using data that you know to have been truncated are equally culpable. ”

    Do you agree that bad data should be removed from analysis?

  67. #67 Wow
    October 12, 2011

    “Do you agree that bad data should be removed from analysis?”

    Obviosuly not, otherwise how could he claim that the US climate record is wrong because they keep in “poorly sited” Stephenson screens?

    This way he can complain both of bad data being used and bad data not being used, and therefore ALWAYS insist that the data is “wrong”, without any effort other than to swap to his second face!

  68. #68 Wow
    October 12, 2011

    “Do you think Mann’s use of truncated data in AR3 was acceptable?”

    Yes.

    Do you? If not, why not?