Climate-Gate Zealot Continues Three-Ring Circus
Michael E. Mann (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Climate Fraud: In an attempt to defend his role in the greatest scam of modern times, Climate-gate's poster child threatens to defend his tarnished reputation in court. First, hide the decline, then hide the deceit.
"Get lost" was National Review editor Rich Lowry's appropriate response to a threatened lawsuit by Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann.
NR printed a post by the great Mark Steyn, who graces these pages as well, calling Mann's famous hockey-stick graph "fraudulent." That it is indeed a fraud has been documented by many, including us.
Mann was at the heart of the Climate-gate scandal in 2009, when emails were unearthed from Britain's Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. In one email sent to Mann and others, CRU director Philip Jones speaks of the "trick" of filling in gaps of data in order to hide evidence of temperature decline:
"I've just completed Mike's nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline (in global temperatures)," the email read.
It was that attempt to "hide the decline" through the manipulation of data that helped bring down the global warming house of cards.
The graph created by professor Mann and his colleagues carefully selected and manipulated tree-ring data to supposedly prove that air temperatures had been stable for 900 years, then soared off the charts — in a pattern resembling a hockey stick — in the 20th century due to man-made greenhouse gases. Mann et al. performed the neat trick of making the Medieval Warm Period (about A.D. 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1600 to 1850) statistically disappear.
The graph relied on data from trees on the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. Here too the data were carefully selected. Data from just 12 trees from the 252 cores in the CRU Yamal data set were used.
A larger data set of 34 tree cores from the vicinity showed no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the Middle Ages. They were not included.
Based on this documented record of scientific fraud, Steyn posted a stinging critique that included this quote from the blog of Rand Simberg: "Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet."
Add comment
Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.
Comments
I really hope he does as the discovery process will be very interesting - he will have to produce the data that he has so far not ever shown. And then I hope he gets exactly what he deserves.
As well, many other independent teams or researchers, using this very same data, have re-created there very own hockey sticks. This is all very old news.
Enough for two full hockey teams so far. Soon we will start a league. An oh btw, Mann's code is also in the public domain, if you don't like it, write your own -- as a few of our team has and they still ended up with a "Gtresky" Special from their work.
The graph is now 14 years old. Newer graphs, newer technology, newer observations and newer studies are highlighted now. The "hockey stick" was just a very small part of the 2001 IPCC report in any case no matter how much sCeptics talk it up.
Then you say it is being talked up by sKeptics.
You seem to be confused. Who exactly is in your team?
"The distinctive frauds of the Mann hockey stick graph were its portrayal of a largely unchanging climate (a slight and near-linear decline from the MWP to the LIA) until the 20th C, and its commingling of different data sets over different periods. The above graph still commits the latter epistemological sin, but clearly refutes the Mann hockey stick on the former. Of the seven temperature records graphed, only three extend back to the MWP, and of those three, two show that the peak of the MWP was warmer than the 1990s. The lone dissenting record, which more closely recapitulates the Mann hockey stick is --
The claim that this graph "independently reproduces" the Mann hockey stick is a flat-out fabrication. Another fraudulent Mann temperature reconstruction is not an independent confirmation, and the truly independent parts of the graph plainly show that late 20th C was no warmer than the peak of the MWP."
All this refutation without even going into the "Hide the Decline" fraud. The dropping of the tree ring data when it became inconvienient.
Here is a graphic showing the deleted data in red.
Briffa, Jones and Mann reconstructions together with HadCRU temperature.
www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
No amount of cherry picked tree rings or bobble heads nodding in unison can refute the empirical evidence that the Medieval Climatic Optimum was real and global.
ancient-tides.blogspot.ca/2008/08/retreating-glaciers-revealing-more.html
hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2010/09/more-proof-of-natural-glacier-retreat.html
afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jq06XaBVeoFDw8ema5tW2JrEl1mg
It just goes on and on...
Mann et al. [2003, 2004a, 2004b] argued that their results are similar to those of
“independent” studies, such as Jones, Briffa et al. [1998], Crowley and Lowery
[2000], Briffa, Jones et al [2001], Mann and Jones [2003] and Jones and Mann
[2004], calculated with different proxies and different methods. This “similarity” is
typically shown by “spaghetti” diagrams supposedly illustrating the similarity, rather
than through detailed analysis.
These studies are hardly “independent”. If all the authors in the multiproxy articles
are listed, one sees much overlapping. Mann himself was a co-author of two
supposedly “independent” studies; his sometime co-author (as well as Bradley’s
sometime co-author) Jones was co-author of two of the others. Even Crowley and
Lowery [2000], where there is no apparent overlap, stated that they used data supplied
by Jones. This hardly amounts to “independence” in any conventional use of the term. www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/M&M.EE2005.pdf
One of the more robust predictions is that in the Atlantic, hurricane intensities have increased and they will likely continue to increase, and so, it’s part of a trend, Katrina, the record season of 2005 was part of a trend towards more destructive storms…
This is so far from the truth that it is laughable.
notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/mann-made-hurricanes/
"The graph relied on data from trees on the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. Here too the data were carefully selected. Data from just 12 trees from the 252 cores in the CRU Yamal data set were used."
This is called "cherry-picking the data". It's done all the time by "scientists" who are trying to prove the unprovable.
Just imagine:
1. Fiddling over fractions of a degree from a thousand years ago,
2. Picking out twelve trees whose growth lines differ in millimeters,
3. Stating that these trees, THESE TREES RIGHT HERE, are significantly different from all the other trees that could have been chosen for comparison,
4. Extrapolating that difference to the present day,
5. Working yourself into a frenzy over arcane statistics that only you can understand,
6. Then demanding that world leaders impose draconian austerity measures on people who need to eat, heat their houses, and get to work on time,
7. Then brag about it on an e-mail network to your buddies, and finally,
8. Be surprised when you get found out.
Mann and his crowd have set back the cause of science by fifty years. Scientists have now joined TV preachers and real estate agents as poster people for fraud and deceit.
Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, hereafter MBH98) constructed a temperature history of the Northern Hemisphere for the period 1400-1980. MBH98 applied 112 proxies and historical temperature measurements in what they called a “multiproxy approach” to construction of a temperature index.
But Steven said that the hockey stick was based on 12 tree rings?!?
Anne, aren't you tired et of the liars that constantly populate Climate Disbadshit?
Remember that after 1960 tree ring evidence was discarded and replaced with other temperature evidence to create the hockey stick effect.
Remember that the Vikings farmed Greenland for over 400 years. Greenland is in the Northers hemisphere and was warmer then than it is now.
Tree rings growth responds to numerous stimuli, not just temperature.
Ostrich science for cherry pickers.
Quote: 2. RECONCILING MM03 AND MBH98 www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/M&M.EE2005.pdf
And my favorite bit of drewski-isim. Quote: His pathetic projections. Pot Kettle Black!
Fail!
"The One TREE to rule them all, one TREE to find them, one TREE to bring them all and in the darkness bind them."
Ta-Da!...YAD06 – the Most Influential Tree in the World! climateaudit.org/2009/09/30/yamal-the-forest-and-the-trees/
See why they call him "One Tree Briffa?