Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Dec 20 - julie
on
Established Fiction Ghostwriters Contribution To Fiction Writing -
Dec 6 - sexdollpartner
on
Established Fiction Ghostwriters Contribution To Fiction Writing
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Bishop Hill
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (112)
But he does not defend his hockey stick.
It is right because it shows the same results as studies after.
Climate "science" in all its "glory".
This opinion piece is distressing for it's utter lack of intellectual content and argumentative rigor.
MM has no real response to criticisms of the work except to smear all critics as associated with "fossil fuel interests."
So far as I see the only substantive assertion in this article is the usual for MM:
"Our original work showed that average temperatures today are higher than they have been for at least the past 1,000 years. Since then, dozens of analyses from other scientists based on different data and methods have all affirmed and extended our original findings."
So refutations of the "hockey stick" are not getting through at all.... but he may be the last person on earth able to honestly and carefully consider the criticisms of that work.
Me thinks the Mann doth protest too much.
"Contrarians", "climate-change denier", "fossil fuel interests",
The commenters on his article are not convinced by his protesting.
correction, oops, I really do know the difference between its and it's
simply typing too fast, should proof-read even on "the web"
corrected: This opinion piece is distressing for its utter lack...."
Comments are Open.
According to Dellers:"The latest release shows top scientists in the field fudging data, conspiring to bully and silence opponents, and displaying far less certainty about the reliability of anthropogenic global warming theory in private than they ever admit in public."
Michael Mann has taken the opportunity to disparage people who criticise his work. He has claimed that the fossil fuel industry is promoting this criticism, and he has connected the issue with others where vested interests fought to undermine the scientific consensus.
What he has signally failed to do, however, is answer the specific charges that James raised in his article - namely, that top climate scientists, including Mann, have been involved in "fudging data" and attempting to silence opponents, while at the same time expressing private misgivings about the science which in public they claim is settled.
In short, it is a political rather than scientific response, which pretty neatly illustrates the central problem with climate science at the moment.
It's a classic smear job. Don't argue the facts, just smear your opponents. Which means the facts don't add up. Avoid the debate at all costs. Pathetic!
Even his colleagues admit in the emails that he takes it too personally, that getting rid of the MWP was questionable, that the time series were too thin.
The release of emails from UV case is still ongoing, I think the next hearing is this month. Let's see what those emails show when we have access to them.
Mann's getting pwned by the WSJ commenters. He's a bugger for punishment.
I found Mann's piece almost perfect. So shallow, predictable and evasive, plus the victim act. May have helped for the RealClimate audience but not for the WSJ. They'll see right through it for all the reasons already noted by earlier commenters and more. And great time to be from Penn State.
"200 years establishing the reality of human-caused climate change" as if Mann is the pinacle of some monotonic progress to the shrill misanthropic "cause" that Mann represents today.
Surprisingly weak stuff. I keep waiting for Mann to bring something else to the table, a clever change of direction or even some admission of flaws, but no, but he's seem to be going down with the ship with the same old rhetoric, no doubt it remains to be seen who else he drags down with him.
Just read the comments there. Unless the Team immediately rallies a herd of commenters, shaping up like a major PR disaster for Mann and his "cause."
His victim act (and creative writing) is particularly pathetic.
"Every snowflake is unique, but attacks on climate science all seem the same. I should know. I've been one of the climate contrarians' preferred targets for years."
He reminds me a lot of Richard Nixon, with his faux or imagined victimhood and his plotting against his 'enemies,' so most apt that the real Mann has been revealed by Climategate.
Mann claims in this article that his work shows that current temps are hotter than any time in the last 1000years. I'm pretty sure that in his quietly published corrigendum which removes the tainted Tiljander proxies he admits his reconstruction is not skillful for periods further back than 500years?
Surely he isn't "gilding the lily" to a new audience again?
Mann hasn't much to stand on here. In 4241.txt Edward Cook seems to have noticed the same thing McIntyre did in that randomly generated time series will still produce the "blade" of the hockey stick thereby removing any confidence in that part of the graph. Then in 0300.txt Bo Christiansen shows that RegM greatly underestimates "low-frequency variability and trends" (i.e. can't show a slowly varying signal in a very noisy data set) and shows an artificially flat "handle" invalidating that part of the graph.
So I suppose that Mann might be correct in that his "hockey stick" data is correct, all except the handle part and the blade part. The rest of it is apparently just fine.
'Recent reports of police expenditures suggest they may be devoting far fewer resources to it than other similar investigations.' To be fair this is typical Mann , he offers bugger all evidenced for this claim but his own speculation .
Also an example of Internet generated paranoia, which future historians will doubtless detail. It's just so easy for someone to believe, when receiving a concerted negative response, that some organization is behind it.
I believe it is a product of two things: 1. Projection. He is politically motivated so he assumes anyone who criticizes him is politically motivated from the other side. 2: He needs to keep his base of support on board so appealing to their hate for "oil interests" is emotionally appealing to them and in portraying himself as being under attack by "big oil" will cause many of them to cling more closely to him.
In the the American vernacular, it's called "bullshit".
My favourite WSJ comment is about the 'stolen' emails:
"Property returned to its rightful owners is not theft."
:-)
MM is "getting his ass handed to him on a plate". Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, if all the mails are to be believed..
Mann: "Our original work showed that average temperatures today are higher than they have been for at least the past 1,000 years."
If the proxies do not work for much of the time thermometers were around (from c 1850), what hope for the rest of the 1,000 years?
data removal, without explanation:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/30/hide-the-decline-worse-than-we-thought
data addition and manipulation, without explanation:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/18/you%E2%80%99re-not-allowed-to-do-this-in-science
data 'improvement', without explanation:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/01/response-from-briffa-on-the-yamal-tree-ring-affair-plus-rebuttal
data being ignored (Carbon dioxide & 800-year lag behind temperature):
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/04/co2-lags-temperature-how-alarmists.html
It's the complete lack of dialogue from Mann with his critics, from inside as well as outside the clique, that is so jaw dropping. The number of questions stacked in his in-tray must be blocking his view of the scientific process, let alone the science.
@ edward getty
That's a very apt comparison.
Michael Mann: the Richard Nixon of climate science.
Seems from the hornets' nest he has stirred up in the WSJ comments that he's in deep trouble. Very deep trouble indeed when you consider that the economic impact of his scientific malfeasance utterly dwarfs Bernie Madoff's nefarious activities. I wonder if/when the American judicial system will get ruffled? Time will tell, meanwhile, Ed Cook's suggestion of retiring and leaving no forwarding address should be taken immediately.
he does not mention UShurricanes, the professor?
When hurricanes get more frequent again, they will pop up right on top of his "science" :)
The only place I've read about that was here. However out host did not have any figures for similar investigations to compare it to. Either Mann is making claims he has no evidence for (he would never do that, would he?) or he has obtained figures for similar investigations in the UK.
It also indicates that Michael Mann reads this blog.
Yup, he's being absolutely slaughtered, its only this Harrup character who in support, but he kind of showed his hand with his very first comment "Lets see how all the deniers go on this forum"!
How long will it be before fans of the cause realise that continually useing the D word is ultimately self defeating?
Michael Mann (Dec 5, 2011): Contrarians have nonetheless painted a misleading picture of climate science as a house of cards teetering on the edge of a hockey stick.
Gavin Schmidt (July 28, 2011): Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the last two decades of imperfect satellite data, but rather the paleoclimate record.
I wonder who to believe 8-P
Any rational person reading Dellers' piece followed by Mann's response will surely notice that the latter evades every substantive point made by the former and that Dellers is therefore right. I can't see what other construction can be put on Mann's piece.
It's fascinating that he still professes to believe that emails sent from a work computer on work time from a work email address are his personal private property.
"Barrie Harrop" on the WSJ is a lone voice. Sock puppet, anybody?
Justice4Rinka: It's fascinating that he still professes to believe
Doesn't matter what Mann believes anymore...as things stand, that's an opinion mandated by his lawyers. Any slip on his part, and the fight against FOI release of the UVa emails will collapse.
Actually, given the lack of science in his WSJ letter, the whole piece might as well have been written by somebody in Mann's legal team.
It shows the real pain and anger being felt by the Team, and all self-inflicted. Climategate has caught them all on a hook and no matter how they complain and struggle they are stuck fast.
Science leaders have tried hard to ignore the critics and defend the Team - but all has failed. The extent and depth of intellectual corruption in climate science is clearly damaging the good name of science. They must know now they can't be seen to keep on reinforcing failure, sacrifices have to be made.
Mann and Jones are not worth saving anymore.
They are intellectual and "scientific" minnows and were never worth saving. They would never have got anywhere in any real scientific endeavour. No industry would consider employing people whose output is so shoddy.
There is no wonder that "The Team" think Mann is a lose cannon! Every time he writes he digs the hole deeper! Dellers is a climate-change denier (I think even J.D. realises that its changes!) , the American Tradition Institute has fossil-fuel interests, tobacco companies (of course he had to drop that red herring in!)! Even the UK cops get bashed!
I would guess there are a lot of groans emanating from the CRU and over at R.C. right now. Strange how he complains and all the time his "pals" in the emails bashed his H.S.!
It would be nice to know if Mann has read the HSI, as well as apparently reading this blog, as TerryS suggests. Mann has never made any comment on it, as far as I know, which could be seen as surprising- or maybe not..
Barrie Harrop has been hanging around at the WSJ for the long, long time.
How does Mann know about police expenditures at Norfolk? Freedom of information.
Ah yes, it's good old Barrie Harrop, a regular at the WSJ. He's one of us from down here I'm afraid. Started off as an ice cream salesman for Wendy's Supa Sundaes Pty Ltd. Now has his fingers in a range of renewable energy/environmental pies.
An honest commenter in the Climate Science debate.
Maybe Mann is a well known troll here? The faintly hyterical tone, the endless repeating of stuff that has been proven wrong ages ago, the running from debate, the failure to address the real opposition.... it's all becoming clear.....
PB
Note the lack of grand statements and jestures by the scientific establishment in comparison to the personal statements from Mann and Jones.
No signed letters by tens, hundreds, nay thousands of scientists defending the consensus or supporting the Team.
The most damaging aspect of Climategate 2.0 was the much added 'context' to the original allegations of intellectual corruption and the expressions of personal doubt. The Team doubted the science, they doubted each other, they saw enemies at every turn, they colluded, they conspired, they spread evil gossip.
I do think the scientific establishment now realise the extent of the damage done and being done to science.
The WSJ article highlights that it is every Mann for themselves from now on.
Ugh. Just planted one on Barrie. My error.. I assumed he was another innocent victim of the illusion that is the hockey stick. I haven't told him anything he doesn't already know, then. :o(
Scoops of CG icecream-context sundae, with umbrellas and straw
Who wants some?
(thx, Maurizio)
Michael Mann (Dec 5, 2011): "Contrarians have nonetheless painted a misleading picture of climate science as a house of cards teetering on the edge of a hockey stick."
Gavin Schmidt (July 28, 2011 (livescience)): "Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the last two decades of imperfect satellite data, but rather the paleoclimate record."
---
The "hockey stick" is probably just one fundamental/robust/solid/essential... card; see also (loose context):
Kevin Trenberth (17 Oct 2000, #0869.txt) (my highlight):
I suspect that climate schemers everywhere will be seriously considering whether or not Mann and Jones should be 'thrown under the bus' (in the American political sense of course!). The main attraction would be the possibility of at least a partial decoupling from some of the worst 'narratives' of the CG1 and CG2 revelations. The Fenton PR folks, for example, will surely be 'running this up the flagpole', 'doing some blue sky thinking', 'brainstorming creative solutions', and suchlike, as befits their profession's idea of deep analysis. Time will tell.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.” Richard Feynman
"You can argue that this is a house of cards but the building is getting stronger." Kevin Trenberth
<smirk>
John,
The bus might be useful if *THEY* had distanced themselves from Mann's malfeasance at any stage - but they've closed ranks ever tighter.
The house of cards analogy stands - if Mann goes, it collapses. That fabricated graphic appeared in TAR SIX times - it's still by far the scariest tool in the fearmongers' box and if *THEY*admit it's a lie, it's torches and pitchforks time...
Do read the comments under the article.
An amazing show of "force" against the spin and hubris of MM.
The hubris in particular seems to seen for what it is.
Yes, I'm enjoying the WSJ comments too. (Apart from the inevitable Barrie Harrop's). Booker has cast some interesting light on Mann's letter. Have a read of this: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100121659/climategate-2-0-junk-science-101-with-michael-mann/
Del Boy: "Trig, if you've had that broom for the last 22 years, have you actually swept any roads with it?"
Trig: "Del, this old broom has had 14 new heads and 17 new handles in its time."
[Pause all round for thought]
Sid: "Well, how can it be the same bl**dy broom, then?
Trig: "Well, here's a picture of it, what more do you want?"
Dec 5, 2011 at 11:38 AM | TheBigYinJames:
"...the failure to address the real opposition.... it's all becoming clear....."
That a bell ringing??? Could it be MM reprising Chuck Heston and coming back as 'Omega Mann'? (woman?). ;-)
Rick Bradford
This machine at which I sit is the same one I had in 1998.
Since when I have replaced the motherboard and processor twice, the hard drive three times, the keyboard once, the case once and the operating system twice.
I wouldn't part with this old friend for the world!
Chinese tree ring scientists conclude it has been warmer than the present several times in the past 2,500 years.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/if_global_warming_takes_off_you_wont_be_blown_away/
On only a slightly related note. I see for the UK we've had autumn temperatures up towards the catastrophic levels of CAGW. The Met Office (which strangely has the website titled as weather and climate change forecasts) have it 2 degrees above average (1.5/2/3 degrees for Sep/Oct/Nov). Surely a season like this can be used in general to predict the likely outcome of the 2 or 3 degree rise in temperature, such as how much the UK had to spend dealing with the serious temperature rise of the last 3 months ;-)
As the CAGW effect is predicted to be mainly a winter effect an anomalously warm season such as this is definitely a good indicator of any possible future issues for this country.