Bishop Hill Questioning Mann
Mar 15, 2012 Books Climate: Mann Anne Jolis's review of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars is the only one I've seen in the mainstream media that approaches the book with anything other than a placid acceptance of Mann's utterances.
Mr. Mann closes "The Hockey Stick" with a passionate call for more scientists to join him "on the front lines of the climate wars." "Scientific truth alone," Mr. Mann writes, "is not enough to carry the day in the court of public opinion." It would be "irresponsible," he says, "for us to silently stand by while industry-funded climate change deniers succeed in confusing and distracting the public and dissuading our policy makers from taking appropriate actions." These are unfortunate conclusions for a scientist-turned-climate-warrior whose greatest weakness has always been a low estimation of the public intellect.
Reader Comments (61)
"Scientific truth alone," Mr. Mann writes, "is not enough to carry the day in the court of public opinion. That's why we have to lie. Oops, did I say that last bit out loud?"
Presumably Michael would be behind the lines, directing the 'war', while the other scientists get sent to the frot?
Ah, the barbs of the pen do rip deep.
I have not seen anyone in the MSM looking at Mann's description of "Mike's Nature trick".
"The full quotation from Jones’s e-mail was, “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.” Only by omitting the twenty-three words in between “trick” and “hide the decline” were [climate] change deniers able to fabricate the claim of a supposed “trick to hide the decline.”"
"[Jones] was referring, specifically, to an entirely legitimate plotting device for comparing two datasets on a single graph, as in our 1998 Nature article (MBH98)–hence “Mikes Nature trick.”"
"we supplemented our plot of reconstructed temperatures in MBH98 by additionally showing the instrumental temperatures, which extended through the 1990s. That allowed our reconstruction of past temperatures to be viewed in the context of the most recent warming. The separate curves for the proxy reconstruction and instrumental temperature data were clearly labeled…"
"There was one thing Jones did in his WMO graph, however, that went beyond what we had done in our Nature article: He had seamlessly merged proxy and instrumental data into a single curve, without explaining which was which. That was potentially misleading, though not intentionally so; he was only seeking to simplify the picture for the largely nontechnical audience of the WMO report. "
Bish, I would be interested to know how this account tallies with your recollection of this "trick".
"The key question is, can the model be shown to be useful? Can it make successful predictions? Climate models had passed that test with flying colors by the mid-1990s."
Actually the colors were carried aloft by pigs, which began flying in the late 1970s. Or perhaps earlier, if one counts WWII-era Porky Pig shorts.
His original graph may have been adequate for a first-year PhD student, nut the ridiculous defenses of it by numerous people who should have known better have, to my mind, relegated "climate science" to a subset of alchemy. Even Dr. Phil Jones has admitted the Medieval Warm existed "For the Northern Hemisphere" yet says not showing it on the "global" grsph is OK because "we do not know what was happening in the Southern Hemisphere."
Uh, still sounds bad there genemachine. The 23 words in the middle don't help his case. He did not want anyone to know that the decline took place, likely because he knew it shattered his theory that trees make good thermometers.
Mark
I say likely, btw, as a compliment to his intelligence - hardly a rising endorsement of his honesty, however.
Mark
I think we can expect a boilerplate 'rebuttal' letter from Mann, heavily playing the victim card as usual.
He really is a disciple of Roger Stone: "Admit nothing, deny everything, launch counterattack."
Bish - are you planning a review by any chance - I think it would make an interesting read...
John A. Recent data show the MWP existed in South America.
I would like to read the book but I just refuse to give him a penny
Mike Mann has just been interviewed on Lateline in Australia. He was given a pretty free run but was at least asked about "Mike's nature trick" and "hide the decline". Unfortunately and predictably he was allowed to give his pet answers to these questions without challenge. Standard stuff for our ABC.
The "donors" to the Climate Institute in Washington, DC, by contrast to the Heartland Institute in Chicago, is loaded with Big oil and Big industry froundations: Shell Foundation, PG&E, Rockefeller (two of 'em), Toyota, Ford, (as well as lots of US Agencies and many more foreign governments.
As I understand it, Mike's Nature trick involved adding the temperature record to end of the proxy series, smoothing, chopping of extraneous temp data, and presenting the whole thing as an unadulterated proxy record.
If this is correct then why does nobody in the MSM correct Mann?
I'm sure this wasn't meant to sound like an apology from the great Mann:
There is a very good interview with Anne Jolis here:
http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-climate-kamikaze/7E12309E-7064-498A-BCD3-FEC6108C3D5C.html
She understands what Mann is about.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9145345/Syria-anniversary-One-thousand-refugees-flee-to-Turkey-in-a-single-day.html
Climate Change refugees versus Political Climate reugees
No wonder the Beeb and the Gruniad hate Murdoch so much and are doing all they can to destroy him and his company.
I too would hate to give a penny to Dr. Mann.
Google books has a subset of the text: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HK0CN6FVtfgC&pg=PA359&lpg=PA359&dq=Hockey+Stick+and+the+Climate+Wars+pdf&source=bl&ots=ehvZfT5HMy&sig=nZTkdigwKj86DYO5Mk-aDFMgFLY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=r_RhT9TrKYi08QPnqNWRCA&ved=0CKYBEOgBMBA#v=onepage&q=Hockey%20Stick%20and%20the%20Climate%20Wars%20pdf&f=false
Having problems posting comments. This is just a trial
Problem seems to have cleared.
Andrew:
I agree that the Jolis' review puts Mann in his place, but as a book review I am not impressed. Are you still going to write one?
Still intending to, but I haven't found time to read the thing. It's hard going.
"Scientific truth alone," Mr. Mann writes, "is not enough to carry the day in the court of public opinion."
It might well if he ever had the spine to tell the truth (clue no.1: it's indistinguishable from 'scientific truth').
Why am I thinking of a blind man lecturing the world on the nature of rainbows?
"No wonder the Beeb and the Gruniad hate Murdoch so much and are doing all they can to destroy him and his company."
David C
It's hardly as if the Murdoch papers have been bastions of scepticism.
In the UK certainly it's only been Brooker and Delingpole (online) in the non-Murdoch Mail and Telegraph which have been consistently sceptical You'd be hard pressed to find much which is sceptical in the UK Murdoch press or Sky News, mostly it's the usual mainstream cut and paste from alarmist press releases.
Bish - "Still intending to, but I haven't found time to read the thing. It's hard going."
Hard going? You will need sea-sickness tablets and something to lower your blood pressure.
Don Pablo,
It might be an even more than usual contribution for you to wade through the Mannuscript, and then comment on the expressions of mental disorder which you will surely find. There are several in Jolis's review unremarked there but identified above.
I am much impressed that the worst things he has to say about the dissenters is that they are guilty of the things which he himself seems to have problems with. I suppose most of us have this failing, but in him it appears to rise (descend?) to a pathological level.
What say?
Steve McIntyre has a post on the Jolis review. He ends with:
Well the deputy walks on hard nails and the preacher rides a mount
But nothing really matters much it's doom alone that counts
And the one-eyed undertaker he blows a futile horn
"Come in" she said "I'll give you shelter from the storm"
-- Little Bobby Zimmerman
The Bish says:
Still intending to, but I haven't found time to read the thing. It's hard going.
This seems to clash with a 5 star review on Amazon UK by Steven Brown - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hockey-Stick-Climate-Wars-ebook/dp/B0072N4U6S/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1331834379&sr=8-5
Mann writes with an engaging style that is sprinkled with dry humour and eases the reader through this complex and sordid saga. This is a rare talent for a scientist and I hope that Mann continues writing for a lay audience to communicate some of the fascinating topics from the workings of our planet.
Even worse, another reviewer, Louise, makes this bizarre claim
Politicians funded by vested interests must not be allowed to distort science in the way that this book clearly shows that they have tried
The mental contortions involved in this are quite mystifying. We know that politicians have been getting a distorted view of the science but surely it has been distorted by the climate activists! Is she claiming that the Climate Change Act was muddle-headed or foolish? I do not think that that is what she means.
j ferguson
I have looked at Mikey's writings before, and the samples of this tome appear the same. However, I will refrain from commenting beyond I do recommend others read Adolf Hiter's Mein Kampf -- there are several good English translations.
While the focus of Hiter's demonology was clearly the German Jewish population and Mann is clearly not anti-Semitic in anything I had read -- many of the rhetorical techniques are similar. I find it interesting.
Some quotations from Mein Kampf to consider:
I am a strong advocate of knowing your opponent. To do that, you must study him carefully and dispassionately. Although I have not found a quote from Sun Tzu's Art of War that exactly matches that, he did write:
Contrast this review with the sycophantic interview of Mann by Anna Maria Tramonte (CBC's The Current, Wednesday March 2012).
It is puzzling and sad that there are still people out there who are happy to give him a platform and an audience (out of ignorance or ideology--probably the latter in the case of the CBC). To listen to the interview, go to
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/
and look for “Climate Activist, Michael Mann,” (Wednesday March 14, 2012). It takes a strong stomach to listen to the whole thing.
Ann Jolis is right up there with Dellers and Booker in scientific expertise, witness her earlier WSJ piece " about the state of climate change science " invoking the authority of " Global warming's most dangerous apostate " a retired mining engineer by the name of, wait for it, McIntyre
I look forward to the Bishop linking us to reviews of Mann's book by more science savvy folk. Alastair Mcintosh, Richard Joyner, and Nick Hewitt come to mind.
@Russell
if you ever have an intelligent, informed comment to make I'm sure folks around here will be interested in a discussion. Your half-wit sneers never contribute to anyone's understanding.
Mann's articles are always amusing. I think he's got a function key programmed to type "industry funded" and another for "climate contrarian", not forgetting "well funded" and "denier". There can't be an honest motive behind an opposing view his mind, its an "attack" and its personal. He's like the sulkiest most tantrum prone kid at school. Its funny that he's still at school.
I can't imagine anyone takes him seriously.
What could be more perfect, "the climate kamakazi". The warrior who blows himself up using his own weapons. Lovely.
Mar 15, 2012 at 6:06 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes
"Even worse, another reviewer, Louise, makes this bizarre claim
Politicians funded by vested interests must not be allowed to distort science in the way that this book clearly shows that they have tried"
This is probably the same Louise that comments in a similar style at Judith Curry's blog. Just a light weight sycophant cheer leading for the team. Best ignore.
Mar 15, 2012 at 9:24 PM | Jeff Norman : What could be more perfect, "the climate kamakazi". The warrior who blows himself up using his own weapons. Lovely.
============================================
Jeff, let's change "warrior" to "worrier" ... seems more in keeping with the mantra :)
The Mann was in my lounge room last night. I turned on ABC Lateline and there he was talking about stuff.
I can't remember if he said anything to write home about, except that when the presenter asked him about 'the trick' and 'hide the decline' she made the mistake of referring to the flat-lining of the global averages in the last decade. Mann confessed that 'hide the decline' was about the divergence problem, so that bit of honesty was refreshing.
You can watch it here. The transcript has just been made available too. Check it out. Perhaps there's something newsworthy in there.
does Mann ever name these "industry-funded climate change deniers" people who are attacjkng his junk science? Does he ever specify what policies they have influenced? as far as I can tell, useless windmills and solar panels are being erected all overr the place, which seems to suggests that these well-funded deniers are not very effective.
When will someone call for Mann and Gleick and other idiots to be sectioned?
Over at CA, Steve McIntyre says: "It amazes me that the climate 'community', which one presumes as having some residual scientific standards, not only takes no offence at Mann’s disinformation, but even embraces it."
It would be interesting to hear what our new chums in the modeling community have to say.
Skiphil will find McIntosh, Hewitt & Joyner's intellgent and informative reviews of our host's book on Mann
linked near top right on this page at ' read the reviews' beneath the icon of ''The Hockey Stick Illusion
This cut-n-paste is a bit long, but it's all needed to get to Judith Curry's cryptic conclusion. It was from her 'Week in Review 3/2/12'
'The LA Times has a lengthy article on Michael Mann’s new book: The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. Has anyone read this yet? I read the 2+ chapters available for free at amazon.com. The LA Times review reads like it could have been written by Michael Mann himself. Until you get to the last few paragraphs, which I reproduce here:
'Mann ends his book on a prophetic note with a chapter titled “Fighting Back.” He expresses hopefulness that he and his fellow scientists can turn the tide of public opinion not by remaining unbiased observers on the sidelines, as they have done traditionally, but by taking a more active role in the debate. After many of his colleagues stood up for him during a witch hunt by Virginia Atty. Gen. Ken Cuccinelli, who was demanding every email, record or document related to Mann during his time as a professor at the University of Virginia, Mann was inspired to believe that scientists working as a team could make a difference. “Something is different now,” Mann concludes. “The forces of climate change denial have, I believe, awakened a ‘sleeping bear.’ My fellow scientists will be fighting back, and I look forward to joining them in this battle.”
That’s something Mann might want to rethink. Peter Gleick, a MacArthur “genius” grant recipient for his work on global freshwater challenges and president of the Pacific Institute, admitted earlier this month to borrowing a page directly from the denialists’ playbook. Posing as someone else, he obtained internal documents from the Heartland Institute and distributed them to journalists, a tactic little different from the hack attack at the University of East Anglia that has been decried by environmentalists. Gleick’s activism has ravaged his own reputation and given further ammunition to climate deniers, who won’t have to look far to find a climate scientist whose political opinions have seemingly overcome his better judgment.'
That’s why Mann’s conclusion is the only sour note in an otherwise highly readable and intelligent book, and why his own growing profile as an activist might come back to haunt him. Scientists, like journalists, really are more credible when they stick to the evidence, report the facts and let society come to its own conclusions. You handle the science, professor Mann; we’ll handle the punditry.
JC comment: Bravo for the last paragraph.'
The LATimes is handling the punditry like Mann handled the science.
====================
sHx - thanks for the link to the video and transcript of Mann being interviewed on ABC's Lateline. He comes across much more as a politician (and a shifty one at that) than an innocent scientist, e.g. the way he avoids answering a fairly direct question:
Delusional and/or dishonest is the only conclusion I can come to.
Lapogus,
I'd be inclined to add: 'displaying clear signs of paranoia, leading to episodes of psychological projection'.
The behaviour Mann attributes to others is precisely what many of us see in him. And I bitterly resent his theft of the word 'scientist'.
Mann's delusional paranoia IS logical; enemies are out to get him - and not just him, but Dr. Peter Gleick, too! Logical, yes! But based on a monstrously delusional false premise about economic interests (ie, Big Industry opposes the good guys, ie, them.) Yett in objective reality, they eagerly fund them.
I am reminded of the shocking relevance of psychoanalytical insight to these "Climate Wars" and the utility of psychological projection, after re-reading from defense mechanisms by drsanity.
Dr Sanity is one Pat Santy, MD, who is most notable for having served as the NASA flight surgeon in January, 1986, when the space shuttle Challenger went down, killing all aboard. She subsequently went on to become Professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Michigan School of Medicine (from which she retire a year or tow ago).
For maybe ten years, her blogging occupation has been political and cultural analysis since 9/11 - especially, explaining why the Left finds radical (ie, normal fundamentalist) Islam so congenial! Why are they so accommodating of their objective enemies, and hostile to Western civilization, their objective friends?
The short answer is this: since the Fall of Communism, the American Left rhetoric of the American Left has become riddled with psychotic defense mechanisms. (The American Right, of course, is not immune to similar problems, but is much more riven by neurotic defenses - and therefore is much less disabled in dealing with objective reality, including the threat of terrorism.)
Now I'm sure our host does not want us to veer off into political debates best had elsewhere, so I return to the utility I'm seeing among the psychotic DEFENSES of Mann and Gleick - and therefore defending and rationalizing the indefensible.
Let me just pull a quote from drsanity on defenses that I'm going to hold uppermost in my mind as I begin wading into the Mannian rhetorical swamp:
Is it any wonder that both Gleick and Mann manifest persecutory complexes? Despite being shielded by politics, media, and educational institutions?
I might solicit the good (retired) doctor's arm-chair opinion about them. But I'm really more interested in her (admittedly ill-informed) insight into those who defend and protect these wackos. I believe the parallels will be quite stunningly identical as those from cultural politics in the US that Dr. Santy has long observed.
Surely, the cult around James Hansen, NASA GISS, and RealClimate blog is not unaffected by such emotional mayhem. Or did they merely foment these other more obvious cases of delusional persecution?
Elsewhere, Dr. Santy draws on this flow chart by philosopher Stephen Hicks to explain how the Left's dogged two-centuries of anti-capitalism has given rise to Al Gore and James Hansen's (I will add) anti-technology commitments, exemplified by eco-terrorism among the Left (SEE chart, lower right).
Thus, ideology and psychotic defenses work hand in glove to "strengthen" and absolve each other. And this explains the post-climategate emergence of the weirdness seen orthodox church of "climate science" and their High Priests.
Perhaps Mr Mann should be told about the Dead Horse Theory. If you don't understand this theory, you haven't lived long enough. The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed on from generation to generation, says that, "When you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount."
However, in government and education more advanced strategies are often employed, such as:
1. Buying a stronger whip (torture the horse until it confesses).
2. Changing riders.
3. Appointing a committee to study the horse.
4. Arranging to visit other countries to see how other cultures ride dead horses.
5. Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included in the count of all horses.
6. Reclassifying the dead horse as living-impaired.
7. Encourage other researchers to peer-review your articles on the dead horse.
8. Harnessing several dead horses together to increase speed.
9. Providing additional funding and/or training to make further studies into the dead horse's situation.
10. Doing a productivity study to see if lighter riders would improve the dead horse's performance.
11. Declaring that as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overhead and therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line of the economy than do some other live horses, which are guilty of crimes against humanity because they emit methane.
12. Rewriting the expected performance requirements for all horses.
And of course....
13. Blame it on Climate Change and request further funding.
CORRECTION not "(SEE chart, lower right)" but LEFT
For as long as this Carbon based life form Mann continues to breath in air and exhale CO2 Mann Made Global Warming will continue to flourish in the global corridors of power. Follow the Money, Mann et al get heaps and heaps of taxpayer money to promulgate the scam.