• Yellow pages

    Mini-Mann David Appell can’t seem to be bothered to read my previous posts – or really, anything that contradicts him – but since I have a little time, I am going to sort this Pages2K business out once and for all.

    Background: Pages2k is a big collaborative effort to recreate the temperature of the last two millennia, recreating the temperature from all seven continents, and adding them up.  This, Appell claims, shows that Mann is 100% right and absolutely infallible and honest and all the rest of it.

    Now I get the distinct impression that David hasn’t read beyond the abstract, and certainly hasn’t taken a closer look at the data.  This would get him laughed out of any journal club in any uni, I can assure you.

    So, let’s go take a look at the Pages2K, shall we?

    First of all, please go and look at the different versions of the damn hockey stick that Mann produces depending on who is looking. Especially pay attention to the IPCC one where Mann, not content with just taking thermometer readings onto proxy readings, decides to tak simulation projections onto those.

    Back to Pages2K.  Here is what they show as the consensus science, and contrast it with their own composite hockey stick:

    Consensus and Pages 2K stick
    Consensus and Pages 2K stick

     

    The top graphs shows the consensus on this matter up until now.  Notice again that Mann creates a very different graph when he has to work with competent scientists who can check his work.  The bottom one shows a nice neat hockey stick blade.  I mean, it’s nothing like what the Mannster claims elsewhere, but it’s there.

    Yet that got me thinking: what do these individual proxy reconstructions look like?  I mean, continent by continent?  What are the individual data sets from Pages2K showing?

    So I looked at the supplementary data.  Sensitive souls  may wish to look away right now:

    Individual parts of the PAGES2K reconstruction
    Individual parts of the PAGES2K reconstruction

    The horror!

    Got that?  There’s serious warming – in the Arctic.  On the other hand, if you happen to live in Europe, North America, Asia, South America, Australasia or even Antarctica – there’s a slight, definite warming trend, but nothing we haven’t seen before (compare South America’s 2000 to 1800 and 1200, compare Europe 2000 to Europe 700 – and so on).  Do any of those six continents look like Mann’s vaunted hockey stick?

    David, I’m talking to you.

    Category: APGW

    Article by: The Prussian

    3 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

    • im-skeptical

      It was not Mann’s hockey-stick graph that created the overwhelming consensus among scientists that global warming is real and that it is driven primarily by human influences. Much of the global warming skepticism is based on information being published by the oil industry, for the purpose of serving their own interests. Remember when the tobacco industry fomented skepticism about the carcinogenic effects of cigarettes?

      • Brad Keyes

        “It was not Mann’s hockey-stick graph that created the overwhelming
        consensus among scientists that global warming is real and that it is
        driven primarily by human influences.”

        You’re right, it wasn’t Mann’s work, it was Ben Santer’s non-peer-reviewed post-facto changes to what his IPCC peers had written which gave birth to the “consensus.”

    • im-skeptical

      I should have said sponsored by the oil industry.

    • Alice Cheshire

      Sure, blame the oil industry for bad science on the part of Mann and his associates. A true believer, you are. It’s a ludicrous argument that the oil industry funds this. The oil industry can stop all this nonsense tomorrow by simply shutting down ALL fossil fuel and watch what happens. No where is there a society that can survive on wind turbines and solar panels, except third world countries and many of those cannot. Oil doesn’t care about the politics here. Oil just laps up the subsidies for wind and solar and laughs their heads off at how stupid people are for buying into this. When the lights go out and you’re freezing, remember what you typed here (and you won’t be typing here because the lights are out.)

      Bad science is bad science. Oh—you really struck “i’m a true mindless believer” with that tobacco argument. Maybe you should check on how many of the “saviours of the planet” got their money from oil and tobacco and how many use both of these products. None of these people care about the planet, just about money and themselves. They do thank you for being a good little soldier, though.

      • im-skeptical
        • Alice Cheshire

          It’s really sad that you don’t have anything but appeal to authority it seems. The NASA hockey stick graph is darling. I can make your income look exactly the same way, but it does’t mean you make huge amounts of money. Graphs are very, very deceptive. Plus, have you considered who was aroung measuring CO2 600,000 years ago? No one—it’s a proxy. Except that hockey stick part. That’s called mixing two types of data on one graph.

          Anyways, you’re a good little soldier and the climate people thank you for your service always.

          • im-skeptical

            And you are one of Rupert Murdoch’ mindless little right-wing zombies.

            Drill baby drill!

            • ThePrussian

              Have to jump in here – love the arguments, but could I please get the two of you to read this:

              http://www.skepticink.com/prussian/2014/03/21/how-to-argue-like-stalin/

              There’s a lot of money on the anti-AGW side. There’s a lot of money on the AGW side, too.

              im-skeptical, you are quite right that Mann’s not the driver behind AGW. That’s why his behaviour is so contemptible and appalling – his outrageous antics will end up smearing far better scientists than he.

              Thanks for the links – but the NASA one made me laugh. No one is arguing about the uptick in temperatures in the last century. The interesting question is all about the previous millenium – the ‘stick’ part of the hockey stick.

            • im-skeptical

              “his outrageous antics will end up smearing far better scientists than he”

              And some might jump on it as an excuse to deny the science altogether.

              “Thanks for the links – but the NASA one made me laugh. No one is arguing about the uptick in temperatures in the last century.”

              The link I provided shows carbon dioxide levels over hundreds of thousands of years. And it’s a bit more than an uptick, I’d say.

            • ThePrussian

              The first one is about the temperature, which is what we’re interested in.

              Again, I entirely agree with you that Mann’s antics are discrediting climate science at a time when public understanding of this issue isn’t what it might be. That’s what I’ve written from the start.

            • im-skeptical

              “Again, I entirely agree with you that Mann’s antics are discrediting
              climate science at a time when public understanding of this issue isn’t
              what it might be. That’s what I’ve written from the start.”

              This is rich. I didn’t say anything about “Mann’s antics”. I think that it is the science deniers who discredit climate science. I don’t know enough about Mann’s recent work to cast judgment on it. I do know that Mann was unfairly targeted by the science deniers in the so-called “climategate scandal” a few years ago. By taking a few words out of context, they attempted to show the world that climate scientists were conspiring to cover up information that supposedly refuted the consensus theories about climate change. Further investigation shows that this was all a fabrication by the deniers. It also shows how low they will sink in their efforts to discredit legitimate science.

              So forgive me if I don’t swallow your “skepticism” about Mann’s work. If it is bad science, then the scientific community will surely weed it out. But the science deniers have already proven what a bunch of dishonest hacks they are. And their political leadership is no better. But after all, they are working for the fossil fuels industry.

              http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/03/26/follow-the-money-3-energy-export-congressional-hearings-no-climate-change-discussion

              http://thedailyshow.cc.com/full-episodes/7oi25j/september-22–2014—jenny-nordberg

            • ThePrussian

              We’re all working for the fossil fuel industry. Or, what, you walk to work each day, never take the car, never use electricity except from your own windfarm?

              I’ve shown, repeatedly, that Mann’s graph doesn’t hold up, and I have done so by direct reference to the scientific consensus.

            • Brad Keyes

              “I’ve shown, repeatedly, that Mann’s graph doesn’t hold up, and I have done so by direct reference to the scientific consensus.”

              I haven’t read your arguments to that effect, but if they used consensus as evidence of something then they were invalid. Consensus means nothing, and is not evidence. Only evidence is evidence.

            • Brad Keyes

              im-skeptical, in my experience only insane people think there exists such a thing as “science deniers” (who are busy undermining faith in / merchandising doubt about beliefs they hold dearly).

              Those of us in the reality-based community have rarely had the pleasure of encountering a person who denies science, or even denies climate science.

              Are you all right?

              BTW, if you’ve read the Climategate emails and somehow come to the conclusion there was nothing scientifically untoward going on at CRU, then there’s no need to answer the “are you all right?” question.

            • im-skeptical

              It’s not about the beliefs that I hold dear, it’s about people denying denying reality for their own religious/political/economic reasons. And there are plenty of them. Have you actually listened to the idiocy spouted by Republicans in congress who deny global warming? Do you take Rupert Murdoch’s denialist propaganda seriously?

              http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545

              Back at the time of the “climategate” scandal, I looked into what the fuss was about. I haven’t read all the emails, but I got a general understanding of the situation. Subsequent investigations have only tended to confirm my understanding. But perhaps you can show me some specific emails that those investigations might have overlooked.

              http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

              So call me insane.

            • Brad Keyes

              Sorry, I thought we were talking about normal people. Politicians deny reality all the time, I can’t argue with you there.

              The emails were “investigated” only in the most farcical sense.

              Here’s an anti-science email from Phil Jones:

              “The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If
              they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I
              think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your
              similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?
              – our does!”

              Despite preferring to destroy a massive library of human knowledge about the Earth’s weather rather than let any other humans see it, Jones kept his job as a Professor in a supposedly scientific field.

              Here, marvel as the Professor reveals his complete unfamiliarity with the self-correcting function of science:

              “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

              Er, because my aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

              What a Medieval ignoramus Jones is. Sorry, I mean Professor Jones.

            • im-skeptical

              “What a Medieval ignoramus Jones is. Sorry, I mean Professor Jones.”

              That’s it? If my understanding is correct, he only wanted to keep it from a certain group of anti-science assholes, who Jones believed (based on his previous dealings with them) had the intention of distorting and misusing it, but he did not hide his information from the scientific community.

            • Brad Keyes

              “Do you take Rupert Murdoch’s denialist propaganda seriously?”

              Last I heard, Murdoch claimed to accept “the science.” But I don’t get my news from the conservative press/media, so it’s quite possible I’ve missed something.

              (Incidentally, criticism of what passes for “the science” isn’t limited to the right. Steve McIntyre, the bane of bad climate statisticians everywhere, is even further to the “left” than me—and unlike some “skeptic” bloggers he doesn’t tolerate cheerleading for conservative politics in his comment threads.)

              “That’s it?”

              No, those were just the first unexamined emails that came to mind.

              Yet they’re sufficient to prove (to any scientist who reads them) that Phil Jones is an anti-scientist.

              I thought that was self-explanatory; I would’ve thought his remarks were indefensible; but you’ve enlightened me by giving the first excuse for them I’ve ever heard. Thank you. Presumably you’re not the only non-scientist in the world who understands the controversy the way you do, so that was very helpful of you (explaining your perception of the events).

              Here, however, is why your understanding is wrong and why the excuse you mention doesn’t work.

              – Freedom of information doesn’t work that way. Not as a moral principle, not as a legal principle. You don’t get to say who’s allowed to have the information and who isn’t, and you’re certainly not allowed to discriminate based on “previous dealings” with the person requesting it, or on whatever you imagine their motives are, or on whether you think they’re assholes.

              – In his own words, Jones doesn’t want to share the data with “anyone.” That means you, that means a fellow scientist, that means anyone who asks for it.

              – The people he’s specifically determined to keep the data secret from—Warwick Hughes, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick—are not “anti-science assholes.”

              Science is driven by curiosity about nature. Climate science is driven by curiosity about the climate. The mere fact that Jones’ imagined “opponents” want to know the data (numerical observations of weather phenomena) makes them PRO-science and PRO-climate-science.

              Not only are they pro-science, they’re active contributors to science whose work has been published in the same journals that publish Jones’ work (or better ones). Every time McIntyre corrects someone’s mistake, be it NASA’s mistake or Joelle Gergis’ or Michael Mann’s, he is DOING the work of science (for which, needless to say, he’s been rewarded only with hatred).

              If you think debunking incorrect science is an ATTACK on science, you’ve been suckered into a bass-ackwards [in]version of reality by charlatans whose only concern is to protect and perpetuate false results. Charlatans like Mann, who spent 5 years and great effort *obstructing* the self-correcting mechanism of science by refusing to let McIntyre (or any other person on Earth) see the mistakes he’d made. Get it? The people who’ve convinced you McIntyre is “anti-science” are PROJECTING their own anti-scientific evil onto one of the true thankless heroes of this shameful chapter in the story of science.

              And I don’t use the word “evil” lightly. But opponents of science—including those “within” the scientific world—deserve it. Science is the beating heart of modern civilization, and those who sabotage it and militate against it are literally enemies of humanity.

              You come across as quite genuine in your arguments (which can’t be said for everyone in this “debate”), but if you sincerely expect history to condemn someone like McIntyre as a bad guy for the crime of doing science—for the crime of correcting the mistakes and lies of bad “scientists” like Mann and Jones—then you’re in for a bit of a shock, friend.

            • im-skeptical

              “No, those were just the first unexamined emails that came to mind.”

              Those emails were examined as part of the investigations. You know, the ones that found no wrongdoing on his part. You take his words out of context and misinterpret what he says, as well as his intentions. That’s precisely what he was trying to prevent by not cooperating with people who were actively trying to discredit his work.

              the assholes:

              – Steve MCintyre, a mining industry executive (NOT a scientist).
              – Warwick Hughes, of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, an “anti-climate-science group” that receives funding from right-wing political organizations
              – Ross McKitrick, an economist who works for the Fraser Institute, a right-wing political organization, and other anti-climate-science organizations.

              These people do not represent the scientific community, nor is their work in any way unbiased. They have a goal: to dispute and discredit legitimate climate science.

            • ThePrussian

              Did you bother to read that post about how not to argue? Not to put too fine a point on it, but Al Gore isn’t a climate scientist, nor is the head of the IPCC.

              The fact remains that Mann isn’t trustworthy and habitually deceives people.

            • Brad Keyes

              “Those emails were examined as part of the investigations.”

              No. Actually they weren’t.

              They can’t have been—I included a non-Climategate email (by mistake) in my examples.

              So why do you say the emails I mention were investigated?

              Also, the investigations didn’t investigate every single email. I can’t remember what, if anything, was said about the CRU data deletion email or if anyone investigated it at all.

              So why do you say the emails I mention were investigated?

              “You know, the ones that found no wrongdoing on his part.”

              Because there was a 6-month statute of limitations on deleting material subject to FOI. That technicality is the only thing that saved Jones from criminal prosecution. The investigators certainly *criticised* him for it.

              ” You take his words out of context and misinterpret what he says, as well as his intentions.”

              Yet you aren’t helping me put them back into context and understand his intentions properly. If you disagree with me, you have to say what the alternative interpretation is. Why aren’t you doing so?

              “That’s precisely what he was trying to prevent by not cooperating with people who were actively trying to discredit his work.”

              How so? Weather data is not like emails, friend. If I’m misinterpreting the tone of some written sentence, as you allege, it has nothing to do with what the “assholes” would do with the data.

              What does “discredit his work” mean, and why would he even need to worry about that if his work were solidly based on the data? If his work were sound then he’d just publish the data and be done with it. Nothing a hater could do with the data would discredit him. I’m not sure what you’re picturing, but it’s not the real world of weather data analysis.

              “Steve MCintyre, a mining industry executive (NOT a scientist).-

              Since he’s published in science journals correcting mistakes by scientists, he’s an honorary scientist (though his exact talent is for statistics).

              “Warwick Hughes, of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, an
              “anti-climate-science group” that receives funding from right-wing
              political organizations”

              The accusation of being an “anti-climate-science group” is meaningless opinion. You don’t even seem to believe it yourself, hence the quotation marks. Or do you?

              “- Ross McKitrick, an economist who works for
              the Fraser Institute, a right-wing political organization, and other
              anti-climate-science organizations.”

              Right-wing? So what? Statistics has no political bias. That’s what M&M do: statistics.

            • im-skeptical

              After this, I think I’m done wasting my time here.

              “So why do you say the emails I mention were investigated?”

              I was referring to the hacked emails that relate to allegations of withholding information. They certainly were the subject of investigation. That’s what I remember reading about it back at the time. And I remember the rationale they gave. As I said already, I didn’t read all of them myself.

              “Because there was a 6-month statute of limitations on deleting material subject to FOI. That technicality is the only thing that saved Jones from criminal prosecution. The investigators certainly *criticised* him for it.”

              Talk about withholding information. I think I already linked this, but obviously, you didn’t read it: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

              “If you disagree with me, you have to say what the alternative interpretation is.”

              I did. Go back and read it.

              “If I’m misinterpreting the tone of some written sentence …”

              You are misinterpreting much more than the tone. And if you bothered to do some reading outside your echo chamber, you’d know how the rest of the world interprets what was said.

              “What does “discredit his work” mean, and why would he even need to worry about that if his work were solidly based on the data?”

              This appears to be the sole objective of certain people like Steve MCintyre. Other than that, I don’t think most people are really worried about all this.

              “Since he’s published in science journals correcting mistakes by scientists, he’s an honorary scientist (though his exact talent is for statistics).”

              “McIntyre was also exposed for having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc.” So much for his credibility.

              “The accusation of being an “anti-climate-science group” is meaningless opinion. You don’t even seem to believe it yourself, hence the quotation marks.”

              So you know better than the rest of the world what those emails meant, but you don’t know what “anti-climate-science” means? You do play coy, don’t you? The quotes are there because it was an actual quote.

              “Right-wing? So what? Statistics has no political bias.”

              Right. As they say, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

            • Brad Keyes

              Im-skeptical,

              “Talk about withholding information.”

              Withholding information is unscientific.

              Do you want me to keep talking or was that enough?

              “I think I already linked this, but obviously, you didn’t read it: http://www.skepticalscience.co…”

              Why should I bother reading John Cook’s opinion? I was conversing with you, not Cook. Do you have your own thoughts on the topic?

              “And if you bothered to do some reading outside your echo chamber, you’d know how the rest of the world interprets what was said.”

              This is an “echo chamber”? That’s a bit rude. ThePrussian is openminded enough to let you comment here and you’re sounding like an ingrate.

              “”McIntyre was also exposed for having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc.” So much for his credibility.”

              LOL. Good old genetic fallacy.

              Psst: the CRU emails exposed leading “mainstream” climate scientists as taking money from Esso (Exxon-Mobil), BP and Shell! So much for their credibility!… or doesn’t it work that way?

              “So you know better than the rest of the world what those emails meant, ”

              Huh? Very few people to whom I’ve showed them have had any difficulty grasping their meaning. In my experience, most people in “the world” understand them perfectly well once they read them.

              “but you don’t know what “anti-climate-science” means? You do play coy, don’t you? The quotes are there because it was an actual quote.”

              From whom?

              You forgot to specify. Who considers the think-tank in question “anti-climate-science”? You? Peter Gleick?! LOL…

              I’m afraid I must second ThePrussian’s question to you:

              Did you read the post about how not to argue?

    • MikeN

      “We have simply noted at RC in the comments that the paper does appear to
      have been retracted from the AMS website, and we have no further
      information as to why. I will share this w/ Eric and Gavin so they know
      the status,”

      Michael Mann, to the author of the paper in question Gergis, deliberately misinforming his readers about the status of a hockey stick paper that was withdrawn for bad methodology.
      This paper despite being withdrawn was used in Pages2K, which then used Pages2K to get it into IPCC. Gergis is the Australian hockey stick.

      The Arctic hockey stick is based primarily on varves, which may be problematic as well. However, a single tree ring from Yamal is responsible for 9% of the hockey stick.

    • MikeN

      http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/28/gifford-miller-vs-upside-down-kaufman/
      Surprisingly, even the Arctic portion appears to have been built on upside-down data. I say surprisingly because Kaufman himself produce one that did not have such upside-down usage(after correcting Mann’s error).

    • Roger Lambert

      First look here for me – I am a little taken aback. For my edification, Prussian, am I correct in interpreting that you :

      a) believe in the validity of AGW
      and
      b) believe Michael Mann is a lying fraud?

      That would make you a pretty unique commodity, if so. Do I have it right?

      • ThePrussian

        That’s pretty much it, in both cases. I have no time for Mann, but what his record does not impugn the great work done by people like Anders Moberg, Hans von Storch, P.D. James or so many others. The reason for my sometimes intemperate tone is that I don’t want to see good scientists tainted by this.

      • ThePrussian

        And, look – even if there were no global warming caused by CO2, I’d still support finding alternatives to fossil fuel and carbon capture technology, due to things like ocean acidification.

        I fear that Mann’s record is set to discredit something really important in the public eye.

      • jim

        Rodger Lambert,

        Thinking that AGW is happening and also thinking that Mann is a fraud seems to be a very difficult concileance for paleo-climate people, Paleo T researchers.

        The idea that AGW is happening and Mann is a fraud is a very easy idea for practitioners of hard sciences.

        The after-the-fact selection bias, the bad multi-vector or principle component analysis (non-centered PC), and the refusal to correct mistakes, shows that Mann and “The Team” (their self-conferred name) practice something that is abhorrent to the rest of the physical sciences.

        • Roger Lambert

          Curious as to your thoughts on why if Mann is a fraud, but science itself is functioning and self-policing, his fraud has not been exposed and verified through the usual channels. Do you believe there is a conspiracy afoot?

    • MikeNov

      The Arctic graph has been corrected. The hockey stick has pretty much disappeared there too.

    • Pingback: Career Advice - 5 Ways to Research Your Dream Job Besides the Internet | Create Resumes | Find Jobs | FastJobz.Com()

    • Pingback: How to Locate a Business by Phone Number Easily From the Comfort of Your Home | Create Resumes | Find Jobs | FastJobz.Com()

    • Pingback: Fall of Mann • The Prussian()