the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

It’s Still Out of Context?

Posted by Jeff Id on December 18, 2009

Today the Washington Post gave Michael Mann even more space to waive away problems  with climate gate.  I don’t have time today to finish this post so I could use some help.  You guys can probably work it out better than I anyway.  h/t Boballab – who’s sent several interesting links recently.
.
Below are a few points Michael Mann makes, since we know he’s willing to sell his grandma for a hockey stick, this needs a little fact checking done.  So for this thread, we need to check Michael Mann’s original nature article he referred to.  We need to see how well hide the decline was explained in the paper.  We should look at the TAR report quotes and see how it’s addressed and paste it all in the comments.  I’m sure there are other great items to discuss as well but I’m swamped.  Links and quotes are appreciated.
.
Maybe Michael’s right this time and ‘everything’ was taken out  of context.  Maybe Mike’s right and we’re all wrong.
.
By Michael E. Mann

Friday, December 18, 2009

I cannot condone some things that colleagues of mine wrote or requested in the e-mails recently stolen from a climate research unit at a British university. But the messages do not undermine the scientific case that human-caused climate change is real.

The hacked e-mails have been mined for words and phrases that can be distorted to misrepresent what the scientists were discussing. In a Dec. 9 op-ed, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin argued that “The e-mails reveal that leading climate ‘experts’ . . . manipulated data to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperatures.” Yet the e-mail she cites was written in 1999, just after the warmest year ever recorded (1998) to that date. It could not possibly have referred to the claim that global temperatures have declined over this decade — a claim that is false (the current decade, as has been recently reported, will go down as the warmest on record).

In the same e-mail, Jones uses the phrase “hide the decline” in reference to work by tree-ring expert Keith Briffa. Because tree-ring information has been found to correlate well with temperature readings, it is used to plot temperatures going back hundreds of years or more. Briffa described a phenomenon in which the density of wood exhibits an enigmatic decline in response to temperature after about 1960. This decline was the focus of Briffa’s original article, and Briffa was clear that these data should not be used to represent temperatures after 1960. By saying “hide the decline,” Jones meant that a diagram he was producing was not to show those data during the unreliable post-1960 period.

32 Responses to “It’s Still Out of Context?”

  1. Greg F said

    Briffa described a phenomenon in which the density of wood exhibits an enigmatic decline in response to temperature after about 1960.

    I was wondering where email 878654527.txt fit in to this. Briffa writing to Tom Wigley.

    </On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Keith Briffa wrote:

    Tom
    thanks for the info. Actually this is a chance for me to to mention that we have for the last few months at least, been reworking the idea of looking in the Schweingruber network data for evidence of increasing tree growth and hence ,potentially at least, evidence of changing tree(read biomass) uptake of carbon.

    The results are dramatic – not to say earth shattering because they demonstrate major time-dependent changes – but changes that are consistent in different areas of the network. We have regionalised over 350 site collections , each with ring width and density data , age-banded the data so that we look only at relative growth in similar ages of trees through time and recombined the standardisd curves to produce growth changes in each region. Basically growth is roughly constant (except for relatively small climate variablity forcing) from 1700 to about 1850. It then increases linearly by about up until about 1950 after which time young ( up to 50 year old) basal area explodes but older trees remain constant . The implication is a major increase in carbon uptake before the mid 20th century – temperatue no doubt partly to blame but much more likely to be nitrate/Co2 . Equally important though is the levelling off of carbon uptake in the later 20th century. This levelling is coincident with the start of a density decline – we have a paper coming out in Nature documenting the decline . In relative terms (i.e. by comparison with increasing summer temperatures) the decline is represented in the ring width and basal area data as a levelling off in the long-timescale inrease ( which you only see when you process the data as we have). The density data do not show the increase over and above what you expect from temperature forcing.

    I have been agonising for months that these results are not some statistical artifact of the analysis method but we can’t see how. For just two species (spruce in the western U.S. Great Basin area and larch in eastern Siberia) we can push the method far enough to get an indication of much longer term growth changes ( from about 1400) and the results confirm a late 20th century apparent fertilization! The method requires standardizing (localized mean subtraction and standard deviation division) by species/age band so we reconstruct relative (e.g. per cent change) only. We have experimented with integrating the different signals in basal area and density(after extracting intra ring ring width and density data where available) within a ‘flat mass’ measure which shows a general late 20th century increase – but whether this incorporates a defensible relative waiting on the different components (and what the relative carbon components are) is debatable. We now need to make some horrible simplistic assumptions about absolute carbon in these (relatively small) components of the total biomass carbon pool and imlpications for terrestrial and total carbon fluxes over the last few hundred years – and beyond! Without these implications we will have difficulty convincing Nature that this work is mega important.

    There are problems with explaining and interpreting these data but they are by far the best produced for assessing large scale carbon-cycle-relevant vegetation changes – at least as regards well-dated continous trends. I will send you a couple of Figures ( a tiny sample of the literally hundreds we have) which illustrate some of this. I would appreciate your reaction. Obviously this stuff is very hush hush till I get a couple of papers written up on this. We are looking at a moisture sensive network of data at the moment to see if any similar results are produced when non-temperature-sensitive data are used. You would expect perhaps a greater effect in such data if Co2 acts on the water use efficiency .

  2. Phil said

    Because tree-ring information has been found to correlate well with temperature readings, it is used to plot temperatures going back hundreds of years or more.

    This statement is contradicted by the statements immediately following:

    Briffa described a phenomenon in which the density of wood exhibits an enigmatic decline in response to temperature after about 1960. This decline was the focus of Briffa’s original article, and Briffa was clear that these data should not be used to represent temperatures after 1960. By saying “hide the decline,” Jones meant that a diagram he was producing was not to show those data during the unreliable post-1960 period.

    Obviously, if there is “decline in response to temperature” at any time or if any data is “unreliable” during part of the reconstruction period, then “tree-ring information” does not “correlate well with temperature” “going back hundreds of years” or indeed perhaps at all.

  3. Jeff Id said

    Does anyone have a link to the original nature paper?

  4. nanny_govt_sucks said

    What Mike meant to say in non-distort-o-world:

    By saying “hide the decline,” Jones meant that a diagram he was producing was not to showto replace those data with something else more alarming during the unreliable post-1960 period.

  5. Ron Cram said

    Jeff, please email me. I am working on something and I would like your input.

  6. Jason said

    Michael Mann information

  7. boballab said

    #3 Jeff the only link I find is the one on Manns site at PSU for MBH98, but it looks like the paper so here is the link:

    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf

    In the PDF file you can see embedded that it is from Nature copyrighted Macmillian publishers

  8. Byronius said

    wrt no 2 above: is there anyplace I can go to find a clear explanation by “the team” of why we should trust tree-based data at all, since the period of time for which we can verify it correlates well with observed temps seems to be very short in comparison to 1000 years? How, exactly, do we “know” that the period since 1960 is the anomaly — and not the (observed)period prior to that for which the correlation is good?

    Thanks, and sorry if this is an ignorant question (just point me at a thread if it’s been addressed…)

  9. green R&D manager said

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=891&filename=1212063122.txt

    Mann replied to Jones request to delete request and Gene’s email. The context is pretty clear. I’m really surprised that Mann is still talking publicly on this.

    Jones asked his help to violate a FOI law. (Solicitation)
    Mann replies in a way that could most reasonably be interpreted as agreement and an affirmative act to further the violation, providing Gene’s email (Conspiracy)

    I’m surprised Mann has not been advised to go quiet like Jones, he appears to possibly have significant legal issues at least in the UK and possibly here in the US.

    East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit – 1212063122.txt
    Enter keywords to search (no need for quote marks)

    The below is one of a series of alleged emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, released on 20 November 2009.

    Browse by 10 | 25 | 50 | 100

    Return to the index page | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

    From: Michael Mann
    To: Phil Jones
    Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI
    Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:02 -0400
    Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

    Hi Phil,

    laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would
    have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to
    have been true.

    I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

    talk to you later,

    mike

    Phil Jones wrote:
    >
    >> Mike,
    > Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
    > Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
    >
    > Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
    > have his new email address.

  10. Morgan said

    Mann is misdirecting, and there’s no point arguing the points he’s making.

    He goes after Sarah Palin’s statement that there were attempts to “hide the decline in global temperatures”. In doing so, he is factually correct – “hide the decline” does not refer to hiding the decline in global temperatures (as everyone here already knows).

    He is also factually correct in stating that “hiding the decline” refers to eliminating tree growth data that shows a spurious decline in growth (which would be reflected as a spurious decline in reconstructed temperatures).

    But he avoids the substantive issues, which are that “hide the decline” proves that 1) confidence in reconstructed temperatures has been systematically exaggerated, 2) this exaggerated confidence has been used to support an exaggerated presentation of the “uniqueness” of the modern increase in global temperatures, and that 3) these exaggerations are deliberate.

  11. green R&D manager said

    Oops I forget to include the part of his article I was addressing:

    My post was addressed to his opening statment that is demonstrably false:

    Mann wrote in the op-ed.
    “I cannot condone some things that colleagues of mine wrote or requested in the e-mails recently stolen from a climate research unit at a British university.”

    Jones requested :
    “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
    > Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
    >
    > Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
    > have his new email address.”

    Mann replied:
    “I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

    My point is, Mann not only condoned it, he took an affirmative act to help Jones get this info deleted by providing gene’s email to Jones. Jones requested Gene’s email for the stated purpose of deleting info in the request of an FOI request. Mann provided it. It could not be more clear.

    Whether or not the emails were actually deleted is a separate issue.

    He then closes with the old mantra:

    “The scientific consensus regarding human-caused climate change is based on decades of work by thousands of scientists around the world. The National Academy of Sciences has concluded that the scientific case is clear. As world leaders work in Copenhagen to try to combat this problem, some critics are seeking to cloud the debate and confuse the public.”

    I think we should take those last words: “some critics are seeking to cloud the debate and confuse the public.” and demonstrate with some his best emails on blocking critics, papers, his hockey stick team etc and demonstrate who is clouding the debate and confusing the public… I know there are already good postings on this, just gotta find them.

    But I would open and close with how he responded to Jone’s deletion request. Everything else is just more instances to bolster the stark evidence he was willing to hide things from the public. It says everything about who was clouding debate and confusing the public.

  12. HEMST101 said

    Phil at 1:46

    So it isn’t just me. That passage seemed totally incongruent to me too.

    Also the reference to “….manipulated data to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperatures.” This is a red herring and misdirection. Anyone who is paying attention to this story knows that ‘hide the decline’ doesn’t apply to temperatures. If Mann doesn’t know this – holly cow!!

    and this:

    “Scientific evidence for the reality of human-caused climate change includes independently replicated data documenting the extent of warming; unprecedented melting of glaciers; rises in global sea levels; increasingly widespread continental drought; and models that predict all of these things but only when human impacts are included.”

    Dr.Mann please read this by a statistician.

    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=1417

    My advise to Dr. Mann; When you are in a hole – stop digging!!

  13. Kenneth Fritsch said

    How many times do we have to hear Mann say:

    “By saying “hide the decline,” Jones meant that a diagram he was producing was not to show those data during the unreliable post-1960 period.”

    I suspect Mann assumes that those who want to believe will be satisfied with this arm wave.

    To the scientist (and not a warming advocate) it is utter BS to say that a real scientists would not show “unreliable” data because the data are not anymore unreliable than any other data from the proxy. In fact, it is effectively out-of-sample data, and as such, is the most important data in the study.

    The real scientist would not only show the data, they would discuss it for what it is and the problems it presents to validity of the pre-instrumental part of the proxy. They might conjecture about potential causes for the divergence and even present some potential man made causes. That would be acceptable, if the conjecture is labelled as conjecture, but in the end the true scientist would admit that until they came up with a hard explanation for the decline there had to major doubts.

    On the other hand, if one were shilling an advocacy position, I would say that Michael is the Mann.

  14. kuhnkat said

    Morgan,

    “In doing so, he is factually correct – “hide the decline” does not refer to hiding the decline in global temperatures (as everyone here already knows).”

    Actually, since they claim that tree rings are proxies for temperature and teleconnect to the rest of the world, Hide the Decline IS for Global Temperature!!!

    Why else do they continue to show such a big Hockey Stick Blade when local temps generally are lower and correlate with flat tree ring series almost as well as the Blades??

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    I have no problem agreeing with Mann if he wants to agree that tree rings are NOT a temp proxy. Of course then I have OTHER problems with Mann handling of Science claims!!

  15. Jason said

    From: “Raymond S. Bradley”
    To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
    Subject: vomit
    Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 07:25:34 -0400

    Excuse me while I puke…
    Ray

    more at…

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=111&filename=926681134.txt

  16. Chandlerian said

    An important point to remember is that because it has been knows for a few weeks that Penn State is conducting some kind of inquiry into Mann’s activities as revealed by the Warmergate e-mails, his piece in the Washington Post is a summary of the position he will take in responding to that inquiry — which is that the science is good and his UK pals did all the bad stuff. Because the East Anglia inquiry will be parallel but presumably independent of Penn State’s, the boys there will presumably do as much as they can of the reverse — the science is good but Mann did all the bad stuff. Penn State and East Anglia would be wise to coimbine or at least coordinate their inquiries, but they probably won’t.
    In general, though, the question should be asked, why the shennanigans if the science is good?

  17. green R&D manager said

    A start to a response to Michael Mann’s WP article. He has really thrown up a softball that provides an opportunity to educate a broader audience. Hope this helps.

    Michael E. Mann wrote an article in the Washington Post regarding “ClimateGate.” Mr. Mann ends his article with “some critics are seeking to cloud the debate and confuse the public.”

    It appears that Mr. Mann is the one clouding and confusing the debate.

    The clouding and confusing begins in the first sentence of this article “I cannot condone some things that colleagues of mine wrote or requested in the e-mails recently stolen from a climate research unit at a British university.”

    Yet when Phil Jones sent an email on May 29, 2008 to Mr. Mann requested help in deleting information, Mr. Mann provided help that same day. Phil Jones requested from Mr. Mann the email address of another scientist for the express purposes of contacting him to delete information. The emails show Mr. Mann replied with that email address and stated he would contact that person. This seem like more than just condoning the request. This seems like active participation to help Mr. Jones in his quest to delete information.

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=891&filename=1212063122.txt

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=893&filename=1212073451.txt

    Later in the article Mr. Mann states: “Some statements in the stolen e-mails reflect poor judgment — for example, a colleague referring to deleting e-mails that might be subject to a Freedom of Information Act request — but there is no evidence that this happened.”
    There is clear evidence of email deletions: On December 3, 2008 Jones wrote in an e-mail “About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all.” This was while talking about responding to a FOI request. It is Mr. Mann who is seeking to cloud and confuse.

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=940&filename=1228330629.txt

    Mr. Mann wrote:

    “Briffa described a phenomenon in which the density of wood exhibits an enigmatic decline in response to temperature after about 1960.”

    “By saying “hide the decline,” Jones meant that a diagram he was producing was not to show those data during the unreliable post-1960 period.”

    The “trick” to “hide the decline” is now well understood by anyone close to this story to be about hiding flaws in the tree ring models. These models were touted to be reliable predictors to reconstruct past temperatures for the last 1000 years or so. If these tree ring models are unable to accurately replicate the temperatures for the past 40 years, why would anyone believe they are good predictors of the past 1000 years? This is not “enigmatic” as Mr. Mann states. It is clear and convincing proof that the tree ring models are not nearly as accurate as Mr. Mann would like us to believe. The decline being hidden was the decline in quality of tree ring models that the IPCC so heavily relies upon to claim the current temperatures are unprecedented.

    Mr. Mann wrote:
    “As Nature noted in a recent editorial, neither the e-mail writers nor the IPCC suppressed any findings.”

    Steve McIntyre has documented multiple cases revealed in the emails of suppression.

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/16/climategatekeeping/

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/17/climategatekeeping-2/

    The CRU emails reveal numerous other instances where suppression of the work of other is openly discussed.

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

    Quite a few these emails include Mr. Mann.

    It is Mr. Mann who is seeking to cloud and confuse.

    Mr. implores the world to take action before catastrophe strikes.
    “Those same models project far more profound and potentially damaging impacts of climate change if we do not take action to stabilize greenhouse gas levels.

    The scientific consensus regarding human-caused climate change is based on decades of work by thousands of scientists around the world. The National Academy of Sciences has concluded that the scientific case is clear.”

    Yet he is will aware that those models have problems.

    Kevin Trenberth, a lead author for the 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change stated the following in an email to Mr. Mann on October 12 of this year.
    “Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming?” This statement is followed shortly by a clear statement about the supposed concensus.
    . . .
    “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1052&filename=1255523796.txt

    It appears the clouding and confusing is coming from Mr. Mann. Scientific theories are proven when they can predict a future event. Hiding and deleting information that may contradict a theory and suppressing debate about it surely clouds and confuses the issue.

  18. John F. Pittman said

    I sent you email, perhaps you are still online. I think Mann’s argument is weak, at best. See what you think.

  19. rcrejects said

    The comments re Michael Mann’s WashPo article (not numbered, but 22 pages with perhaps 20 comments per page – around 440 comments so far) are very interesting indeed. The comments hostile to Mr Mann seem to be running at about 10 to 1 compared with attempts to support him. And the messages are not gentle.

  20. Jeff Id said

    #19 holy crap, they’re demolishing him.

  21. Calvin Ball said

    There’s an easy comeback to anyone saying that the hockey stick doesn’t matter, because of the stronger evidence: If the hockey stick was the weakest of the lines of evidence available, why was it the first to be trotted out? People don’t use their weakest arguments first.

  22. kdk33 said

    @17

    I love that start. Simple direct rebuttal with supporting evidence in his own words – priceless. I hope it goes viral.

  23. harry said

    This comment to Mann’s article is so well constructed that it deserves to be read more widely.

    Nicetry1 wrote:
    Mr. Mann ends his article with “some critics are seeking to cloud the debate and confuse the public.”

    It appears that Mr. Mann is the one clouding and confusing the debate.

    The clouding and confusing begins in the first sentence of this article “I cannot condone some things that colleagues of mine wrote or requested in the e-mails recently stolen from a climate research unit at a British university.”

    Yet when Phil Jones sent an email on May 29, 2008 to Mr. Mann requested help in deleting information, Mr. Mann provided help that same day. Phil Jones requested from Mr. Mann the email address of another scientist for the express purposes of contacting him to delete information. The emails show Mr. Mann replied with that email address and stated he would contact that person. This seems like more than just condoning the request. This seems like active participation to help Mr. Jones in his quest to delete information.

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=891&filename=1212063122.txt

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=893&filename=1212073451.txt

    Later in the article Mr. Mann states: “Some statements in the stolen e-mails reflect poor judgment — for example, a colleague referring to deleting e-mails that might be subject to a Freedom of Information Act request — but there is no evidence that this happened.”
    There is clear evidence of email deletions: On December 3, 2008 Jones wrote in an e-mail “About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all.” This was while talking about responding to a FOI request. It is Mr. Mann who is seeking to cloud and confuse.

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=940&filename=1228330629.txt

    Mr. Mann wrote:

    “Briffa described a phenomenon in which the density of wood exhibits an enigmatic decline in response to temperature after about 1960.”

    “By saying “hide the decline,” Jones meant that a diagram he was producing was not to show those data during the unreliable post-1960 period.”

    The “trick” to “hide the decline” is now well understood by anyone close to this story to be about hiding flaws in the tree ring models. These models were touted to be reliable predictors to reconstruct past temperatures for the last 1000 years or so. If these tree ring models are unable to accurately replicate the temperatures for the past 40 years, why would anyone believe they are good predictors of the past 1000 years? This is not “enigmatic” as Mr. Mann states. It is clear and convincing proof that the tree ring models are not nearly as accurate as Mr. Mann would like us to believe. The decline being hidden was the decline in quality of tree ring models that the IPCC so heavily relies upon to claim the current temperatures are unprecedented.

    Mr. Mann wrote:
    “As Nature noted in a recent editorial, neither the e-mail writers nor the IPCC suppressed any findings.”

    Steve McIntyre has documented multiple cases revealed in the emails of suppression.

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/16/climategatekeeping/

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/17/climategatekeeping-2/

    The CRU emails reveal numerous other instances where suppression of the work of other is openly discussed.

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

    Quite a few these emails include Mr. Mann.

    It is Mr. Mann who is seeking to cloud and confuse.

    Mr. implores the world to take action before catastrophe strikes.
    “Those same models project far more profound and potentially damaging impacts of climate change if we do not take action to stabilize greenhouse gas levels.

    The scientific consensus regarding human-caused climate change is based on decades of work by thousands of scientists around the world. The National Academy of Sciences has concluded that the scientific case is clear.”

    Yet he is well aware that those models have problems.

    Kevin Trenberth, a lead author for the 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change stated the following in an email to Mr. Mann on October 12 of this year.
    “Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming?” This is followed shortly by a clear statement about the supposed concensus.
    . . .
    “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1052&filename=1255523796.txt

    It appears the clouding and confusing is coming from Mr. Mann. Scientific theories are proven when they can predict a future event. Hiding and deleting information that may contradict a theory and suppressing debate about it surely clouds and confuses the issue.

    Shame on you.

  24. Geoff Sherrington said

    The hockey stick was mainly attributed to Michael Mann and the main component of the hockey stick is dendroclimatology, often in the style of Keith Briffa.

    The main defects of dendroclimatology were known before the start of the IPCC. Yet we have Keith Briffa charging around like a bull in a china shop saying in Nov 1977 –

    “The results are dramatic – not to say earth shattering because they demonstrate major time-dependent changes – but changes that are consistent in different areas of the network.The results are dramatic – not to say earth shattering because they demonstrate major time-dependent changes – but changes that are consistent in different areas of the network.

    and

    “The implication is a major increase in carbon uptake before the mid 20th century – temperature no doubt partly to blame but much more likely to be nitrate/Co2 .”

    There is no science in guessing at nitrate or CO2. The complexiry of plant growth and the multiple factors affecting it was well documented long before this. (My personal favourite is SO2, but I mention that conversationally, not scientifically).

    My question is, what type of scientist would then proceed to cooperate with the fiction of the IPCC work, in a complicit way, excluding some counter-argument.

    So there are at least 3 possible meanings for “hide the decline”

    1. The decline in the integrity of climate science;

    2. The decline in the utility of dendroclimatology after about 1950 (and by inference, at all times before the calibration period);

    3. As Steve Mac has pointed out, the decline or slope of the shaft of the hockey stick, by replacing conflicting data with what seems to be a cartoon diagram of no scientific foundation.

    There are attempts to hide all 3, revealed in the CRU emails.

  25. Jeff Id said

    Geoff,

    That’s exactly right. People are ready to give Briffa a pass, but I suspect he is the worst. He knows damn well what he does, he was just smarter in his emails.

    Again, that just makes him worse. Many of his papers have absolute paper killing comments right in the middle, then the conclusion in spite of the killers. Plausible, deniability. It’s insidious IMO and f..ing ugly. Briffa get’s no damn pass here.

  26. Mark T said

    Harry, I should point out that he is not Mr. Mann, he is Dr. Mann. Yeah, I’m likewise surprised.

    Mark

  27. Atomic Hairdryer said

    25: That’s exactly right. People are ready to give Briffa a pass, but I suspect he is the worst. He knows damn well what he does, he was just smarter in his emails.

    Or someone was smarter in their selection of emails to leak. May explain why Mann is on the offensive and looking to offload blame. Oh for a faster police investigation and a reveal of the source.

  28. Tony Hansen said

    After reading the comments over at the Washington Post I am starting to get the feeling that there are some people out there who do not appreciate Michael Mann anywhere near as much as he seems to appreciate himself.

  29. green R&D manager said

    The byline on Mann’s article was Michael E. Mann. Not Dr. Mann. So I wrote the response that way.

    Not using Dr. was also my “homage” to the CRU email where it was suggested they may go after the PHD of a critic…:-). Couldn’t resist.

    Wish I had more time to do a better quality job, but life got in the way. The stuff Mann has done in these emails is to quote Trenberth a “travesty.”

    As of a few minutes ago, comments are still comming in to WP, up to 537. Few if any defenders.

  30. Dave said

    “Dr.” my ass! He doesn’t even deserve “Mr.”

  31. TerryMN said

    Reading the comments brings to mind this vid and song, except that I don’t feel bad for Phil Jones, and hope “it’s time.”

  32. software said

    Somebody necessarily lend a hand to make significantly articles I would
    state. This is the very first time I frequented your web
    page and thus far? I surprised with the research
    you made to make this actual post amazing. Wonderful
    task!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 147 other followers

%d bloggers like this: