the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Who da Mann

Posted by Jeff Id on December 5, 2009

Some fun emails from Singer, Monkton, Mann and others going back and forth on hockeysticks and such.  IMO Mann’s hockey sticks are the worst science I’ve read but I’m just talking about the 08, 09 versions.  Those previous versions have been roundly broken by MM and Wegman prior to the NAS panel, unfortunately the NAS report was written too softly and Mann didn’t get the message. The whole email is long so the number is 1170724434.txt.

Curt Covey Subject: IPCC and sea level
rise, hi-res paleodata, etc. To: Christopher Monckton , Fred Singer Cc: Jim Hansen ,
mann@psu.edu, Clifford Lee In-Reply-To: <20061229145211.611FC1CE304@ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=”0-1893172854-1170723187=:47787″
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <805971.47787.qm@web60817.mail.yahoo.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-sophos X-PSU-Spam-Flag: NO X-PSU-Spam-Hits: 0 Christopher and
Fred,
Now that the latest IPCC WG1 SPM is published, I can venture more opinions on the
above-referenced subjects.
It is indeed striking that IPCC’s estimate of maximum plausible 21st century sea-level rise
has decreased over time.  The latest estimate is 0.5 meters for the A2 emissions scenario
(not much higher from the 0.4 meter estimate for the A1B emissions scenario, which the Wall
Street Journal editorial page has made much of).  On the other hand, the IPCC seems to have
taken a pass on Hansen’s argument.  The IPCC says their estimates are “excluding future
rapid dynamical changes in ice flow . . . because a basis in published literature is
lacking.”
In this one respect (sea level rise) I agree with today’s Journal editorial that the
science is not yet settled.  Unfortunately, the editorial runs completely off the tracks
thereafter by (1) comparing 2006 vs. 2001 surface temperatures, among all the 150 or so
years on record, and (2) asserting a “significant cooling the oceans have undergone since
2003” based apparently on one published data-set that contradicts all the others.  It is
not appropriate to cherry-pick data points this way.  It’s like trying to figure out
long-term trends in the stock market by comparing today’s value of the Dow with last
Tuesday’s value.
Re high-resolution paleodata, I never liked it that the 2001 IPCC report pictured Mann’s
without showing alternates.  Phil’s Jones’ data was also available at the time.  Focusing
so exclusively on Mann was unfair in particular to Mann himself, who thereby became the
sole target of criticism in the Wall Street Journal etc.
It now seems clear from looking at all the different analyses (e.g. as summarized in last
year’s NRC review by North et al.) that Mann is an outlier though not egregiously so.  Of
course, like any good scientist Mann argues that his methods get you closer to the truth
than anyone else.  But the bottom line for me is simply that all the different studies find
that the rate of warming over the last 50-100 years is unusually high compared with
previous centuries.
Summarizing all this, the latest IPCC does back off a bit from the previous one.  It says
on Page 8, “Some recent studies indicate greater variability [than Mann] in
[pre-industrial] Northern Hemisphere temperatures than suggested in the TAR . . .”  The
wording is perhaps insufficiently apologetic, but I find it hard to object strenuously to
it in light of the main point noted in the last paragraph.
If you want to discuss any of this further, let me know.  I attach my latest presentation
— and would appreciate seeing both Christopher’s report mentioned in the Journal editorial
and Fred’s comment on Rahmstorf’s article published in Science last week.
Best regards,
Curt

And Michael Mann’s ‘scientific’ reply:

From: “Michael E. Mann” <mann@meteo.psu.edu>
To: Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@ucar.edu>, Ben Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>, “Raymond S. Bradley” <rbradley@geo.umass.edu>, Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu>, Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>, James Hansen <jhansen@giss.nasa.gov>
Subject: [Fwd: IPCC and sea level rise, hi-res paleodata, etc.]
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:13:54 -0500
Reply-to: mann@psu.edu

Curt, I can’t believe the nonsense you are spouting, and I furthermore cannot imagine why
you would be so presumptuous as to entrain me into an exchange with these charlatans. What
ib earth are you thinking? You’re not even remotely correct in your reading of the report,
first of all. The AR4 came to stronger conclusions that IPCC(2001) on the paleoclimate
conclusions, finding that the recent warmth is likely anomalous in the last 1300 years, not
just the last 1000 years. The AR4 SPM very much backed up the key findings of the TAR The
Jones et al reconstruction which you refer to actually looks very much like ours, and the
statement about more variability referred to the 3 reconstructions (Jones et al, Mann et
al, Briffa et a) shown in the TAR, not just Mann et al. The statement also does not commit
to whether or not those that show more variability are correct or not. Some of those that
do (for example, Moberg et al and Esper et al) show no similarity to each other. I find it
terribly irresponsible for you to be sending messages like this to Singer and Monckton. You
are speaking from ignorance here, and you must further know how your statements are going
to be used. You could have sought some feedback from others who would have told you that
you are speaking out of your depth on this. By instead simply blurting all of this nonsense
out in an email to these sorts charlatans you’ve done some irreversible damage. shame on
you for such irresponsible behavior!

Mike Mann — Michael E. Mann Associate Professor


20 Responses to “Who da Mann”

  1. Layman Lurker said

    It is the “charlatan” hypothesis which underlies much of the Team’s tactics to this day.

  2. AJStrata said

    Folks may find this interesting. If you compare the raw CRU temp profiles against the AGW models (which is the right method to assess the models) you discover AGW cannot exist. What CRU has been doing is taking temp profiles that don’t show a hockey stick and adding in hockey stick, which magically matches those models that assume a hockey stick will show up in the Temp data. Climategate just proved AGW as a theory is wrong.

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11732

  3. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    Mann’s reply to this email (to a PhD scientist at Lawrence Livermore, no less) is so hostile and abusive as to be almost comical. I’m betting that Mike Mann has a lot of enemies in climate science. At some point, people will start throwing him under bus… and the sooner the better.

    What an obnoxious loser.

  4. Timo said

    This is not only a fun email, but also an important one which might give a psychological insight on the Team. Mike complains that he has been entrained into the email exchange with Monckton and Singer. On the other hand, he includes the whole Team in his “attack” on Curt although Curt did not include them in the email exchange with Monckton & Singer. Mike is trying to damage Curt and implies to “say”; don’t oppose the consensus of the Team or otherwise ……!!

    If Mike would be genuine and sincere, he should have called Curt and discuss the topic with him or send him an email without copying the Team. By including the Team into the email exchange, he intentions are different. I think this a perfect example of group thinking and group pressure. I would be interested to know how Curt felt when he received the email from Mike. Offended? Concerned? Or maybe a little bit scared about his future … Probably we will never know. However, this is not the way to behave and reading the email I get more the impression this is more about politics than about science or any other business issue.

  5. Jeff Id said

    #4 I agree with you. It certainly makes clear the nature of the consensus.

  6. John M said

    Mike’s a piker. The best he could come up with was “irresponsible” and “charlatan”?

    Didn’t even call him an a$$hole or threaten to beat the crap out of him.

    What kind of a climate scientist is he, anyway.

  7. boballab said

    Has he done anywork from 98 on that hasn’t been debunked either in itself or trying to tie another piece back into his earlier de bunked works?

  8. Jeff Id said

    #7 See the hockey stick links at the top. Also Climate audit from about August onward.

  9. Jeff Id said

    I misread. I’m not sure.

  10. Morgan said

    Did Mann even send the reply to Covey, or only to his budz? I don’t see Curt listed in the reply email addresses.

  11. boballab said

    @9
    Thats where I’m at. Every thing I have seen of his seems to be built on discredited work. It is also That Dr. Wegman didn’t hit Mann up side the head hard enough with the Clue Bat. Why is this guy considered an expert again? Typically someone with this much discredited work in the space of 10 years would be considered a crank in just about any other field.

  12. I’ve been working through John Pitman’s history lit up by emails here (“Context”, Nov 28) and the one thing that came through is that Mike Mann is another dangerous filmstar like Al Baby. Any amount of rudeness goes, set fire to the planet, so long as the clever trickster Mann can still fool folks that he’s doing good science. He dances with words, doing a sleight-of-hand with erudite words, doing the classical con-man-trick: point the finger of blame away from self, accuse others of the very sins/faults one has committed oneself. He’s a master conman, I have to respect his true expertise.

    Don’t look here, look there, whoops! the pea’s not under the thimble!

    I think a lot of the others have gotten drawn into Mann’s devious charisma, particularly Jones, and I wonder whether North and the NAS and more got equally mesmerised. However of course there is still dark agenda at UN on top of that. I see Briffa and others trying to stand up to Mann and do “good science”, at least, as they understand it and I think they are being as truthful as they know how.

  13. Timo said

    Another interesting point are the dates of the emails. The IPCC issued AR4 SPM on February 2nd, but had to revisted the SPM because there was a flaw in one of the graphs about projected sea level rise. They issued the revised AR4 SPM on February 5th. I recall that Christopher Monckton among others spotted the flaw and made it public.

    It is possible that Mike was “not amused” and subsequently at same day I receives a copy of Curt’s cordial and to- the-point email to Monckton. Of course this is only speculation, but is it possible that he is getting more and more annoyed by the fact that non-climate scientist involve themselves in his field of expertise!? Only Mike can tell, but by using the word “charlatan” …

    Another important lesson is not to respond immediately if you receive an email (or other message) which offends you. Wait one or two day in order to put things in perspective; in practise your reply will be more moderate and convey your message in a better and more acceptable manner. I get the impression Mike has an actional communication style, i.e. spontaneous, absolute, powerful, drive, a pioneer. However, a person with an actional communication style sometimes is faced with negative aspects of his or hers communication style.

    # Morgan might have a valid point; it looks like that the email was not sent to Curt. However, I have the impression that “mann@psu.edu” is the reply email address and also the email address Curt used in his email to Monckton, Singer, Mann and Hansen. I am not sure whether this explanation is correct; an IT-specialist might have a different opinion.

  14. Jeff Id said

    #13 please check any information you have on the sea level topic. If you look up the email yourself there is a lot of detail in it about sea level rise. This is exactly what this exchange is about so if you can provide context, it’s worth spending a bit of time. It deserves a post if we can put it all together. email is on the right.

  15. Hate to say it, but I think I’ve found proof that the actual unadjusted temperatures in Mann’s new paper still make a hockey stick:

  16. DougT said

    #15
    That is certainly the most convincing hockey stick I have seen. well worth a look.

  17. tesla said

    Do these sound like the words of a man who wants to discover the truth through the back and forth of the scientific method?

    “I can’t believe the nonsense you are spouting”
    “You’re not even remotely correct”
    “I find it terribly irresponsible for you…”
    “You are speaking from ignorance here”
    “you are speaking out of your depth on this”
    “you’ve done some irreversible damage”
    “shame on you for such irresponsible behavior!”

    Mann is showing himself to be a hack of the highest order in these e-mails. I know his type. He’s not a scientist- he’s a propagandist. Don’t be surprised by anything he has done to put together the desired message.

  18. Alan Wilkinson said

    I don’t think there’s anything significant in the different email addresses for Mann. That particular email did not go to Covey unless the headers have been changed. Presumably Mann sent it separately from sending it to his Team.

    I note that in the original text file there are several other emails from Singer, Monckton and Covey.

  19. DennisA said

    The 100 million euro support letter:

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=293&filename=1045082703.txt

    From: Mike Hulme
    To: “Kabat, dr. P.” , “Schellnhuber (E-mail)”
    Subject: Re: Letter of Support
    Date: Wed Feb 12 15:45:03 2003

    Pavel
    I will certainly make sure a letter reaches you for Friday. And Good Luck!
    Mike
    At 14:07 12/02/03 +0100, Kabat, dr. P. wrote:

    Dear Mike, John, Alex:
    referring to out tel. conversation yesterday with Alex, hereby our request for a letter of support/recommendation on behalf of Tyndall for our national Global Change Initiative programme proposal called “Climate changes the spatial planning”, (“Climate for Spatial Planning Spatial Planning for Climate); unofficially known to you I guess as as
    “Netherlands Tyndall-like initiative…)

    After we have successfully passed the first round of the selection last year with the Dutch Government, we are know in final stages of submitting the final proposal/business plan (deadline 17/2/03 – next Monday).

    The proposed programme has a total budget of 100 million Euro, of which 49 million is requested from the Government, rest contribution of public and private institutions.

    As a part of this programme we are aiming to set up Netherlands Centre of Excellence (partly virtual) institute, modelled after Tyndall. Leading parties in this effort are all well known to you:
    Wageningen (kabat)
    VU Amsterdam (vellinga)
    RIVM (metz)
    KNMI (Komen)
    ICIS (Rotmans)
    ECN (Bruggink)
    plus another almost 50 parties.

    Could you pls send us a short letter of support, in which you indicate the
    importance of this initiative for advancing this type global change science,
    European dimension, UK – NL collaboration, etc, etc?

    We need to receive this by Friday, so send also by fax pls (apologies for the rush). Letter is to be addressed as follows:
    Prof. Dr Pavel Kabat
    Science Director
    Netherlands National Research Initiative

    I attach 3 documents as background of our proposal

    Many thanks for your kind help!
    Pavel, Pier en colleagues
    <> <> <<Overview budget

  20. […] Who da Mann « a Air Vent […]

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

 
%d bloggers like this: