Update 10:30 PM: I'm getting a decent clip of traffic representing more conservative readers. As long as you're visiting our fair city, you might find the Austin Gun Right's Examiner or the Austin Republican Examiner worthwhile reads.
Rush Limbaugh says the climate scientists should be 'drawn and quartered'. Glenn Beck touts stolen emails as evidence for a 'scam,' and the Moonie Times says, well who the hell cares. The Moonies are down to 45,000 uber-wingnut subscribers. Last week we explained the story behind one of the emails. Paleo-climatologist Micheal Mann of Realclimate, who was intimately involved in the issues discussed in some of the emails in question, was kind enough to take time out of his holiday week to provide further clarification.
DS: When Phil Jones wrote in 1999, "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," what did he mean?
Michael Mann: Phil Jones has publicly gone on record indicating that he was using the term "trick" in the sense often used by people, as in "bag of tricks", or "a trick to solving this problem ...", or “trick of the trade”. In referring to our 1998 Nature article, he was pointing out simply the following: our proxy record ended in 1980 (when the proxy data set we were using terminates) so, it didn't include the warming of the past two decades. In our Nature article we therefore also showed the post-1980 instrumental data that was then available through 1995, so that the reconstruction could be viewed in the context of recent instrumental temperatures. The separate curves for the reconstructed temperature series and for the instrumental data were clearly labeled.
The reference to "hide the decline" is referring to work that I am not directly associated with, but instead work by Keith Briffa and colleagues. The “decline” refers to a well-known decline in the response of only a certain type of tree-ring data (high-latitude tree-ring density measurements collected by Briffa and colleagues) to temperatures after about 1960. In their original article in Nature in 1998, Briffa and colleagues are very clear that the post-1960 data in their tree-ring dataset should not be used in reconstructing temperatures due to a problem known as the "divergence problem" where their tree-ring data decline in their response to warming temperatures after about 1960. “Hide” was therefore a poor word choice, since the existence of this decline, and the reason not to use the post 1960 data because of it, was not only known, but was indeed the point emphasized in the original Briffa et al Nature article. There is a summary of that article available on this NOAA site.
There have been many articles since then trying to understand the reason for this problem, which applies largely to only one very specific type of proxy data (tree-ring wood density data from higher latitudes).
As for my research in this area more generally, there was a study commissioned by the National Academies of Science back in 2006 to assess the validity of paleoclimate reconstructions in general, and my own work in specific.
A summary of that report, and link to it, is available here. And the New York Times (6/22/06), in an article about the report entitled "Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate" had the following things to say:
A controversial paper asserting that recent warming in the Northern Hemisphere was probably unrivaled for 1,000 years was endorsed today, with a few reservations, by a panel convened by the nation's preeminent scientific body...At a news conference at the headquarters of the National Academies, several members of the panel reviewing the study said they saw no sign that its authors had intentionally chosen data sets or methods to get a desired result. "I saw nothing that spoke to me of any manipulation," said one member, Peter Bloomfield, a statistics professor at North Carolina State University. He added that his impression was the study was "an honest attempt to construct a data analysis procedure."
DS: You wrote, "Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post. As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations," what's the story there?
MM: This refers to a particular tree-ring reconstruction of Keith Briffa’s. These tree-ring data are just one of numerous tree-ring records used to reconstruct past climate. Briffa and collaborators were criticized (unfairly in the view of many of my colleagues and me) by a contrarian climate change website based on what we felt to be a misrepresentation of their work. A further discussion can be found on the site "RealClimate.org" that I co-founded and help run. It is quite clear from the context of my comments that what I was saying was that the attacks against Briffa and colleagues were not about truth but instead about making plausibly deniable accusations against him and his colleagues.
We attempted to correct the misrepresentations of Keith's work in the "RealClimate article mentioned above, and we invited him and his co-author Tim Osborn to participate actively in responding to any issues raised in the comment thread of the article which he did.
DS: Phil Jones again wrote "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. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."
MM: This was simply an email that was sent to me, and can in no way be taken to indicate approval of, let alone compliance with, the request. I did not delete any such email correspondences.
DS: You wrote, "I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal"?
MM: This comment was in response to a very specific incident regarding a paper by Soon and Baliunas published in the journal "Climate Research". An editor of the journal, with rather contrarian views on climate change, appeared to several of us to be gaming the system to let through papers that clearly did not meet the standards of quality for the journal. The chief editor (Hans von Storch), and half of the editorial board, resigned in protest of the publication of the paper, after the publisher refused to allow von Storch the opportunity to write an editorial about how the peer review process had failed in this instance.
Please see e.g. this post at RealClimate. Especially the 3rd bullet item -- see the various links, which lead to letters from chief editor Von Storch, and an article by the journalist Chris Mooney about the incident.
Scientists all choose journals in which we publish and we all recommend to each other and our students which journals they should publish in. People are free to publish wherever they can and are free to recommend some journals over others. For an example of this behavior in daily life, people make choices and recommendations all the time in their purchasing habits. It is highly unusual for a chief editor and half of an editorial board to resign and that indicates a journal in turmoil that should possibly be avoided. Similarly, authors are allowed to cite any papers they want, although usually the editor will note incorrect or insufficient citing.
I support the publication of "skeptical" papers that meet the basic standards of scientific quality and merit. I myself have published scientific work that has been considered by some as representing a skeptical point of view on matters relating to climate change (for example, my work demonstrating the importance of natural oscillations of the climate on multidecadal timescales). Skepticism in the truest scientific sense of the word is good and is indeed essential to science. Skepticism should not be confused, however, with contrarianism that does not meet the basic standards of scientific inquiry.
DS: "It would be nice to try to contain the putative "MWP".
MM: In this email, I was discussing the importance of extending paleoclimate reconstructions far enough back in time that we could determine the onset and duration of the putative "Medieval Warm Period". Since this describes an interval in time, it has to have both a beginning and end. But reconstructions that only go back 1000 years, as most reconstructions did at the time, didn't reach far enough back to isolate the beginning of this period, i.e. they are not long enough to "contain" the interval in question. In more recent work, such as the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report published in 2007, the paleoclimate reconstructions stretch nearly 2000 years back in time, which is indeed far enough back in time to "contain" or "isolate" this period in time.
Comments
<i>DS: Phil Jones again wrote "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. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."
MM: This was simply an email that was sent to me, and can in no way be taken to indicate approval of, let alone compliance with, the request. I did not delete any such email correspondences.</i>
So Phil Jones is to be the Official Fall Guy eh?
Wow, I'm really buying those explanations
Hey buddy, you mind holding the crank of this here generator? We could use some of that spin for something useful like electricity generation.
Too late; the damage is done. You can't put the toothpaste back into the tube.
Haha...watching these guys try to talk their way out of their situation is great comedy.
Mr Mann,
TWADDLE !!
This couldn`t get anymore hysterical. Like anyone not drinking the global warming Kool-Aid is gonna believe these clowns. They were caught red-handed, and now these fraudsters have been exposed, and they will never have any credibility again.
Forget the emails. Ask Mann about his code.
No worries mr mann....just take 10 tree rings & hide the decline man, just hide the decline.....
This is an outrage. Do you realize your lies are affecting people's lives? This flawed data you're peddling is responsible for causing world leaders and governments to pass laws RESTRICTING OUR LIBERTY AND FREEDOM! You need to be charged with a crime.
Michael - Nice try. No human with half a brain is going to believe the spin above, unless they're already brainwashed to believe in the AGW scam. It was bad enough that your bristlecone pine hockey stick was demolished, but to try and recast what these UEA CRU emails say is beyond laughable. Face it. You hooligans have been caught red handed. Best yet, you've given us "deniers" a thread to start pulling, and when we're done (with FOIA requests at NASA GISS, NOAA, NCDC, NCAR, etc.), you, Santer, Wigley, Hansen, etal are done. Finito. Bah-bye. Well deserved. When history looks back on this incident, the Copernican dustup with the Catholic Church is going to look like tame stuff by comparison.
Good luck with that.
What a load, must of taken some time to come up with these responses, so as to 'contain' the damage. I mean, if there is an end, there must be a beginning. Harry_Read_this.BS
So Mr. Mann explains that by "contain" the MWP he meant to extend the record around it so as to better define it. In fact, it clear that he used "contain" to mean "...to prevent (as an enemy or opponent) from advancing or from making a successful attack." (Merriam) He and his cohorts were searching for ways to blunt the use of the MWP as an argument against their claims of "unprecedented" warming in the modern era. He is lying.
Mann : "The reference to "hide the decline" is referring to work that I am not directly associated with"
---------------------
um oh, seems your buddy Jones disagrees : his yesterday "CRU statement" to spin this mess contains graphs that show a blue curve which has a "hidden decline" too. And the blue curve is tagged as yours, Mister hide-the-decline Mann.
Nothing happens in a vacuum and this fraud has been intentional and long planned. Read "Strange Tale of Green House Gas Gang" for the century long history of this Progressive/Eugenic Movement hoax. There are many in acAdemia, media and government who have been willing participants....LET THE PURGE BEGIN ! ! !
Let's give Mann credit. Very smooth and plausible. Much of what he says obviously has some substance to it. I particularly liked his response to the deleted email issue by disclaiming any involvementy and effectively throwing Phil Jones under the bus.
We will still have to call for investigations and take the money back, end the bad science and root out the sympathizers that allowed the 100 billion of our money to be given to these criminals. We must make an example of these guys, public humiliation, and professional castration. There poison must not be allowed to spread. I fear the political forces these lies put into power, Communist all. LETS GET OUR MONEY BACK!
Maybe if enough people fill out the CNN new tip, they might cover Climategate.
www.cnn.com/feedback/tips/index.html
A PLAUSIBLY DENIABLE accusation?!?!?!?
Oh Mann oh Mann!
"It would be nice to try to contain the putative "MWP".
'Putative' means 'supposed'; why try to find a start and end point for something that you don't think even exists??
The term "plausibly deniable accusation" (in quotes) appears exactly once on Google. It's a term that has likely never been used before included in any news article during recorded history.
As far as I know, almost all the paleo-climate data is gotten from tree-rings (dendroclimatology). They say they can tell the temperature in the past by looking at tree-rings. However, if their data does not show the MWP or the LIA, then do the tree-rings really show temperature or something else? I think it is highly possible their proxies don't indicate temperature at all. In other words, the data is complete junk. Their proxies don't show what is historically proven (MWP, LIA), but did they doubt the proxies?---heck, no, instead they say there never was a MWP or a LIA!!!
Typed in "plausibly deniable accusation" without the quotes. 83,900 hits. I guess the numbers mean more when you control the entire data set. Is this the level of authenticity from your numers Mr. Mann? What about the Read_Me_Harry code? What about the expressions of controlling what will be allowed in the IPCC?
well, as the great sage & grandfaker from Tennessee sez, in his "inconvenient" message: "make this a moral issue"...
plausible deniability? 183,000 hits. Here is one that might get less in quotes, "environmental McCarthyism!"
And your invovement in this fiasco reeks of it.
Hockey stick. Disproven. AGW not proven. Manipulation of data, suppression of data, failure to respond to FOI legal requests, professional lack of ethics in peer review, all proven.
That is not science.
I feel sorry for Michael Mann. He produced work that was pounced on by power-hungry politicians. He was given awards, praised in the highest circles, and his career was made. It's not often that researchers achieve such lofty heights. Most struggle through the humdrum world of academia.
But what do you do when others point out the errors? What if those graphs and statements parroted by politicians prove to be wrong? Do you follow the spirit of science and reassess in a rational manner? That would be embarrassing to too many high-profile individuals. Instead, you cover up and hope the establishment will cover your tracks. You assume there will be no whistle-blower.
Now, MM finds himself in the center of a storm. Scientists don't ask for glory, and they never want to face the public undoing of their career. In the lab, colleagues are sympathetic. In the world of international politics, however, it's a different ball game. The only answer at this point, sir, is to come clean.
Sympathetic & Michael Mann - Spare me. There will be no coming clean by Mann, Trenberth, Briffa, Wigley, Santer, Hadley, IPCC or any of their ilk. The climate tribe will defend their klansmen to the dying end. The politicians will defend them to the end. Al Gore will defend them to the end. The UN IPCC will defend them to the end.
But the end will come, and no amount of calling us holocaust deniers, saying we're right wingers funded by Exxon and coal companies, etc. will change how these scam artists are viewed by real scientists, the public, and history.
Lysenkoism, eugenics, and anthropogenic "global warming" (that's right. Carbonicus will not stoop to play their game and refer to it as "climate change". The climate has always changed and will always change, and "no sale" here on their thinly veiled attempt to change the nomenclature when it became clear that temps were dropping not increasing).
Yasser Arafat also won a Nobel. Remember how history remembers him.
I've read this article And others by the Cimate Change crowd. At first I was a believer but I started to become more and more sceptical. The final point for me was that movie by Gore and the fact they MADE my kids watch it. So I watched it. It was so transparent what a weak presentation of Science it was. Those Graphs, Come on!
Anyway, This whole thing is despicable. The UN IPCC, the Kyoto thing, Copenhagen, Cap And Trade. It is absolutely UNBELIEVABLE the grab for power and Money this all is!!
Michael Mann your "science" is trash! And you are a Disgusting Human Being!!!
<<Carbonicus: "There will be no coming clean by Mann">>
Forgive me for giving him the benefit of the doubt, but I suspect that MM is a good man who got caught up in the AGW hysteria and, after a while, just couldn't escape it. If he's a man of integrity, he will come clean. The contradictions in his answers versus his former colleagues' statements have shot too many holes, and he must see there's no other option.
<<Carbonicus: "The climate tribe, politicians, UN IPCC will defend their klansmen to the dying end"
You must be kidding! The politicians are the ones with no morals. The moment MM becomes the center of negative attention, they'll be like rats leaving the ship. The big names in this field have way too much money and reputation invested in AGW to let one man get in their way at the eleventh hour.
This is why MM must come clean. If he has personal and professional integrity, he'll do it. He may face the wrath of self-serving ideologues, but he's win the gratitude of mill
Sorry for overshooting the word limit!
Just to complete the thought, if MM does come clean, he'll win the gratitude of millions.
Nature Admits Widely Cited Global Warming Graph Was Erroneous
The July 1 [2004] issue of Nature magazine ran a correction by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes of mistakes in their widely cited 1998 Nature article, which purported to give an accurate reconstruction of global temperatures over the past six centuries.
[google it...not allowed to post links here]
The real problem with Michael is that you believe your own lies. What you practice is more akin to political science than real science.
If indeed there is a problem with high altitude trees, a real scientist would through them out. Instead, as confirmed by the leaked programming code, the declined was hidden past 1960 but data kept before that. Fraudulent!
And, arguing that counter-arguments to man-made global warming is not valid because it is not peer reviewed and not included in the governmental panels assessments and at the same time doing your best to intimidate editors not to publish sceptics views and keeping them out of the assessment reports, is well, sort of a political hack and not a scientific one. If indeed you have valid arguments against a paper, you comment it!
Great interview! I originally got all riled up by youtube. I don't know what all the emails say, but when I sit back and think about it. I have learned nothing new from the emails. Lindzen and Soon had been saying that stuff all along.
According to a 2004 investigation titled, “Increase of carbon cycle feedback with climate sensitivity: results from a coupled climate and carbon cycle model”, performed under contract W-7405-Eng-48 of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) it appears "corrections" to the models are made all the time when predictions don't match observations.
There is no deceit or tricky. When model predictions deviate from the desired results, due to contractions with observations, the models are simply adjusted. No big deal, its just their method. It is openly published that way. People just need to read it and stop watching Glen Beck.
I wrote about this in a great article titled "On Climate Prediction: Models vs Observation"
Mark Dohle
There is nothing wrong with a magazine that doesn't want to publish an article. Even if it is good, it has the freedom to print or not print anything it wants. That's freedom pure and simple. You a right to free speech, but no right to a printing press or distributors or megaphone. You have to earn those things.
"Scientists all choose journals in which we publish and we all recommend to each other and our students which journals they should publish in. People are free to publish wherever they can and are free to recommend some journals over others. For an example of this behavior in daily life, people make choices and recommendations all the time in their purchasing habits. It is highly unusual for a chief editor and half of an editorial board to resign and that indicates a journal in turmoil that should possibly be avoided. Similarly, authors are allowed to cite any papers they want..."
I agree 100%
One word, "delusional".
And on and on it goes.......The comments by Mark Dohle. More elitist BS. You have the perspective of a religious monk sir.
You support FRAUD. Plain and simple.
All we ever asked for was Show Us the Math!, well we have seen the math and we have seen collusion, and we have seen stifling of criticism or inspection, and we have seen the trick of adding real temps where your code fails so that anyone else that has records from 1961 on cannot refute your algorithm, and we have seen willful and criminal misuse of US taxpayers money (Roger’s missed trip and all the stuff you did not buy that US hardworking and suffering taxpayers paid for through the NOAA), and we have seen the deliberate destruction of evidence in the face of Freedom of Information Act requests. I am more concerned about what we have not seen. I have not seen or heard a peep from Al Gore. I still see the President of the United States prepared to agree to putting a greater burden on the US taxpayer in the now unfounded belief that somehow man was responsible for this last period of warming that certainly ended more than 10YEARS AGO! Hide the decline my great-mother!
Deniers have shown their weak hand. After years of digging, they have nothing but smears, innuendos and distortion.
the motto of the Royal Society, which is the oldest scientific association in the world says, " Take No One’s Word For It." Thus, all science must strive to be sceptical. Come on MM, if your AGW theory was genuine then why all the FOIL denials??? Why should all your data and methods not be openly scrutinized by others- other fields of science do this routinely! Politics, that's why.
So Dr Mann are you going to make publicly available ALL your data and source code LIKE REAL SCIENTISTS do! That way people who want to verify it can do so, you know like a real scientific process.
Start with the folks over a www.climateaudit.org and I'm sure M&M would be happy to go over your work.
I think it is time to take the environmental movement back by focusing on real pollutants. I've been warning the Rocky Mountain Institute for years about this. I am now afraid that the resource (not just energy) efficiency revolution that they have done such great work on will be sacrificed at the alter of AWG. People will throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Given the CRU event and the damage it has done please consider the following.
1) Just plainly state that there should be an investigation into data manipulation and that all scientists should be forced to release all data and source code like REAL SCIENTISTS DO. Stop defending criminals by talking about peer review when they were reviewing each other's papers. You didn't rig data, collude to prevent others from being published, sabotage other scientists careers. You have to distance yourself immediately from the MBH et al ilk!
2) No longer talk about CO2. It's dead, proven to be rigged data and continuing to talk about
Paul,
You are a clown.
I'm Afraid the Enviromental Movement has shown it's stripes. And they are none to clean or honorable. It is a movement in the employ of crooked politicians and money interests. It appears they also serve the ranks that want world government control through taxes and economic constraints built on nothing but Bogus Science.
the motto of the Royal Society, which is the oldest scientific association in the world says, " Take No One’s Word For It." Thus, all science must strive to be sceptical. Come on MM, if your AGW theory was genuine then why all the FOIL denials??? Why should all your data and methods not be openly scrutinized by others- other fields of science do this routinely! Politics, that's why.
It's pitchfork and torches time...
LMAO @ U Mann!
Hey Michael -- what does this mean?
"Yes, we’ve learned out[sic] lesson about FTP. We’re going to be very careful in the future what gets put there. Scott really screwed up big time when he established that directory so that Tim could access the data."
Or this:
Jones to Michael Mann, 29 May 2008 (1212063122):
"Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address."
Did you delete the emails, Mike? Because if you did there is every chance that you will do your 'responding' to a judge.
I invite everyone to go to Mr. Mann's own website: meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
I don't know when he has time to study the environment since it looks like all he does is preach and update his CV to reflect his preaching! Good work Mike!
What a fraud. Besides his pained explanation of tricks, there are hundreds of other emails discussing tactics for altering peer review and trying to silence serious scientists who have a problem with AGW.
OK - I browsed through some of the leaked emails, and I'm no longer sympathetic! Take a look at message #1167928837. In the body of the message, Phil Jones refers to the founder of the CRU, Hubert Lamb. I quote: "Hubert's chapter has lots of detail, many figures which have lines with the phrase 'analyst's opinion' - one of his favourite terms for things he made up." Earlier in the message, Michael Mann claims a particular forecast is "plausible", followed by a winking smiley.
Shocking. Absolutely shocking. Michael Mann and Phil Jones: you have an awful lot of explaining to do.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!