Posts Tagged ‘hockey stick’

Mann is “A disgrace to the profession” – as “climate science” is a disgrace to “science”

August 14, 2015

I am waiting for my Kindle edition of Mark Steyn’s “A disgrace to the profession” which is only available on 1st September from Amazon. Something to look forward to.

If “the profession” is supposed to be  “climate science” then this so-called “science” – having no falsifiable hypotheses – is itself a disgrace. But certainly Michael Mann is classified and gets paid as a “scientist” and as an “academic”. And to both those classes, Mann is an embarrassment and a disgrace. His construction of the “hockey stick” was not just invalid and unjustified, it was close to fraud. (The Hockey Stick Illusion). But the gullibility of those who have swallowed the illusion without application of mind or any other critical judgement is also a disgrace to sentience.

WUWT has a review of this compilation of what other scientists have to say about Michael Mann’s work on the “hockey stick”.

WUWT:

I remember when Mann decided to sue NRO and Steyn for defamation, and despite all the laughing at the time there was this prescient thought from Dr. Judith Curry:

“Mark Steyn is formidable opponent. I suspect that this is not going to turn out well for you.”

Well, Part 1, or should I say, Volume 1 of that prediction is now in press. It’s a scorcher, hilarity, and a tale of science and politics gone awry all in one.

Steyn realized the word of a political pundit like himself can only travel so far in certain circles, and in a brilliant move, he has gathered a compendium of what other scientists have to say about Mann’s work on the “hockey stick”. And of course, he’s had it illustrated by Josh. My favorite is Mann as Yoda, wielding a hockey stick rather than a light saber, seen in this collage below:

If Michael Mann is a disgrace to a profession which itself is a disgrace, it is not a case of one disgrace cancelling the other, but a case of Mann being doubly disgraced.

 

The “crock of sh*t” wars

October 22, 2013

There is much about global warming political correctness which is depressing

But occasionally there can be a great deal of fun – especially when a self-appointed priest gets called out and loses it.

Bishop Hill (Andrew Montford) reports on a recent lecture by Dr. Rob Wilson of the University of St Andrews where he addressed millennial temperature reconstructions and where Michael Mann and his Hockey Stick and his picky reconstructions came in for some serious criticism:

When we got onto Mann et al 2008, we learned about the silliness of the screening process, and students were invited to try screening a set of random generated timeseries in the way Mann had gone about this study. Tiljander didn’t get a mention, but I guess there are only so many flaws one can take on board, even in a two-hour lecture.

The real fireworks came when Mann’s latest papers, which hypothesise that tree ring proxies have large numbers of missing rings after major volcanic eruptions, were described as “a crock of xxxx”.

But the fun and games comes in the comments to Montford’s post.

Mann was not amused. (He never is – but now he was decidedly shirty).

Rob Wilson was himself one of the commenters and had no complaints about any inaccuracies in the post and added some explanatory comments and references.

“The sh*t then hit the proverbial fan”

Mann started tweeting and retweeting and then deleting his less than diplomatic tweets and in general started “stirring the sh*t”.

Manns deleted tweet:

Mann has already started twitter-marketing this blog post 🙂

‘Closet #climatechange #denier Rob Wilson, comes out of the closet big time: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/10/21/wilson-on-millennial-temperature-reconstructions.html … #BadScience #DisingenuousBehavior’

Oct 21, 2013 at 1:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterEspen

That tweet has since been deleted. Commenter Skiphil added a compendium of the Mann tweets

Michael Mann’s outpourings on Twitter have dug his holes deeper, even as he struggles to explain himself. Now he is denying that Rob Wilson’s criticisms are offered in “good faith” —

@dougmcneall I have no problem w/ good faith criticism. But I don’t see Rob Wilson’s latest as falling into that category 😦 [emphasis added]

Mann tweets from more recent to earlier in the day (reverse of the order in which they appeared): 

Michael E. Mann ‏@MichaelEMann 6h

@flimsin @dougmcneall Fair enough Tamsin–lets leave it there. Apologies if I appeared to question your motives. For the record, I do not!

Michael E. Mann ‏@MichaelEMann 6h

Awful blog piece (http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/10/21/wilson-on-millennial-temperature-reconstructions.html …) may well have misrepresented Rob Wilson’s views. I suspend judgment, pending his disavowal of it..

Michael E. Mann ‏@MichaelEMann 6h

@dougmcneall @flimsin Just 2B clear, I consider Tamsin’s commentary 2B in good faith. I don’t question her integrity, just her views!

Michael E. Mann ‏@MichaelEMann 6h

@flimsin @dougmcneall No problem, didn’t mean to imply any motive Tamsin, but simply that the reinforcement mechanisms favor contrarianism..

Michael E. Mann ‏@MichaelEMann 7h

@dougmcneall @flimsin those mechanisms act regardless of motive. But often they do not serve the public discourse well (2/2).

Michael E. Mann ‏@MichaelEMann 7h

@dougmcneall @flimsin u were wrong. Was pointing out that positive reinforcement mechanisms actually favor taking contrarian position (1/2)

Michael E. Mann ‏@MichaelEMann 8h

Rob Wilson not a climate change denier but has played a contrarian role in debate…

Michael E. Mann ‏@MichaelEMann 8h

@AnsonMackay @flimsin just a statement of fact, not of motive..

Michael E. Mann ‏@MichaelEMann 8h

@dougmcneall I disagree w/ that, as do many climate change communicators

Michael E. Mann ‏@MichaelEMann 8h

@dougmcneall @flimsin Not talking about that. Talking about Rob Wilson talk. Tamsin piece was honest but misguided, as I said at the time.

Michael E. Mann ‏@MichaelEMann 8h

@dougmcneall I have no problem w/ good faith criticism. But I don’t see Rob Wilson’s latest as falling into that category 😦

Michael E. Mann ‏@MichaelEMann 8h

@flimsin nope wasn’t imputing motives.

Michael E. Mann ‏@MichaelEMann 8h

@flimsin Was widely viewed as attack on colleagues like James Hansen for speaking out publicly.

Michael E. Mann ‏@MichaelEMann 8h

Greatly uninterested in twitter was w/ those who seem far more concerned about scientists “tone” than rebutting disingenuous attacks. #Sad

Michael E. Mann ‏@MichaelEMann 8h

@flimsin No doubt your attacks on colleagues over what you call “advocacy” has raised your profile greatly in recent months.

Michael E. Mann ‏@MichaelEMann 8h

@flimsin Tamsin, I don’t need to be lectured on “tone” by you, of all people. Uninterested in a profile-raising twitter debate w/ you.

Michael E. Mann ‏@MichaelEMann 8h

@flimsin Please see the PAGES 2K link that I tweeted. That’s the most basic rebuttal to the sort of nonsense spouted by Rob Wilson.

Michael E. Mann ‏@MichaelEMann 8h

@flimsin Not for criticizing my work, but for apparently regurgitating #denialist drivel by the likes of McIntyre etc.

Oct 21, 2013 at 11:20 PM | Registered CommenterSkiphil
The smell from Mann and his “crock of sh*t” could persist.
His “Hockey Stick” has already been re-baptised as the “Hokey Stick” (though I am not sure who to credit for that).
Some further renaming is now on the cards. A “Crockety Hokey Stick” perhaps to avoid having to use “sh*tty”. Or “The Crocks of Mann”?

On constraining the quality of climate science

July 3, 2013

I wrote this – following the words of the Bard – about something else

The quality of intelligence is not strain’d,
It may not be shaped or created or invented
to suit a man’s convenience. It is twice cursed:
It curses him who invents and curses the fool who believes.

and then realised it could easily be adapted to fit “hockey stick” climate science

The quality of climate science is not strain’d,
It may not be shaped or tricked into a hockey stick
to suit a Mann’s convenience. It is twice cursed:
It curses him who tricks and curses the fools who believe.

Global warming “hockey stick” is turning into a baseball bat

June 29, 2013

(A fun comment at CA is particularly apposite!

Posted Jun 28, 2013 at 5:18 PM 

@Steve McIntyre

From Fig. 4 above:

it’s quite obvious that in 2009 and again in 2011, you shamelessly plagiarised Briffa 2013

Easily the worst sin in the academic book, run a close second only by disrupting the space-time continuum in order to perform the plagiarism)

======================================================

Steve McIntyre’s objections to the Yamal tree (“the most important tree in the world”) in the global warming hockey stick are being vindicated as the new version of the data series resembles a baseball bat much more than a hockey stick.

Full story at Climate Audit and at WUWT

yamal_chronology_compare-to-b13

Another warming hockey stick is withdrawn/”put-on-hold” for bad data

June 9, 2012

One would think that after Climategate, climate scientists would be a little more careful with their “trickery”.

When a supposedly peer reviewed paper in the American Meteorological Society Journal  is withdrawn / “put on hold” after publication when the on-line community (Jean S / Steve McIntyre) find the authors to have cherry picked and improperly “massaged their data, it says 2 things:

  1. that the peer review process at the AMS is either incompetent or corrupt (in that it is especially friendly to papers propounding the global warming orthodoxy), and
  2. that the “tricks” revealed by Climategate are still being actively used by so-called climate scientists  to support their beliefs

That one of the authors – probably responsible for this cock-up – a Joelle Gergis from the University of Melbourne, is more an “activist” than a “scientist” does not help matters . Going through the abstracts of her list of publications suggests that she often decides on her conclusions first and then selects data and writes her papers to fit the conclusions. Cherry picking data is bad enough but when it is done because of confirmation bias it is perhaps the most insidious form of scientific misconduct there is.

Interestingly

joellegergis.wordpress.com is no longer available.

The authors have deleted this blog.

The AMS Journal “peers” who reviewed this paper don’t come out of this very well either. But of course they will receive no strictures for a job done badly.

Sources:

Gergis et al “Put on Hold”

American Meteorological Society disappears withdraws Gergis et al paper on proxy temperature reconstruction after post peer review finds fatal flaws

Gergis paper disappears

Another Hockey Stick broken

Flattening the Mann hockey stick

August 15, 2010

The shape of Mann’ s hockey stick is morphing. The long horizontal handle (obtained by eliminating the MWP)  actually turns out to be sloping and the sharp upturn gets flattened.

WUWT reports a new and important study on temperature proxy reconstructions (McShane and Wyner 2010) submitted into the Annals of Applied Statistics and is listed to be published in the next issue.

A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 Years Reliable?

BY BLAKELEY B. MCSHANE∗ AND ABRAHAM J. WYNER†
Northwestern University∗ and the University of Pennsylvania†
This paper is a direct and serious rebuttal to the proxy reconstructions of Mann. It seems watertight on the surface, because instead of trying to attack the proxy data quality issues, they assumed the proxy data was accurate for their purpose, then created a bayesian backcast method. Then, using the proxy data, they demonstrate it fails to reproduce the sharp 20th century uptick

FIG 16. Backcast from Bayesian Model of Section 5. CRU Northern Hemisphere annual mean land temperature is given by the thin black line and a smoothed version is given by the thick black line. The forecast is given by the thin red line and a smoothed version is given by the thick red line. The model is fit on 1850-1998 AD and backcasts 998-1849 AD. The cyan region indicates uncertainty due to t, the green region indicates uncertainty due to β, and the gray region indicates total uncertainty.

The Mann Hockey Stick
Multiproxy reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperature variations over the past millennium (blue), along with 50-year average (black), a measure of the statistical uncertainty associated with the reconstruction (gray), and instrumental surface temperature data for the last 150 years (red), based on the work by Mann et al. (1999). This figure has sometimes been referred to as the hockey stick. Source: IPCC (2001).

The authors conclude that:

“…..we conclude unequivocally that the evidence for a ”long-handled” hockey stick (where the shaft of the hockey stick extends to the year 1000 AD) is lacking in the data.…..Climate scientists have greatly underestimated the uncertainty of proxy based reconstructions and hence have been overconfident in their models.”



%d bloggers like this: