Paths To Knowledge (dot Science)

What is actually real in Objective Reality? How do you know? Now, prove it's real!

Michael E. Mann attempts to defend Mann Made Global Warming

Posted by pwl on December 18, 2009

In today’s Washington Post Michael E. Mann, who made global warming with his discredited bogus hockey stick graph, defends himself, or attempts to.

“E-mail furor doesn’t alter evidence for climate change

By Michael E. Mann
Friday, December 18, 2009; A33”

Michael E. Mann your editorial of today doesn’t alter the evidence against you.

“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.”

Ok, so Mann jettisons any loyalty for his colleagues with whom he has conspired with to “hide the decline” among other alleged science crimes confirmed by the now infamous Climategate emails, documents and programs.

“But the messages do not undermine the scientific case that human-caused climate change is real.”

Mann attempts to claim that his science is still valid. Let’s review the crimes he has committed conspiring with Jones et. al. at the CRU and other climate research labs around the world.

“The hacked e-mails have been mined for words and phrases that can be distorted to misrepresent what the scientists were discussing.”

Ah, words have meaning dude. You got caught with your britches down Michael E. Mann.

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).

Forget about Sara Palin which Mann is simply using as a camouflage trick to again hide what he did.

In one case, professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia refers to a “trick” regarding temperature data that he attributes to an article that co-authors and I published in the journal Nature in 1998. We showed one up-to-date temperature data set from thermometer measurements along with a longer data set, based on calculations from natural “proxy” records such as ice cores, corals and tree rings, that ended in 1980. The “trick” (by which scientists generally mean a clever solution, i.e., a “trick of the trade”) was that the longer-term record could be viewed in the context of recent temperature measurements.

Wow, epic whitewash. There have been many excellent articles analyzing the “trick” in detail including showing how the graphs used by Mann and Jones et. al. hid the decline of the tree ring data.

See the ever capable Steve McIntyre’s (who first discredited the hocky stick graphs) articles IPCC and the “Trick” and Mike’s Nature trick.

Essentially Mann doesn’t want the world to know that tree ring data is NOT a reliable “proxy” for thermometers since he relies on them as if they were reliable temperature records. Clearly the decline in tree ring temperature proxy data shows that they are not reliable. Mann simply underscores the argument AGAINST his AGW case every time he speaks on this point.

There was nothing secret about this. Both temperature curves were clearly labeled in our Nature article, and anyone could download the data we plotted. The National Academy of Sciences reviewed this work in 2006 in a study reported by this newspaper [“Past Few Decades Warmest on Record, Study Confirms,” news story, June 23, 2006]. Members of the peer-review panel said that they “saw nothing that spoke . . . of any manipulation” and that the study was “an honest attempt to construct a data analysis procedure.”

There are so many places that the manipulations of the temperature and tree ring data are apparent that it’s not funny.

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.

If the tree ring data doesn’t correlate after 1960 it follows that the correlation before 1960 going back in time is highly suspect and should not be used since it’s accuracy can’t be properly established whenever thermometers weren’t present at the same time. The entire basis of your temperature reconstruction is deeply flawed science at best. Clearly “hide the decline” means to hide declining tree ring data that would bring your temperature reconstruction into question. By not showing it on your graph you suppressed the counter evidence to your flawed AGW Hypothesis. Time to face the music Michael E. Mann and pay for your crimes against science, the scientific method, peer review process and your crimes against humanity for leading the world on a wild goose chase with AGW! You’ve not made the case, your science is built upon a temple of manipulated data as confirmed by the Climategate emails. New cracks appearing every week and even every day.

The conspiracy theories about the e-mails are fueled in part by their criticisms of the quality of two papers regarding global warming and a suggestion that at least one of the papers be kept out of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. As Nature noted in a recent editorial, neither the e-mail writers nor the IPCC suppressed any findings. Both papers were included in the IPCC’s report. 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.

I don’t believe you Mann. Your comments in the emails and the code that was also released by the whistle-blower reveals deception after intentional deception and a coordinated refusal to release information under the Freedom of Information requests.

Palin wrote that Alaska’s climate is changing but referred to “thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice” as “natural, cyclical environmental trends.”

Palin is a politician, why are you responding to a politician? Respond to the scientists with full disclosure. Show your work Michael E. Mann. Show your software code. Show every step of your work in full public disclosure.

In fact, such changes are among the effects scientists predicted would occur as greenhouse gas levels increase. 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. 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.

Bla bla bla, you can go on about “predictions from models soothsaying dead tree entrails” all you want Mann, show your actual work don’t spout unsubstantiated claims without showing your work dude.

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.

As we know Scientific Consensus isn’t science, it is politics, pure and simple. By your assertion of scientific consensus as a means to support your supposedly scientific arguments you’ve left the realm of science and entered the realm of politics.

As the Climategate emails have shown so clearly the science is not yet settled and as such it’s premature to be making 100’s of Billions of Dollars of commitments to what can best be described as a non-problem largely created by fraudulent science that you, Mann, created.

In essence Michael E. Mann created ManN Made Global Warming Climate Change with fraudulent science.

Michael E. Mann, the author of “Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming,” is a professor in the meteorology department at Penn State University and director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center.” – Washington Post

An epic fail by Michael E. Mann to say anything of substance. A lawyer likely wrote the article for him, at the least it was very likely highly vetted and even edited by a lawyer.

One Response to “Michael E. Mann attempts to defend Mann Made Global Warming”

  1. […] Michael E. Mann attempts to defend Mann Made Global Warming […]

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: