Global warming scientist Michael Mann loses Canadian lawsuit


Readers!
 
For many reasons, mostly political but partly ethical, I do not use Google, Facebook, Twitter. They practice corrupt business policies, while targeting conservative websites for censoring, facts repeatedly confirmed by news stories and by my sense that Facebook has taken action to prevent my readers from recommending Behind the Black to their friends.
 
Thus, I must have your direct support to keep this webpage alive. Not only does the money pay the bills, it gives me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.

 

Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

 

You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

Global warming scientist Michael Mann has lost a Canadian libel lawsuit he had filed against a skeptical scientist who had said that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.”

More details here. The court also ruled that Mann must pay the defendant’s court costs. The key quote that proves Mann’s scientific work is either incompetent or fraudulent is this:

Dr Mann lost his case because he refused to show in open court his R2 regression numbers (the ‘working out’) behind the world-famous ‘hockey stick’ graph.

Mann is most well known for his hockey stick graph that eliminated any evidence of the well-documented Medieval Warming Period and thus made it appear global warming only began with the industrial age.

Many good scientists have questioned this graph, including Canadian scientist Dr. Tim Ball, the victorious defendant in this case. The court had demanded that to prove Ball’s statement was libel, Mann had to show everyone the legitimate scientific methods he used to create the graph. Mann refused to do so, and so the court ruled against him.

I should add that a number of different scientists have analyzed Mann’s hockey stick graph and have found that, based on the information in Mann’s own published papers, they could plug the data in and with his methods create any graph they wanted, essentially demonstrating that what Mann did was junk.

Does this prove human-caused global warming isn’t happening? No, it doesn’t. What it does demonstrate once again is that another one of the icons of that theory is either a fraud or incompetent, and that his work is not worth the electrons used to publish it. In the case of Mann, the evidence of his political biases and corrupt science practices has been evident for years, first exposed in his emails in the climategate emails. There, he actually worked to destroy the careers of any scientist who questioned his work, rather than debate the facts with them.

He tried to do the same this time with Dr. Ball, and has been soundly slapped down.

Share

45 comments

  • Phill O

    This is a substantial mark in the direction of objectivity: And by a Canadian court. Wonders never cease. There is hope yet that true science can be had. The discussion could become more political as the coming Canadian federal election gets nearer.

  • Cotour

    That Principia article is quite an interesting read. I will assume that the Mark Styne case will be similarly ajudicated.

    I just tonight invited my Liberal environmental (Accent on mental) lawyer friend, who has not spoken to me in at least 8 months, maybe a year, because of the fizzled “Putin controls Trump narrative” that he was certain was so, and his girlfriend to dinner on Monday. (I must admit, I was pretty brutal on him, he does not do well butting heads with me on politics or the Constitution) The Putin thing seems to have gone away with the clearly fraudulent Mueller report. Just wait for the Horowitz report and what follows from Connecticut.

    And I also invited several other younger new friends, about 12 in all, all Liberals and a few new millenial type bohemians. Should be interesting to say the least.

    I make a traditional Italian dinner I call a “Roady dinner” for two friends who when either or both are on tour and are hanging around the city for a couple of days or weeks between shows I make a home cooked dinner for them. These are tech guys with many, many years in who work for the top touring aged rock groups who all they can do is play their music and make money. And all these guys have are crazy stories, one crazier than the next.

    If the conversation lends itself to this subject and I inform my lawyer friend that Mr. “Hockey stick” Mann has now lost his case against Mr. Ball related to the now famous Gore hockey stick graph in the Canadian Supreme Court and has been ordered to pay all court costs, depending on how I play it, he may never speak to me again.

    I can’t wait!

  • Alex Andrite

    Dear Co. so your Roady aged and well seasoned Dinner presented to your friends was …?
    oh, and the back ground music was …?
    Any wine?

  • Cotour

    A man (?) I am not getting your question.

    Its happenning on Monday.

    Wine, yes, of course, its dinner.

  • Andrew_W

    “I should add that a number of different scientists have analyzed Mann’s hockey stick graph and have found that, based on the information in Mann’s own published papers, they could plug the data in and with his methods create any graph they wanted, essentially demonstrating that what Mann did was junk.”
    Links please.

  • Andrew_W: See:

    https://climateaudit.org/2005/04/08/mckitrick-what-the-hockey-stick-debate-is-about/

    The actual paper is here:

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf [pdf]

    This is probably a waste of time, because based on your track record you won’t read it, but will immediately dismiss it because it wasn’t published by what you consider to be acceptable peer review journals. Regardless, others should see Ross McKitrick’s work. He is not a climate scientist but an economist, one however who understands very well the mathematical components that Mann used to form his hockey stick graph.

  • Andrew_W

    Mr. Zimmerman, of course I read the M&M paper (years ago and again an hour ago).

    I’m not convinced that it proves what you say it does, though it can be agreed that Mann did not use the best possible methodology and that he was not as forthcoming as he should have been with the information requests, I’m unconvinced that M&M proved their claim that if Mann et al had used the best possible methodology the graph for HN temperature trends would have been significantly different.
    Here’s a link for you.
    https://www.nap.edu/read/11676/chapter/3#18
    As you can see the tree ring proxy data by Esper et al does show the twentieth century rise in temperatures, as do the other proxy data.
    The whole report: https://www.nap.edu/read/11676/chapter/2#2

    A comparison of Mann’s results with the “correct” results:
    FIGURE 1. Comparison of PC #1 of the North American ITRDB tree-ring data from MBH98 (red) and PC #4 resulting from a PCA of the same dataset using the MM centering convention (blue–for visual comparison the blue curve has been adjusted to have the mean and amplitude of the red curve, as only the relative pattern of variation in the predictors matters in the MBH98 methodology).
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-claims-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/

    “This is probably a waste of time, because based on your track record you won’t read it (wrong), but will immediately dismiss it because it wasn’t published by what you consider to be acceptable peer review journals.”
    Yep, I guess they had to find somewhere to publish it.

  • Andrew_W

    The selection of publisher explained:
    “Given that each of the criticisms of MBH98 raised by MM are demonstrably false, one might well be led to wonder how MM, using the MBH98 method and their putative ‘corrected’ version of the MBH98 proxy dataset, were able to obtain a reconstruction so at odds with the MBH98 reconstruction and virtually all existing reconstructions (in particular, in its apparent indication of anomalous 15th century warmth). Rather than ‘correcting’ the MBH98 proxy data set, we demonstrate that the reconstruction of MM resulted, instead, from their selective censoring of key indicators from the MBH98 proxy dataset. Indeed, we are able to reproduce the MM reconstruction of anomalous 15th century warmth when the entire ITRDB North American data set (and the ‘Queen Anne’ series) are censored from the proxy network (Figure 4). These data (in fact, 70% of all of the proxy data used by MBH98 prior to AD 1600) were unjustifiably censored from the MBH98 dataset by McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) in their original analysis (see Jones and Mann, 2004, and Rutherford et al, 2004 for a discussion).”
    (from previous link)

  • David Lohnes

    Thanks for posting this. Amazing how this story is being ignored by nearly all the media that is searchable on Google News.

  • David Lohnes: Thank you for the kind words and the subscription. I am curious what the Whiz Bang Science Show is.

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    You worte: “I’m not convinced that it proves what you say it does, though it can be agreed that Mann did not use the best possible methodology and that he was not as forthcoming as he should have been with the information requests, I’m unconvinced that M&M proved their claim that if Mann et al had used the best possible methodology the graph for HN temperature trends would have been significantly different.

    But you have often made clear that you are convinced that the Hockey Stick graph is valid, despite being unable to present any of your own examples of peer reviewed papers that validate it.

    The problem that you suffer from, Andrew_W, is called confirmation bias. You want to believe one point of view and reject out of hand any other information that comes your way.

    The East Anglia group managed to invalidate tree ring data when they chose to “hide the decline,” a problem in which actual temperature measurements conflicted with tree ring data. Tree ring data did not break their way, so they chose to cherry pick the data that they presented and to hide the part where the data shows that tree ring data is a poor proxy for temperature. This is contrary to the scientific method.

    That hidden decline shows the falseness of the premise of the Tree Ring section of your link to the National Academies Press paper. Tree ring data cannot reliably be used as a proxy for temperature. For some reason, climate scientists refuse to acknowledge this limitation.

    What surprises me most (but it really should not) is that you, Andrew_W, are still clinging to the Hockey Stick graph even though Mann has demonstrated that even he cannot demonstrate that it is valid. Mann has just destroyed all credibility of this graph.

    For a multitude of reasons, it is time to give up on this piece of nonsense and start searching for evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming actually exists rather than being just an assumption. So far, no one has brought even a tidbit of evidence supporting this claim, and the Hockey Stick graph now supports those who believe that the AGW claim is a hoax and that Mann is one of the perpetrators of this supposed hoax.

    Mann, his graph, and his lawsuits have diverted a lot of effort and resources away from actual studies of global warming and climate change. We have lost a lot of time, and if AGW is an actual problem that needs some mitigation, we are now a good decade or more behind where we should be in determining what to do about it.

    Worse, much of the most important parts of the temperature record has been corrupted — fudged — in order to support this bogus Hockey Stick graph. This sets us back a century or more in our ability to compare human activity with actual temperatures and temperature changes. We will have to start anew with better (scientifically valid) data and proxies, when necessary.

    Answering the question as to whether AGW is real or imagined could take another century, now that most of the past efforts have been unscientifically corrupted by the very people that we rely upon to answer the question.

  • Andrew_W

    But you have often made clear that you are convinced that the Hockey Stick graph is valid, despite being unable to present any of your own examples of peer reviewed papers that validate it.

    I’ve certainly mentioned subsequent peer reviewed studies supporting the hockey stick graph, here’s an update that includes additional studies:
    Esper 2002
    Wahl 2007
    Moburg et al 2005
    Huang 2000
    Smith 2006
    Oerlemans 2005
    Mann 2008
    Briffa 2001
    Crowley & Lowery 2000
    Guillot, Rajaratnam, Emile-Geay 2015
    PAGES 2K consortium 2013

    Perhaps you can provide a few peer reviewed studies that refute the hockey stick?

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    You wrote: “Perhaps you can provide a few peer reviewed studies that refute the hockey stick?

    Too late, but then again, you never pay attention.

  • Andrew_W

    Too late, but then again, you never pay attention.

    I’ll take that as a no.

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    You wrote: “I’ll take that as a no.

    Once again, you did not pay any attention. Every time you write on this topic, your undying bias shines.

  • Phill O

    The data presented by Dr. Ball is what Dr. K. Tapping uses and is consistent with the historical record of the mini ice age which impacted the European continent so adversely. The major warm period is consistent with the Scandinavians inhabiting Greenland.

    Parks Canada did listen to the evidence for forests (5000 years ago) being where the Athabasca glacier is now. This changed that the last ice age ended 15,000 years ago.

    Nature has shown in many places, that there have been rather dramatic climate changes, although these dramatic changes can be relatively slow or fast in happening.

    The hockey stick is still valid at Maple-leaf Gardens though.

  • Edward

    You see, Andrew_W, going over this stuff again and again with you does no good. You will not accept reality, and I learn nothing new. Mann is unable to explain that Dr. Tim Ball was wrong and that his Hockey Stick graph is valid, which means that it is invalid, but you refuse to accept this reality and continue to insist that the graph is gold rather than malarkey.

    I will argue new points with you, knowing that you are unconvinceable, but at least my arguments are new.

  • Andrew_W

    Edward, what Dr. Ball’s supporters are claiming and what Dr. Mann is claiming are very different, I went in search of a statement from the court but apparently the ruling to dismiss was from the bench and (so far) there’s been no written ruling released.

    Mann is unable to explain that Dr. Tim Ball was wrong and that his Hockey Stick graph is valid, which means that it is invalid,

    That claim is certainly not justified, the dismissal of a libel case in a court does not demonstrate that the accusations but the respondent were true, merely that they were not libelous, and in this case there was not even a ruling on whether or not the statements were libelous because the dismissal was on the basis of: the time of the case was taking and/or Mann not providing the required scientific and/or Dr. Ball appealing to the court to dismiss the case due to his poor health and the deleterious effects on his health should the case be continued. Given the partisanship around the case I’m not going to swallow anyone’s version except the courts if and when a written ruling is released. But those of you falling all over each other to find evidence that supports your biases will find what they want to find without even looking at a court ruling.

  • Andrew_W

    Edward, as you no doubt are aware in science it’s important that for a claim to be accepted as valid the experiment has to be able to be repeated with the same results, I’m unaware of anything in the peer reviewed literature repeating M&M’s claims that Mann et al’s data did not produce a hockey stick type graph when processed using Mann’s data and the “correct” methodology, I am aware of several peer reviewed papers that have produced a hockey stick type graph using Mann’s data when processed using the “corrected” methodology, I am aware of several other peer reviewed studies that use multiple proxy data sets and also produced a hockey stick type graph (as I’ve listed above.

    either produce something that supports M&M’s claims or stop pretending you’ve got verified evidence that the “hockey stick” is proved false.

  • Edward

    That claim is certainly not justified

    It is amazing that you defend a graph that is inexplicable even to its creator. If a PhD candidate defended his dissertation by saying “trust me, it’s correct,” the committee would laugh him out of the room. Yet, here you are, trying to convince us that the expert on the topic doesn’t have to know anything about his work, that the work is good despite his complete incompetence on the topic.

    Mann filed the lawsuit in an attempt to delay the time when the world finally accepts that his bogus graph is invalid, but when the rubber hit the road, or should I say the plaintiff hit the witness stand, his incompetence on the topic was all that he brought with him. His graph was long ago shown to be phony, and that is why so many people were saying so. Mann chose to file lawsuits in an attempt to shut up those who pointed out the fraudulent nature of his graph.

    It was taking so much time because Mann cannot explain his sham graph and has been delaying this case as well as Steyn’s case. The longer he could keep the courts from ruling against him, the more fools he could con into swallowing his spurious work.

    I’m not going to swallow anyone’s version except the courts

    Really? The court ruled against the plaintiff, yet you continue to argue for the plaintiff, belying what you wrote. What you should have written, what would have been credible, is: “I’m not going to swallow anyone’s version except Mann’s.”

    In court, Mann had nothing. Diddly. Squat. Nada. Goose eggs. Zip. And zilcho. Yet he is still a deity in your eyes.

    I’m unaware of anything in the peer reviewed literature repeating M&M’s claims that Mann et al’s data did not produce a hockey stick type graph when processed using Mann’s data and the ‘correct’ methodology

    Because you do not understand science, your premise is incorrect. Mann is the only person who has made a claim. It is an extraordinary claim, at that, as it negates known factors, such as the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. But no. For you, everyone else must prove their skepticism; Mann’s work must be accepted unchallenged, because the debate is over. How very unscientific of you.

    You have no idea how science works, yet you have the audacity to try to explain it to the rest of us. You are unable to do so. This is just like Mann, unaware of how his graph works and unable to explain it to the rest of the world. You and Mann are two peas in a pod.

    M&M’s claims that Mann et al’s data did not produce a hockey stick type graph when processed using Mann’s data

    You don’t even understand MCIntyre and McKitrick’s study and complaint about the graph. You insist that you want us to give you links to papers, but when we do then you do not read them, and you most definitely always reject them, because they are not the IPCC, the only source you are willing to accept. Otherwise you would have read the paper in the link that Robert gave you, above, and you wouldn’t have tried to tell me this poppycock about M&M’s study.

    What McKitrick’s paper said: “The Mann algorithm did just this. It would, in effect, look through a data set and identify series with a 20th century trend, then load all the weight on them. In effect it ‘data-mines’ for hockey sticks.” The problem isn’t that they could not repeat the graph, it is that they would get a similar graph out of virtually any data, from tree rings to sports scores.

    As McKitrick wrote: “The IPCC carries an enormous trust. Governments around the world rely on its reports to the active
    exclusion of all other information sources.
    ” You have told us that you act just like these governments, excluding all non-IPCC information sources. This is the tragedy of having a biased sole-source of information. People like you swallow their malarkey hook, line, sinker, rod, and reel, and won’t even accept a court’s verdict when it contradicts the malarkey.

    Here you are, ignorant of science and the topic at hand, yet you are attempting and failing, naturally, to defend the indefensible. Even its creator cannot explain it; why do you think you have a snowball’s chance to defend it? You aren’t even embarrassed.

  • Andrew_W

    His graph was long ago shown to be phony,

    Except for all the peer reviewed studies – which you ignore and certainly don’t read.

    “I’m not going to swallow anyone’s version except Mann’s.”

    As I’ve made clear, I’ve no opinion on the basis of the court’s ruling because I have not seen a statement from the court, you no the other hand can claim “I’m not going to swallow anyone’s version except the version being claimed by Ball’s supporters”, earlier you accused me of confirmation bias, but it’s you who is only looking at sources that support what you want to believe, trusting without question – and refuse to examine sources contrary to what you want to believe.

    Mann is the only person who has made a claim.

    Does one laugh or weep at such a deluded claim?
    I gave you a list of peer reviewed studies from numerous scientists that support the hockey stick type graph, whereas those such as yourself can only point to discredited papers by M&M and S&B. Every year more proxy data is becoming available and every year more peer reviewed papers are published that reinforce the original hockey stick graph.
    Here are some more papers supporting the early Mann, Bradley and Hughes paper:
    Juckes et al 2007
    Lee, Zwies & Tsao 2008
    Hung, Pollack & Shen 2008
    Kaufman et al 2009
    Ljunggvist et al 2012
    Marcott et al 2013

    Will you even look at any of these paper? On your record so far I doubt it, they don’t say what you want them to say so in your personal universe they must not be allowed to exist.

    Whereas I have read McIntyre & McKitrick 2005, I have read The Wegman report, I have read Soon and Baliunas.

    It’s beyond bizarre that you accuse me of confirmation bias when you’re the one not reading material that you don’t agree with.

    And then we can talk about other sources of information, I read Curry’s blog, I read Spencer’s blog I read Watts blog (except for the screeds of BS about why this or that politician, non-scientist, self promoting alarmist claims the world is ending in 12 years, because, as with you, most people in the wider debate are ignoring the science and talking nonsense.

    I’ve always been skeptical of the claims made in the wider politicized debate on both sides, but I pretty sure that given your confirmation bias and need to project your own problems with being impartial onto others that you are unable to believe that I don’t have some ideological motivations just because you do.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/adventures-on-the-east-side/comment-page-4/#comment-28501

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    You still aren’t embarrassed.

    You wrote: “but it’s you who is only looking at sources that support what you want to believe, trusting without question – and refuse to examine sources contrary to what you want to believe.

    Which just shows how little you know about me. You make assumptions based upon projecting your own methods and biases onto me. I continually read several views and compare them with each other. McIntyre and McKitrick are compelling. There was even a website that allowed anyone to plug data into the Mann algorithm to see what popped out, and that was very compelling.

    The papers that you twice didn’t even bother to link are not compelling, because they do not say what you think that they say.

    You, on the other hand, have insisted that the IPCC is the only trusted source of information, and as I noted above, you did not bother to read even the paper at Robert’s link.

    The difference between us is that you already have decided that AGW is real, that the Hockey Stick graph is correct, and anyone who disagrees is anti-AGW. You assume that I am anti-AGW. The reality is that I still have an open mind on this topic, because it has not yet been shown either way. Skeptics are not deniers, they are only skeptical. My viewpoint needs no proof, because my viewpoint is that we still need to find the proof one way or the other. The science is not settled.

    As I’ve made clear …

    No, you made clear that it is only the IPCC that you believe. The court is not the IPCC, so you haven’t even bothered to search for their ruling. Especially since it does not say that the Hockey Stick graph is valid, the only ruling that you will accept. The ruling is not the important part, either. The important part is Mann’s inability to explain his own graph. That you do not accept the fact that he cannot do such a simple thing shows that you are going to go down believing in Mann’s graph, which he won’t even support.

    You see, my mistakes are that I project my interest in the topic onto you. You are not nearly as interested in this topic as I am, so you do not do much in the way of studying it, and what little you do study is only that which will support your preconceived notions. You even say so yourself: “I read Curry’s blog, I read Spencer’s blog I read Watts blog (except for the screeds of BS about why this or that politician, non-scientist, self promoting alarmist claims the world is ending in 12 years, because, as with you, most people in the wider debate are ignoring the science and talking nonsense.” If you disagree with it, it is only nonsense to you and unscientific to boot.

    they don’t say what you want them to say so in your personal universe they must not be allowed to exist.

    More projection on your part.

    Once again, these papers, and the ones from August 27th, do not say what you seem to think that they say. They don’t make my case, but that is OK by me, because they are not my references but yours. Why shouldn’t they exist? Oh, that’s right. It is your philosophy that if they don’t support your case they must not be allowed to exist, and you are once again projecting your own opinions onto me. Have I mentioned, yet, that this just shows how little you know about me?

    I don’t think that you have read these papers, which is why I have said that you are ignorant on the topic. Few of them even do the Hockey Stick thing, and some just show the already accepted temperatures for the past millennium or more, where you seem to be confusing the rise in temperature after the Little Ice Age with Mann’s Hockey Stick blade. If you did read them, then I am justified in seriously doubting your ability to analyse the content of any paper that you read.

    I suspect that you just looked on the web for a bunch of papers that you thought would support your deity, Mann, but failed to understand that they are different than you think they are. You failed to provide quotes that would support your conclusion of what the papers said.

    Perhaps you saw some graphs and charts and thought that proved your point. You referenced some papers that have graphs that occasionally correlate with parts of Mann’s Hockey Stick, but you confuse correlation with causation. Just because there are some correlations does not mean that the math is correct. As McIntyre & McKitrick said, Mann’s algorithm puts too much weight on the 20th century, skewing his chart in that century.

    Whereas I have read McIntyre & McKitrick 2005,

    If this is true, which I doubt, then you did not comprehend it, as you seriously mischaracterized it in your second August 29 comment, above.

    because, as with you, most people in the wider debate are ignoring the science and talking nonsense.

    It’s cute that you think you know what the science is.

    My career has been in science and engineering. I built the AXIS instrument on the UARS satellite, doing part of the measurement of incoming energy vs. out going energy on Earth as part of environmental studies, and I even did a little work on HEPS and MEPS, which measured incoming energetic particles. You, on the other hand, can’t even understand McIntyre & McKitrick then argue against them, which isn’t so cute.

    I’ve been looking into this topic since the early 1980s, when the climate scientists made the sudden claim that it was not the next Ice Age that we needed to worry about but global warming. We weren’t going to freeze under two miles of glaciers but fry while treading water from all the melted glaciers, and anywhere that wasn’t flooded would be a desert. That is essentially what the news media were telling us in the 1970s and then in the 1980s.

    Naturally, I wanted to know which it was, freeze or fry while drowning, and why the scientists had had such a sudden change of opinion.

    [*** SPOILER ALERT ***]
    It turned out that they didn’t know as much about the topic as they wanted us to believe. It is a relatively new science, despite meteorology being so important for centuries and millenniums, and there are a tremendous number of variables, unknowns, and missing links. One missing link is the relationship between an increase in CO2 and the corresponding increase in H2O due to the temperature rise from the additional CO2; both would be a cause of increased temperature. The scientists used a guess in their famous models — the models that failed to predict the “pause.” They had to guess, but when the models failed they did not attempt to update their models. Why? Because the failure was not due to that guessed link but due to yet another unknown — an unknown unknown. These are just two of the reasons why the science is not yet settled.

    [*** END SPOILER ***]
    You, Andrew_W, need to do far, far more research and to understand that the science is far from settled. Stop assuming you know more than the scientists who are still trying to figure out what they don’t know that they don’t know.

    The Hockey Stick never worked, and the papers that you reference do not prove that it does. The algorithm is flawed, but some people do not want to admit it, even though Mann just did.

  • Andrew_W

    I continually read several views and compare them with each other.
    You’ve offered no evidence of that, only referencing material that supports you’re bias.

    There was even a website that allowed anyone to plug data into the Mann algorithm to see what popped out, and that was very compelling.
    No doubt it was compelling, you appear to have swallowed the narrative without question, M&M mishandled their analysis, proper application of the Mann algorithm and subsequent studies support their conclusions, one of my links above explains how M&M mishandled Mann’s algorithm, evidently with the intention of creating a false output.

    . . you did not bother to read even the paper at Robert’s link.
    Wrong again.
    The papers that you twice didn’t even bother to link are not compelling, because they do not say what you think that they say.
    Except they do.

    You, on the other hand, have insisted that the IPCC is the only trusted source of information,
    I haven’t referenced the IPCC once in this thread, again you’re projecting onto me your ideologically motivated preconceptions about what I think and what I’ve said.

    and as I noted above, you did not bother to read even the paper at Robert’s link.
    Wrong, it was instructive though in demonstrating that in the introduction McKitrick doesn’t even try to conceal his ideological convictions that it’s everyone else that’s being dishonest and is incapable of looking at the data objectively.

    so you haven’t even bothered to search for their ruling.
    Wrong again (you’re very good at being wrong) Mann stated that the ruling had been made from the bench and that so far there was no written ruling, I’ve asked on a couple of blogs and searched the BC courts website for court information on the ruling on the case. If you have the ruling I’d be grateful for a link.

    If you disagree with it, it is only nonsense to you and unscientific to boot.
    15 years ago a large proportion of the articles on WUWT were about the peer reviewed science, now it’s stuff like:
    “Climate Catastrophe News Cabal Ramps Up”
    “Aussie Government: UNESCO Should NOT cite Climate Risks to the Great Barrier Reef”
    “Nuking Hurricanes”

    Very little on peer reviewed science of climate change, much more on cringe worthy populist MSM stories. (my reference to “screeds of BS” was a reference to WUWT, not the other blogs I mentioned).

    . . . do not say what you seem to think that they say.
    Wrong.

    you seriously mischaracterized it in your second August 29 comment, above.
    I don’t think so, though in that comment I did say:
    either produce something that supports M&M’s claims or stop pretending you’ve got verified evidence that the “hockey stick” is proved false.
    Still waiting on that one, still nothing in the peer reviewed literature that supports M&M’s claims.

    I’ve been looking into this topic since the early 1980s, when the climate scientists made the sudden claim that it was not the next Ice Age that we needed to worry about but global warming. We weren’t going to freeze under two miles of glaciers but fry while treading water from all the melted glaciers, and anywhere that wasn’t flooded would be a desert.
    And there we have it again, you’re obviously too tied up in emotions to make any rational judgments on the whole topic, “you’re convinced that everything is about one form of alarmism and disaster or another, you always have to contaminate your perspective on the science with the BS in the media or on political blogs, to you climate change revolves around the politics of it all, whereas I don’t care about or for all the popular hype, it’s all BS, no matter how many people thought the Earth was flat they didn’t unround it by an inch, and no matter how many people think or don’t think we’re all going to “fry while treading water from all the melted glaciers” they’re not going to change the temperature, the rate of melting or the physics in the slightest.

    That is essentially what the news media were telling us in the 1970s and then in the 1980s.
    Which again illustrates that you’ve let your biases guide your judgement, what the media is saying is irrelevant to those focused on what the science says, and I don’t pay any attention to the popular BS, getting wrapped up in media hype just distracts to from looking at the science, you get captured by the politics, and you’re very political in your thinking, I don’t have to go more than two pages on this blog to see that.

    SPOILER ALERT
    The “pause” was a result of the switch between El Nino and La Nina conditions, you can go back through the 20th century weather records and find similar “pauses” that had a strong El Nino at the start and La Nina conditions at the end, and get ready, the 2016 El Nino likely marks the start of another such “pause”.

    Stop assuming you know more than the scientists who are still trying to figure out what they don’t know that they don’t know.
    And once again you’re attributing to me things that I’ve never claimed, indeed I’m not claiming I know more than the scientists, they say that the hockey stick is sound, the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed papers on the topic support the hockey stick pattern of past climate in relation to present climate with the most comprehensive studies now having high confidence that the planet is warmer now than it has been at any tie in the last 2000 years.

    The algorithm is flawed
    It was, but not enough to seriously compromise the overall results, and because it was flawed more recent studies use different proxies and different algorithms – but damn it, that stand out late twentieth century – early twenty first century warming just won’t disappear.

  • Cotour

    Andrew W:

    This is the take away: Michael Mann lost his case against Mr. Ball who called him out as a fraud related to his flavor of scientific interpretation of “Climate Change” / “Global Warming”, Al Gore “Hockey Stick”, in the Canadian Supreme Court. In addition to loosing the case he has been ordered to pay for Mr. Balls legal bills to the tune of I have to assume millions of dollars.

    (I would think that if Mr. Mann who was fully aware of the jeopardy that he was financially potentially in that he would have revealed the information and his methodology that he implemented to come to his conclusions about the subject so it could be vetted by other scientists and win his case.)

  • Phill O

    Cotour, that was the British Columbia (a province in Canada) Supreme court. However, you are totally correct. This puts into question all the papers published which relied or supported the viewpoint (fraud).

    The historical temperature graph of Ball is consistent with the Data Dr. K.Tapping uses. When I met him, he was in charge of the 10.7 cm band radio-observatory for Canada’s NRC. His lecture was on the relationship between the Sun Spot index and the 10.7 cm index as it related to global temperatures for the last 400 years.

    This data is supported by geologic/environmental evidence. The evidence, which all can easily see, is in the Advancement sand recession of the Athabasca glacier (and others) and in the habitation of Greenland and Newfoundland.

    I must admit that Edwards analysis is very factual and logical.

    The relationship of climate to solar activity needs extensive research. Money would be well spent to support this research. We know a lot about the sun. There are things we do not know which we do not even know we do not know.

  • Andrew_W

    Cotour, if someone could show me the “correct” graph using Mann’s data (something that hasn’t subsequently been proven wrong) I wouldn’t have much of a case, BUT NO ONE IS OFFERING SUCH EVIDENCE! It should be easy if the claims against the hockey stick are sound.

    But what do we actually have?
    M&M
    CORRECTIONS TO THE MANN et. al. (1998)
    PROXY DATA BASE AND NORTHERN HEMISPHERIC
    AVERAGE TEMPERATURE SERIES
    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/MM03.pdf
    (A non-peer reviewed paper that has been shown to have faults.)

    The fiasco at Climate Research as a result of the deeply flawed Soon & Baliunas paper

    The Wegman report which doesn’t show any “corrected” version of Mann et al.

    On the other hand there’s the NAS North Report which confirms the shape of the Mann et al graph but increases the error bars i the early part of the reconstruction and another 20 years of proxy reconstructions generally supportive of the hockey stick.

    Where’s the final version that proves Mann et al materially wrong? The version where the use of algorithms in the processing of the data is spot on and Mann et al is refuted once and for all? I’ve asked people like Edward for it, I’ve searched the internet, it doesn’t exist.

    What we do have are those subsequent papers that support the hockey stick claims; a slow decline in temperatures through to the 19th century followed by a rapid rise in NH or global temperatures.

    So Cotour, all you have to do to make a fool of me is produce one little graph showing NH proxy temperatures using Mann’s data and the corrected algorithms that’s been peer reviewed and not subsequently been successfully challenged or corrected by the publishing journal. Watts would have that graph in his front page heading if he could find it.

    Regarding the Ball – Mann case, the court certainly didn’t rule on the science, and the only sources of information I have found on it are openly partisan (Mann says the information was available and the Ball appealed to the court to end the case due to the ridiculous time taken and his declining health, Ball’s supporters claim that Mann didn’t cough up the information, as far as I know Ball himself hasn’t made anything other than a breif statement to the effect that the case was dismissed – without offering reasons).
    If and when the court issues a written ruling I’ll know what the court based its decision on, but not until then.

  • Cotour

    I am not atttempting to make a fool of you, I was only attempting to simplify the equation for you.

    If Mann was able to substantiate his “science” then I would reasonably assume that he would do that.

    Why?

    Because he will be ordered to pay the court costs for Mr. Ball to the tune of millions of dollars.

    So by inference we can assume that Mr. Mann is unable to do so and so the conclusion is that the “science” is incorrect and would be found out. Unless there are some interested party’s that will pay these cost for Mr. Mann why would anyone put themselves in such finacial jeopardy?

    Why such a secret atmosphere in this instance? Should not a scientist focused on such a serious subject as Climate Change and Global Warming in todays world want to eargerly provide any information that would support their conclusions for the sake of all the people on the planet?

  • Andrew_W

    As I said, without knowing the details of the court ruling I can’t say.

  • Andrew_W

    Just a few hours ago I came across a video of a case in which a “Globalist” had taken a Flat Earther to court because the FEer had offered a $5000 reward to anyone providing experimental proof that the Earth was round, the Globalist, after providing his proof pursued the money in court, the case was dismissed. Flat Earthers are now claiming the court decision amounts to a ruling that the Earth is flat. Strangely, I still have my doubts about it being flat.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95INaBifiFI

  • Andrew_W

    Here’s an article with multiple links claiming: Ball’s health the reason for his application for dismissal and that the data is freely available and has been since 2003.

    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8/28/1881956/-Tim-Ball-Pleads-For-Mercy-As-An-Irrelevant-Sick-Old-Man-Gets-It-Declares-Victory?fbclid=IwAR3jfonb5ntls3MVhqONmHFUsnRtsC9PY9FPRSG30Nd1kmNIOfc2Pvo1UBY

    Again I’m not just going to lap up claims by a partisan source, I want to see a court issued judgement to base conclusions on.

  • Cotour

    But in your example the flat earth case was dismissed.

    In the Mann example he lost in the Supreme Court and was ordered to pay the fees for his opponent which he could have avoided if he were to reveal his data and methodology.

  • Andrew _W

    I haven’t seen a court ruling on costs so I’ve nothing but the claims about costs made by the two sided and those claims aren’t the same. I don’t even know how costs are awarded in Canadian courts.

  • Cotour

    But if you had the ability to win in court by revealing your data and methodology wouldn’t you do everything in your power to win? What is the big deal?

    Its the winning that is important. If you take someone to court you want to win. And Mann seems to have turned that rational thinking on its head.

    I would then have to ask why? If there is no secret explaination then what is left over must be the truth.

    Q: Are you and Shiney related?

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    No doubt it was compelling, you appear to have swallowed the narrative without question,

    Yet another projection of your methods onto me. And, of course, you conveniently ignored the part where I told you that I had read alternate views. Aren’t you embarrassed over your childish argument style?

    I wrote: “you did not bother to read even the paper at Robert’s link.
    And you replied: “Wrong again.

    Oh, you got me there. If you say so it must be correct, because of all that expertise you don’t have.

    If you read it, then why did you mischaracterize it? Aren’t you embarrassed over your childish argument style?

    because it was flawed more recent studies use different proxies and different algorithms

    Well, what do you know. Now you admit that Mann was wrong with his graph and his proxies. However, you now seem to be trying to say that because other methods have been tried, Mann’s must be correct by … what … association? Proximity? Differential? Are the other studies proxies for Mann’s?

    I’ve asked people like Edward for it, I’ve searched the internet, it doesn’t exist.

    I and others have presented it to you, but you have rejected it for various reasons, including that it did not come from the IPCC.

    I haven’t referenced the IPCC once in this thread

    Correct, not in this thread, but in other threads you have been emphatic that only IPCC evidence is acceptable to you. Are you always this disingenuous?

    the court certainly didn’t rule on the science

    No. However, Mann abandoned his graph, because it is wrong. This is the entire point. A ruling by the court is not needed in order to show that the graph is wrong, because Mann’s actions are so loud. Besides, the court is not the IPCC, so I predict that no matter what the court says, you will reject its statement.

    early twenty first century warming just won’t disappear.

    You meant to say: “early twenty first century warming just won’t appear.” It has not yet been found.
    https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/no-warming-in-u-s-since-2005/

    The rest of your screed is equally embarrassing for you. You insist that I produce evidence but you expect me to believe everything you write without you having to provide any evidence. Aren’t you embarrassed over your childish argument style?

  • Andrew_W

    “. . you conveniently ignored the part where I told you that I had read alternate views.
    Yet you continue to fail to provide any evidence to support that claim.

    Aren’t you embarrassed over your childish argument style?
    Are you embarrassed by your double standards and continual assertions without supporting evidence?

    Well, what do you know. Now you admit that Mann was wrong with his graph and his proxies.
    My position hasn’t changed since I read the North Report when it came out in 2006, I haven’t seen any challenges to that reports findings so I accept it’s the most accurate evaluation of Mann et al.

    https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676/surface-temperature-reconstructions-for-the-last-2000-years

    I and others have presented it to you, but you have rejected it for various reasons,. . .
    Reasons like it was found to contain errors that substantially distorted the conclusions, to the point of them being of no scientific value.

    so I predict that no matter what the court says, you will reject its statement.
    No, as usual you’re judging others by your own standards.

    You meant to say: “early twenty first century warming just won’t appear.” It has not yet been found.
    It’s certain that you’re not so ignorant as to confuse US temperature data with global data, so I guess you offering up US data when you know it’s not representative of recent global data is not an accident.
    https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/slide1.jpg

  • Andrew_W

    Cotour one side says the information hasn’t been provided the other side says the information has been made available, I haven’t been following the case, it’s got nothing to do with science.
    Court rooms are the worst example of government managed systems that only serve those that make money working in the system. Give me pistols at dawn any day.

  • Andrew_W

    Q: Are you and Shiney related?

    I haven’t been following the discussion on the space crime thread, but I’m puzzled you’re asking me that, Shiney Saver appears to be a very conservative Christian type (glancing at a couple of his/her comments), I define myself as classical liberal/libertarian and am an atheist, I doubt we have much in common outside of supporting free market economics (assuming even that).

  • Cotour

    Andrew W: Just based on style.

    Yes, Shiny “appears” to be a very Conservative Christian type.

    Then it all falls apart.

  • Phill O

    Psalm 14:1

  • Andrew_W

    Exodus 21:7-11

  • Andrew_W

    Quoting to an atheist a passage from the Bible that says atheists are fools is as clever as quoting from Das Kapital to a capitalist a passage that claims capitalists are bad people.

  • wayne

    Jordan Peterson: Post Modernism
    (excerpt from “Strengthen the Individual: A Counterpoint to Post Modern Political Correctness” 3-11-17)
    Music by: This Will Destroy You
    https://youtu.be/snfuc7y2Qdc
    10:54

  • Cotour

    TODAYS EMAIL: AS YOU MAY OR NOT KNOW

    I am not a religious person, although I do believe in something rather than nothing in regards to the universe, the origin of life, our existence, and the after life. What exactly that is I am not exactly certain, but I do believe in something, “Something, Not Nothing” (More on that later). There appears to be something going on that we are not able to see and comprehend in its completeness, glimpses beyond our 3 Dimensions plus time reality that indicate this in my opinion.

    Continuing on that line of thinking I happened upon this passage from the bible in my broad reaching look into such things and our on going political discussion that now very clearly divides America into basically two camps, the Left and the Right. And this is strangely what I found in Ecclesiastes 10:1-3.

    “Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour.
    2 A wise man’s heart is at his right hand; but a fool’s heart at his left.
    3 Yea also, when he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdom faileth him, and he saith to every one that he is a fool. ”

    You just can not make these things up. Self confirming bias? How old is the Bible?

  • wayne

    “The Gods of the Copybook Headings”
    by Rudyard Kipling (read by Tom O’Bedlam)
    https://youtu.be/hTwHCsTq3IU
    3:14

  • Edward

    Andrew_W, “Yet you continue to fail to provide any evidence to support that claim.

    There you go again.

    Another series of accusations that I am what you do. You are trying to deflect reality. Just like a three-year-old, you are trying to get your way through trickery and deceit, pretending that what is right before your eyes is not there.

    Grow up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *