Home Who's Lying? What is Real Science Climate Facts Our Best Data proxies Debunking Claims NASA Debunk Real Cause of Climate Corals Trillion Dollar Industry Big Money Scaring green money Paid by fossil fuel Warming Stopped Media Lies People are Dying History (politics) Extreme Weather? CO2 didn't warm arctic CO2 & Rate of warming CO2 Innocent! 1/2 of Warming Wrong Its Warming,But Acidification IPCC_Flawed Harming People misconduct Data Adjustments Cooling since 1945? Drought, hurricanes etc. Arctic Antarctic Selected Emails Selected Quotes Fraud Of Century? 97 percent of scientists 25% of AMS / 50% JonesInterview An OK Prediction Data Sources False Deadlines Record Temperature Climate Change Truths Its OK to Lie! Energy Facts GridStorage CostlyEnergy Mann's Book Wegman styn_vs_mann Peer Review Error Statistical Errors The Sun Solar OceanHeat Ocean Heat Polar Bears OK AlGore's Errors IPCC_Disproved IPCC_PeerReview Ask Questions Climate Models Local Food IPCC&CLouds Threats Why I'm a Skeptic GreenhouseMoon Alternative Energy 1350+ realist papers Conflict of Interest? Muzzeled Scientists How To Argue Common Ground Hurricane No Proof NW Snow Pack James Hansen Consensus The Hockey Stick 650 Dissenters Easy Solution IPCC Scientists DataQuality Heat Island Is Science Settled? Ocean Level Sea Level Glaciers Ice Sheets Greenland Gore's Mentor OGWC Articles Summary FinancialPapers OtherMotivations PeakOil Ozone Hole Fracking Acid Rain No Limits Videos Printables Links Briffa et al (1998) data

Debunking the Climate Scam

Billions of Dollars -  Fudged Data  -  Corrupt Scientists

Greedy Green Corporations - Trillion Dollar Prize

No Warming For Two decades - Illiterate Media

Bought and Paid For Organizations

 

Email WebMaster

Michael Mann has a new  book which is receiving rave reviews from the warming camp,
while the realists are noting a number of flaws & misrepresentations:

If you still believe that the ClimateGate emails don't cast a lot of doubt on Michael Mann and his work, check these out

WSJ:
"The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars" is the story of both Mr. Mann and his graph. But rather than a chronicle of research and discovery, it's a score-settling with anyone who has ever doubted his integrity or work: free-market think tanks, industrialists, "scientists for hire," "the corruptive influence of industry," the "uninformed" media and public. So, a long list.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304450004577279163950476028.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Climate Audit:
Dr. Mann’s discussion of my comment is the first published feedback to it by any of Thompson’s associates, and hence I am very grateful for the attention he has drawn to it. However, I beg to disagree with Mann’s appraisal of it.
http://climateaudit.org/2012/03/04/mann-on-irreproducible-results-in-thompson-pnas-2006/

Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #89786) February 15th, 2012 at 2:59 pm
it shows a disturbing trend. Ideas which are possible, but by no means known to be true, are stated as fact. If this is remotely representative of the book’s accuracy, there is no way the people giving it glowing reviews read it with an open mind
...
At this point, I’ve seen Mann use the word “denier” something like half a dozen times. It seems strange to use it while claiming “scientific cleansing” is a reference to Nazi Germany. I know there is disagreement over whether or not “denier” is a Holocaust reference, but it seems to me there is a far stronger case for it than for “scientific cleansing.” At least with “denier,” the original user of it explicitly stated they were making a Holocaust reference.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/reduce-image-scraping-to-prevent-blog-crashing-and-thwarth-copyright-trolls/#comment-89786

From a more detailed review by Brandon Shollenberger:
Michael Mann recently published a book named The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. It was
generally well-received, quickly garnering many positive reviews. Even Henry Waxman, a sitting
Congressman, and Bill Nye the Science Guy praised the book. Unfortunately, while many people liked
the message of the book, it seems few read it carefully. The book contains many mistakes,
contradictions, fabrications, nonsensical statements and even a libelous claim based on an obvious
misrepresentation.
The last of those is obviously the most serious. Michael Mann began receiving a large amount
of attention after he published two papers in the late nineties, creating his "hockey stick." A few years
later, his work was criticized by the authors Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, leading to a
controversy that would rage on for years. Eventually, two reports were commissioned by the United
States Congress to study the controversy. The lead author of one of those reports was Edward
Wegman, a distinguished statistician from George Mason University.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/Manns_Book_Review.pdf



Scientist’s rebuttal of Michael Mann’s “denier”and other unsavory labels in his book
Anthony Watts / April 17, 2012

By Craig Loehle, Ph.D.

Since I am mentioned in Mann’s book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines and not kindly, it seems necessary to set the record straight. I do not take credit for any angry posts that follow.

Mann begins discussion of my work on page 187 (see bottom of this post) with the title “The Hockey Fight Continues” where my work is categorized as another assault from the denialosphere, with me being part of the “Hydra” that is hatefully out to get Mann. Simply because I published a paper that does a reconstruction and expressed a view that tree rings might have issues (which the Climategate emails show was a hidden view of many in the field) I was engaging in a “fight” against Mann? Really? I think it is because they didn’t like my results, which is rather post-modernist, no? So, I am lumped in with politically motivated and evil “deniers” and “denialists”. I find these terms and the entire context for discussing my work offensive. I am not a “denialist” and my recent paper (Loehle, C. and N. Scafetta. 2011. Climate Change Attribution Using Empirical Decomposition of Historical Time Series. Open Atmospheric Science Journal 5:74-86) attributes about 40% of recent warming to human activity – estimating that this equates to a no-feedback atmosphere.

What I would deny is that tree rings are good thermometers, but this is a scientific view based on my knowledge of trees, not a political view.

I point this out in the paper Mann criticizes and also in (Loehle, C. 2009. A Mathematical Analysis of the Divergence Problem in Dendroclimatology. Climatic Change 94:233-245), which interestingly was published while Steve Schneider was ed in chief. As a final note on my work on this problem, I showed in (Loehle, C. 2005. Estimating Climatic Timeseries from Multi-Site Data Afflicted with Dating Error. Mathematical Geology 37:127-140) that combining time series with measurement error or especially dating error will flatten out peaks like the MWP and troughs like the LIA. This means that comparing the MWP peak temperature, which is likely smeared (damped) to recent annual temperatures will show recent temps warmer simply due to data resolution (the warmest years are not averaged out in the recent data). It is an apples and oranges comparison.

Read the rest of this article at:  https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/17/scientists-rebuttal-of-michael-manns-denierand-other-unsavory-labels-in-his-book/

A detailed review of Mann’s book: The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars as it relates to the Wegman report to Congress
By Brandon Shollenberger

Introduction

Michael Mann recently published a book named The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. It was generally well-received, quickly garnering many positive reviews. Even Henry Waxman, a sitting Congressman, and Bill Nye the Science Guy praised the book. Unfortunately, while many people liked the message of the book, it seems few read it carefully. The book contains many mistakes, contradictions, fabrications, nonsensical statements and even a libelous claim based on an obvious misrepresentation.

The last of those is obviously the most serious. Michael Mann began receiving a large amount of attention after he published two papers in the late nineties, creating his “hockey stick.” A few years later, his work was criticized by the authors Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, leading to a controversy that would rage on for years. Eventually, two reports were commissioned by the United States Congress to study the controversy. The lead author of one of those reports was Edward Wegman, a distinguished statistician from George Mason University.

This report, commonly known as the Wegman Report, was highly critical of Mann’s work. In turn, it was criticized by defenders of Mann. One such criticism involves how much “collaboration” there was between McIntyre, Wegman and Wegman’s co-authors. The claim is basically that the Wegman Report repeats McIntyre’s work and conclusions without due consideration. Mann doesn’t spend much time on this criticism in his book, but what he says is very important:

Not only had their apparently been64 substantial undisclosed collaboration between the WR authors and Stephen McIntyre, as hinted at earlier65–something Wegman had denied in his testimony under oath in Congress66…

Mann claims Wegman denied something, under oath, that was true. That is, he accuses Wegman of perjury. In what is almost a passing comment, Mann accuses Wegman of committing a felony that could land him in jail for years. Not only is this a serious accusation, but if untrue, it is libel. With that in mind, it’s important to read Mann’s note #66:

Read the rest at:  https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/07/a-detailed-review-of-manns-book-the-hockey-stick-and-the-climate-wars-as-it-relates-to-the-wegman-report-to-congress/   



Also see: The Hockeystick    Wegman Report