Bishop Hill Mann says "McIntyre"
Mar 4, 2013 Climate: Mann Climate: McIntyre Climate: Surface Readers are no doubt aware that Steve McIntyre is back in the blogging saddle, taking a look at Mann's AGU talk from before Christmas and noting that its rhetorical effect relied upon some amusing presentational choices:
There were two components to Mann’s AGU trick. First...Mann compared model projections for land-and-ocean to observations for land-only. In addition...Mann failed to incorporate up-to-date data for his comparison. The staleness of Mann’s temperature data in his AGU presentation was really quite remarkable: the temperature data in Mann’s presentation (December 2012) ended in 2005! Obviously, in the past (notably MBH98 and MBH99), Mann used the most recent (even monthly data) when it was to his advantage. So the failure to use up-to-date data in his AGU presentation is really quite conspicuous.
Interestingly, Mann has now responded in person (rather than via say RealClimate). Intriguingly, he had decided to mention McIntyre by name, a rare and perhaps significant event I would say. One has to say, it did appear rather silly to refuse to do this.
Mann's response features a lot of huffing and puffing and conjuring up of unidentified "falsehoods", but through all the verbiage he seems to admit the point about the data stopping at 2005:
I will be updating my lecture slides, many of which are indeed somewhat out of date.
...although he is silent on the use of a land-only dataset to compare to land-ocean predictions.
Bishop Hill
Brandon Schollenberger has more at WUWT.
Reader Comments (36)
Mann mentions McIntyre. It's a new world out there. :)
It's "Hide the decline" all over again.
Now where are those ardent seekers after the truth Leo Hickman, Moonbat and the Royal Society to point out this egregious "error"?
Christ Almighty.....
"There is always a delicate balance that we deal with as communicators of science between retaining the relevant level of detail to be faithful to the science, while simplifying what is displayed to the point that a lay audience gets the correct takeaway message"
He's been hiding the McLine all this time too???
Why did Michael Mann cross the road?
To get to the odorous slide.
He will need to wait a little while longer, until the latest results have had another half a degree added to them in Quality Control adjustments. The he will be able to show how accurate his predictions were.
Did no one bring this up during the talk? Or could it not be understood from the graphic?
Bottom line , its was a poor PR scam from Mann , which has to be blindly and totally supported by the AGW 'faithful' and 'the Team ' becasue it came from Mann .
That is quality of science is poor is actual expected , that the 'climate science' community says nothing is a sad norm but worse is that others in science keep their head down and hope it just goes away .
It still amazes me that the standard seen has acceptable for these 'professionally ' is one that is lower than they would accept from their own students when they had in a essay for their undergraduate course .
There is a whole lot of hole digging being done there, should be fun to watch...
In the left corner, a complex contestant seemingly riddled with delusions of persecution, grandeur, and competence, and so committed to a particular perspective that data analysis seems all but an irrelevant distraction. Keen on having a fight. But generally to be found boxing shadows of his own invention.
Outside the ring, a straightforward, almost unwilling observer brought in by the happenstance of studying a government propaganda leaflet some years ago (see HSI page 58), and seemingly taken up with the modest notion of clarifying and checking data presentations and analyses. Not really interested in taking sides, but keen to point out errors that could mislead the unwary.
So in this particular round, the observer provides some helpful input showing how misleading was a heavy-hitting graphic deployed by the contestant. Out from his corner he comes, punching the air all the way, and pausing only to admit that the graphic could indeed benefit from a little more work.
The audience continues to watch with bemusement, here at BH and no doubt in other venues worldwide. It is a degrading spectacle for all who like a decent scientific debate, but it can be hard not to watch as the contestant dances around the ring looking for those shadows that so torment him.
Yyou can lead a fraud to water but he can't make it heat
Mmmm luverly jubberly says Mikey - "a whole new data set to fix" but is the little man climbing down from his trusty steed, in acknowledgement at last of reality outside of Penn State Statistics'n'climate pic'n'mix smorgasbord?
Hansen has climbed down, so too has Pachauri - no warming in the last 20 or 17 years - you're out of step Mikey.
When you believe so ardently in something there is no need to update the slides as they will soon enough auto correct themselves.
Best
Michael
Another first?
No mention of Big Oil
Well the use of the word Professional could be taken as an inference of pay from someone.
Why does Mann trot out the "industry-funded" label to apply it to McIntyre, as if he's sponsored by Big-Oil or something?
Also... When Mann asks for the audience to (paraphrasing) 'first consider the more innocuous, kinder, reasonable solution for what's going on, rather than the imflammatory', does this only apply to Climate Scientists? I recall also that there apparently is a limit (1? 2?) where if you make enough contrarian statements you are no longer permitted to benefit from the same principle. Some principle.
Morebrocato,
I would wager the reason no one asked about the data ending nearly 8 years ago is because;
1. No questions were allowed.
2. He was presenting to like minded catastrophiliacs, therefore no one saw a need to question the use of out of date data.
Regards
Mailman
Science by Facebook.
I note John Cook was quick on the draw to make a false claim that Steve Mac's post "lunged twards a conspiratorial explanation".
I myself couldn't find any reference to an "explanation" frmo Steve, but and exposition of what Mann presented and ts flaws. Plus some factual observations on previously expressed opinions on those same points at issue.
I must say this "conspiracy" slander seems to be taking the place of the previous "denier" slander. I see people parroting this increasingly. John Cook seems to be investing a lot of time and effort into propogating its use.
Strange. Mann is saying the exact same thing as McIntyre, ... only he uses different words.
He does not deny he thinks "observations were running as hot or hotter than models" - the main point made by SM. The Mann graph was in service of this assertion.
Seconly, note, that Mann does not link to McIntyre's argument. Thus, he does not respond to McIntyre in person.
Thirdly, Mann shifts the blame for the graph in his book onto the publisher. While the provenance of the graph may be interesting, what matters is that it belongs to Mann, and he is its owner - a fact that Mann himself does not deny.
The net effect of the above however, is to give an appearance as though Mann is providing a detailed explanation when actually it is no explanation at all. We all know we've been there before.
Given that Mann has been using the same graph in several talks, it is amply evident that Mann is spreading misinformation. When it is inadvertent or otherwise, is somewhat immaterial. If people want to make fools of themselves listening to Mann, it is their choice.
Gecko,
That was just link spamming from Cook. His link has no relevance to Mann's comment or SM's post. Though it has to be noted that Cook has opened what appears to be a rich vein for obfuscators like Mann who can say 'conspiracy' to any question raised about their work, as he does in his comment.
Michael Mann: "There is always a delicate balance that we deal with as communicators of science between retaining the relevant level of detail to be faithful to the science, while simplifying what is displayed to the point that a lay audience gets the correct takeaway message."
It's much easier to deliver the desired message if you compare fish with fowl.
What use to anybody is a graph wich compares the outcome on land with the prediction for the sea?
One must be a little careful describing GISS' met index as "a land-only dataset." It is based solely on readings at meteorological stations -- hence the name -- but extrapolates these readings to a global average including ocean. That said, GISS contrasts its more generally used land-ocean temperature index (LOTI) with the stations-only index (dTs) used by Mann as follows (emphasis mine): "Note: LOTI provides a more realistic representation of the global mean trends than dTs below; it slightly underestimates warming or cooling trends, since the much larger heat capacity of water compared to air causes a slower and diminished reaction to changes; dTs on the other hand overestimates trends, since it disregards most of the dampening effects of the oceans that cover about two thirds of the earth's surface."
Michael Mann: "There is always a delicate balance that we deal with as communicators of science between retaining the relevant level of detail to be faithful to the science, while simplifying what is displayed to the point that a lay audience gets the correct takeaway message."
So the intended 'correct takeaway message' from this particular presentation was what, exactly?
He really is spouting BS.
There is now an article at WUWT by Brandon Shollenberger A Conspiracy of One, on the Mann response. "Words cannot describe the humor of Michael Mann’s latest post..."
Cook is merely trying the old scam of claiming the lack of evidenced for a 'conspricy ' is actual proof of that conspricy at work deleting the 'evidence.
Posted this in the discussion thread as well, pretty interesting:
http://ecologicallyoriented.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/severe-analytical-problems-in-dendroclimatology-part-nine-the-pnas-review/
For somebody with supposedly so much influence, his facebook post has had remarkably little support.
Only 65 'recommends' and 8 supportive comments in 16 hours *
And Steve McIntyre's blog shows a photo of Mann delivering his pitch at AGU and there were plenty of empty chairs. A few years ago it would have been standing room only for such a well-known figure
These statistics do not speak to me of a top scientist at the height of his powers. But of a man of waning influence, and a declining circle of 'friends'
* And notable absentees from the comments are any of his Hockey Team - especially onetime RC sidekick and 'attack dog' Schmidt! Or Mikey's tame poodle Phil Jones
I read Steve's post at Climate Audit and then came over here and saw: Mann says "McIntyre"
LOL!
It reminded me of "Nixon Goes to China"
Why stop at 2005?
I have some old Lehman Brothers shares to sell if you are confused.
How convenient that his slides are out of date when if they were up to date it would be obvious that his argument is rubbish.
Regardless of which, his audience should be insulted that they are paying him to speak and he is giving them recycled old material which he hasn't bothered to update in years. Although most of them will have been students in the past so they will be used to that.
@Mar 4, 2013 at 1:38 PM | Paul Matthews
Good piece by Brandon Shollenberger at WUWT
Love Cook giving the game away like this. One for future reference.
He is essentially saying: Ignore McIntyre he’s delusional, and if you want proof see our vanity published paper proving it.
You really can’t get better evidence that Cook et al are pseudo scientists of the worst kind.
These are the kind of people who make up pseudo-science with the sole purpose to use as a tool for attacking their enemies.
A number of comments at the Facebook page have been moderated out of existence and the commenters banished no doubt. By this point one wonders if Gavin's might be among them.
When I first started work in the rural world, I was in awe of the hard men I was learning from, whose hard-won reputations, finely-honed traditional skills and sheer athleticism allowed them to preen a little and to stretch the truth a whisker over a few beers after work. We knew when they were stretching the truth but saw this as another skill, but in the area of work-related entertainment rather than work itself.
But academics of the Mann variety seem to preen, stretch the truth and attempt to enlarge their reputations by employing trickery and deceit without having first developed any worthwhile skills or track record and become quite waspish and shrill if challenged.
I found a very old word which, to me, describes such people with wicked accuracy -'poltroons'.
Out of date data up to date pay.
I suspect that Professor Mann will update his lecture slides with the same speed and efficiency that he has updated his tree ring series.
One thing you must admire Mann for - his is a master of spin! A missed vocation?
And if he needs to rely on "those god folks at DK publishing" to prepare very basic Excel x-y graphs, perhaps someone here could offer to help out? Or perhaps whoever helps Phil Jones with his?