Monckton to Mann: Forget personalities, science is about truth
Source: Christopher Monckton, The SPPI Blog
The Editor, Richmond Times-Dispatch, August 15, 2013.
Charles Battig did a great service to your readers by spreading truth about the now-collapsed climate scare. Michael Mann’s criticisms of him (August 5) were ill-founded. Attorney General Cuccinelli investigated Mr Mann under the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act 2000 because of what I shall delicately call the statistical peculiarities evident in Mr Mann’s “hockey stick” graph that had purported to abolish the medieval warm period and to show – falsely – that today’s quite normal global temperatures were unprecedented in 1300 years.
Mr Mann’s graph relied heavily upon the widths of tree-rings from bristlecone pines as a basis for estimating temperatures before we had thermometers, although these pines are unreliable proxies because the tree-rings widen not only when the weather is warmer but also when it is wetter and when there is more CO2 in the air. That kinda musses things up.
According to real scientists, the graph also gave extreme weighting to datasets that showed unusual 20th-century warming at the expense of those that did not. And the program that Mr Mann created to draw the graph would have shown the 20th century as unusually warm even if random red noise rather than real-world data were fed in. There were numerous other statistical curiosities. Mr Mann’s graph is perhaps the most laughable and widely-discredited object in the history of bad science supporting worse politics.
Most learned papers based on real-world data show that the medieval warm period was real, global, and warmer than the present. A spate of papers by computer modelers apparently confirming Mr Mann’s contrarian conclusion appeared with interesting suddenness after his paper was scientifically discredited. Many of the authors, according to an independent statistical report for the House Energy & Commerce Committee in 2006, were linked to Mr Mann by previous co-authorship. Hmmm.
Mr Battig did not criticize Mr Mann for his bad personality, though Mr Mann’s characteristically malevolent description of his opponents as “deniers” and “denialists” several times in his letter of reply would be illegal in Europe as being anti-Jewish, racialist hate-speech disrespectful of Holocaust victims. Certainly no real scientist would use such language. Mr Battig criticized Mr Mann for his flagrantly bad science, not his flagrantly bad manners. Science is not about personalities. It is about seeking truth. Mr Mann’s graph was not true. It was not science. It deserved criticism. It got it.
Besides, according to the satellites, notwithstanding record increases in CO2 concentration there has been no global warming at all for 16 years 8 months – and counting. That is 200 months without so much as a flicker of global warming. The game is up and the scare is over.
Monckton of Brenchley
Lord Monckton vs. Michael Mann would be like Tyson in his prime versus Corky from Life Goes On.ReplyDelete
Mann has impugned the scientific method as has no other human being.
To create the hockey stick graph, Michael Mann used a total of one single tree YAD061. and ignored thousands of trees that showed no such hockey stick, and if that were not enough, Mann inverted (used upside down) The Mia Tiljander Sediment Series, this made cooling into warming ... falsely.ReplyDelete
Next Mann elected not to use the proxy data after 1940 (he hid the decline), as the proxy data he relied upon for the past (the one tree and inverted sediment data) no longer supported any warming (the blade of the hockey stick) in fact proxies showed cooling, so 'Mikes trick' was applied.
Prior to Mann, the IPCC used a graph by CRU founder HH lamb, this graph disagrees with Mann's fake hockey stick completely, but was done before the matter was ideologically politicized.
In other words, Mann was/is wrong ... his hockey stick is invalid and a 'travesty'.
The problem was that the IPCC graph of that time showed a strong Medieval Warm Period which Mann and his handler Overpeck needed to be removed, or else modern warming would have precedent. Mann obliged and the IPCC, being very corrupt, accepted Mann's work as gospel.
Tree data, and inverted sediment data allowed Mann to find his hockey stick.ReplyDelete
Mann included tree data until it disagreed with him. When this happened, he removed the tree data and replaced it by grafting the instrument data onto the line he drew from the tree data, and the inverted sediment series data, and in this way he' hid the decline' as explained here by BEST's Richard Muller as something science does not allow any scientist to do.
If the later tree data showed cooling when the instruments found warming, how can we reply on the period prior to the instrument period? And as Mann used one single tree and inverted other data, how can we consider his work at all?
BEST dismantles the Hockey Stick (all data is cited and laid out)ReplyDelete
"and even BEST itself, can be seen as merely plugging into the long established warming trend at various points along the way, and do not mark the start of it. There is no sign in observational records, or in many well regarded scientific reconstructions, of the 900 year long sequence of gently falling temperatures as noted by Michael Mann in the ‘hockey stick’ handle, nor an ‘uptick that is any more notable than many periods in the past."