Bishop Hill has this …..
Okay, “alarmist” may not be a great term, but, warmist is probably better. The post describes a lecture given by Rob Wilson at the University of St Andrews. Apparently, the lecture was pretty critical of Mikey Mann.
Rob was doing a review of the millennial temperature reconstructions, following the story from the First Assessment Report through to AR5. As readers here know, Rob is no kind of a sceptic (a point he repeated over lunch), but on the northern hemisphere paleo studies his position is not a million miles away from mine. In places our positions are identical, as you will see…..
Students learned that the Hockey Stick included a whole lot of inappropriate proxies and heard something of the issues with its verification statistics. The wallpapering of the Third Assessment with Mann’s magnum opus and John Houghton’s claims about unprecedented warmth based on this single study were described as “ridiculous”. “Ultimately a flawed study” was the conclusion, with a gory list of problems set out: inappropriate data, infilling of gaps, use of poorly replicated chronologies, flawed PC analysis, data and code withheld until prised from the grasp of the principals…….
That was the gentle beginning. When we got onto Mann et al 2008, we learned about the silliness of the screening process, and students were invited to try screening a set of random generated time-series in the way Mann had gone about this study. Tiljander didn’t get a mention, but I guess there are only so many flaws one can take on board, even in a two-hour lecture.
The real fireworks came when Mann’s latest papers, which hypothesise that tree ring proxies have large numbers of missing rings after major volcanic eruptions, were described as “a crock of xxxx”.
On a personal note, I have to credit Mike Mann. If there’s anyone to credit my engagement in the climate wars, Mike Mann is the one. He is how I found Steve McIntyre. Wow, what a learning experience. It was from there I learned about trying to interact with alarmists. And, from that, I went from unsure skepticism, to pretty sure they had it all wrong. Not wrong in theory, that came later, but, wrong in application, data handling, math application, and a myriad of other problems. As I’ve shared before, my background is network administration. That crosses over with many things, programing, database management, and basic knowledge of what computers can do. My first attempts at engagement were honest efforts to try to help. To explain to these pinheads what databases were for, and how to manage them. To explain the limitations of computer programs and what to expect from the results of poor handled data. Not a chance. I was labeled a “denier” before they came up with the term! But, then I knew.
To those people, the answer was more important than whether or not the answer was correct. The path to the answer was irrelevant. The data was then, and is still today, a mess. It’s wrong, but, that’s by design. There is no attempt to do it right. But, that’s for another post.
The long and short of it is, it Mike Mann’s career, since 1998, it doesn’t matter where you start or what work you want to investigate, Mann is easily dismissed. He’s not to be taken seriously. It isn’t that his work is flawed, it is, but, most of his work is some rather large undertakings. The larger the work, the more apt to find flaws and disagreements. The problem with Mann is that he absolutely refuses to learn from his mistakes. He stubbornly holds onto his mistakes, which compounds his errors in later works. So, what was his response to the criticisms above? The same as his response to any criticism.
Image is linked.
And, this is the hilarity of alarmists. Instead of acknowledging that there may be something wrong with his work, he lumps all critics into the same box, —– “DENIERS” !
What fun! Here’s the problems with Mann’s work on trees. He doesn’t know the physical processes involved in the making of a tree ring. He doesn’t handles the data properly. He applies his own novel maths to the data, and selects the data until it comes to his preconceived conclusions. But, other than that, he could be spot on!
Again, here, we see the leftard compulsion to lump all critics into the same pot. If you criticize any work of Mann, you’re automatically a “denier”, which puts you in the same pot as a critic of Obama, which makes you a “tea bagger”, Mann may as well have called Wilson a “racist”, because we all know all of them are one and the same.
Rob, welcome to the greater Tea party.
h/t Climate Depot