Well, Steve Mac is back! And, he picks up where he left off. You know, if I were an alarmist, I’d probably do a quick check of the people in the audience before proceeding with misinformation. I would think by now that Mike Mann would recognize Steve McIntyre. But, maybe he wears disguises.
I was going to write about this the other day, but, I got distracted.
In a strange denial of reality, some alarmists are now claiming that the climate temperature models were under-estimating relative to observations. Mikey Mann and Naomi Oreskes are the latest to offer this laughable assertion.
So, at a little AGU conference Mikey trotted out a graph to show this under-estimation.
The graph below is Mikey’s …….
This is supposedly comparing Hansen’s Scenario B to observations. Blue – Hansen’s Scenario B; red – “observations”. I drew a line to help readers see the time frame we’re talking about.
Okay, it’s dated, but even dated keen observers would note this is an errant plotting of observations against scenario B. Here Steve Mac shows the real Hansen projections against observations.
Anyway, here’s what it looked like and what it was suppose to look like……
And so it goes for the climate wars. As he often does, Anthony reposted Steve Macs post. This made Mikey mad! So, what does any grownup do when challenged? Post on Facebook, of course!!!! I thought his diatribe cute, so I thought I’d share! It’s really very funny!
[Michael Mann] As professional climate change deniers become increasingly irrelevant and desperate, so do their distraction and smear efforts. These are mostly just noise in the background these days, as the media increasingly appears to be recognizing the intellectual bankruptcy of the industry-funded climate change denial effort and those who do its bidding. Occasionally, though, I will debunk the most egregious of the smears and falsehoods, both to set the record straight, and to arm readers w/ the information necessary to evaluate the credibility of the various actors in the climate change denial campaign…At that point I will be updating my lecture slides, many of which are indeed somewhat out of date.
Okay, he’s pissy! And even though he’s suffered smears and falsehoods……. he’s going to update his slides, because….. because…… well, Mac and Watts are dirty deniers!!! That’s why! But, he doesn’t stop there! After doing a bit of smearing himself, and a bit of self promotion (link to purchase a book he wrote) he says this……..
In an apparent effort to manufacture a nefarious plot out of whole cloth, Mr. McIntyre (parroted by Mr. Watts) imagines a great conspiracy involving selective truncation of time series and implicating multiple scientists. It all relates to a single graphic portraying the famous Hansen 1988 climate model predictions and how they compare with observations.
That’s funny, because that wasn’t my impression of Mac’s post. Well, sure, multiple scientists in that he’s mostly talking about you, Mikey, and Naomi Oreskes. I suppose if one’s ego is that large one could stretch it to a great conspiracy. But, what I gathered from Mac’s post was that he’s specifically calling you out Mikey, and Naomi for being an enabler. Mikey continues with his debunkingness……. and self promotion, again!!!
McIntyre is correct that the original version of the graphic in question is from my book “Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming” co-authored with Lee Kump http://www.amazon.com/Dire-Predictions-Understanding-Illustrated-Findings/dp/0756639956/) published in July 2008. It is that graphic that I have reprinted elsewhere (e.g. in “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars”), and which I was able to animate for use in my public lectures thanks to the good folks at TED (http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2011/11/11/TEDx_preview_enlightened_speakers.aspx). Unfortunately, little else Mr. McIntyre has to say is correct.
LOL, he debunks Mac by saying he’s correct! But, later in the para, we see what the problem is. I’ll get to that in a minute, because we have more debunkingness to sort through! In a lengthy para he says this……
Fortunately, I kept the original draft spread we submitted to the artists at DK (the publishers of DP jointly with Pearson publishing), created on July 26, 2007 (according to MS word). It is shown here, side-by-side with the version of the graphic as it appeared in the final spread of DP published a year later, in July 2008. Readers can compare the original and final versions to verify that they convey the same data, same end dates, etc. no truncation of data, etc. albeit prettied up and simplified (among other things, by showing a single version of the instrumental record) by the “Information Architects”–as they like to call themselves–of DK. ……. So in other words, the figure was straight from the most recent comparison by James Hansen’s group that was available in the published literature at the time we drafted the spread in summer 2007…….. 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 continues in a new para……
With all of his putative powers of deduction, it seems remarkable that Mr. McIntyre couldn’t figure this out, and instead chose to invent an entire conspiracy theory involving not just me, but multiple scientists, the AGU, IPCC, etc.
Uhmm, no, Mikey, Mac did no such thing. Now, you’re intentionally misrepresenting what was stated in a post catching you misrepresenting.
Mikey finally finishes…….
A final note here: Thanks to the good folks at DK, we were able to bring alive many of the somewhat dry graphics available at the time from either the professional literature or the newly published IPCC AR4 (2007) report (and the good folks at TED were nice enough to help me animate several of these graphics a couple years ago for use in my public lectures).
So, here we see a few problems (not withstanding the allegations of a huge conspiracy theory when Mac only called out Mann and Oreskes.)
First, here one can easily see that Mikey doesn’t know how to make a blink pic or obtain one from anyone other than “the folks at DK”. Mikey, you’re a senior prof at Penn St. Go ask one of your interns. I’m not a graphics guy either, but it isn’t that hard. Ask for a 30 minute block of instruction and you can blink your eyes out!
Well, I said I wasn’t a graphics guy!!!!
There’s no shame in not knowing things. Well, some things. …… other things, one would expect a better command of. Mikey doesn’t know how to make the comparisons! Mikey suffers from the same affliction Phil Jones has!!!! He can’t run a spread sheet program!!!!!
Now, in spite of the fun we can have, all of this is understandable. Mikey’s not being nefarious, he’s being ignorant and incapable! It’s not his fault!!!
I’d buy every bit of that except for this…….
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.
Mike what was the “correct message” that you were trying to convey with the dated graphic? Mike, Steve wasn’t accusing you as being part of a conspiracy. He was accusing you of dishonesty. The message you were trying to convey was that the models had underestimated the actual temps. This is opposite of the truth. I can accept that some people don’t know how to make a blink pic. I can also accept that some people don’t how to run a spreadsheet program, although I’m a bit incredulous about that. What’s wrong with you people?
But, what I don’t accept is a person who is supposedly knowledgeable about climate science doesn’t know about the divergence the temps have displayed from the projections over the last several years!!!
Did you think adding this to the end of the graph was going to give the “incorrect” but, factually true message?
You got caught lying. Man up. Do better next time. Don’t blame the people who caught you deceiving people for calling you out.
Update! Because Lat wanted it, I tortured by self and tried to make a pretty. Meh!
Here’s Hansen’s Scenarios A, B, and C with Mauna’s CO2 annualized laid atop of it.