Well Heck!! And I Was Just About To Friend This Closet Skeptic!!! Mann Upset He Used 8 Y/O Data To Mislead People!!!


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.  Open-mouthed smile

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. 


Now, if you are one of those reality denying alarmists, you can download this pdf to get Hansen’s graph.  You can also get the GIS temp “observations” here.  

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!  Steaming 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 | Facebook

[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climate change denial campaign…At that point I will be updating my lecture slides, many of which are indeed somewhat out of date.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!  Rolling on the floor laughing 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.  

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Well Heck!! And I Was Just About To Friend This Closet Skeptic!!! Mann Upset He Used 8 Y/O Data To Mislead People!!!

  1. Latitude says:

    everyone keeps saying S-C…….it’s not
    it’s his S-A, CO2 levels have followed his S-A

    saying it’s his S-C because temps are following that closest, is saying temps control CO2

    If CO2 controls temps….it’s his S-A

    • suyts says:

      Scenario A, B, or C, he’s simply wrong. But, yeh, I was going to put that in, but the post was long enough.

      • Latitude says:

        where is that chart I saw with CO2 overlaid on it

      • suyts says:

        Well, WUWT has one up……. I can’t believe went to SS for data. I hope they verified it!

        • Latitude says:

          LOL….ok, I looked
          If SS ends up being wrong…it’s a slap down

          That’s not the one I’m looking for.
          I saw one that’s Hansen’s A-B-C’s with CO2 overlaid starting at the Y.
          With measured temps on it too.
          Shows clearly that CO2 is right in line with A.

          People claiming it’s C and he’s wrong are missing the boat.
          It’s A and he’s mind numbing wrong…..

        • suyts says:

          Hmm, I seem to recall seeing one too. Steves?

    • miked1947 says:

      The last time I saw a graph of CO2 compared to Hansen’s scenarios, CO2 was also above A. I guess it must have slowed down. A is the only scenario that should be used!

  2. Latitude says:

    I looked all over Steve’s and couldn’t find it…
    …this is sorta it…closest I could find
    Except the one I remember had CO2 starting at the same point on the Y, and it was that squiggly up and down one from Mona….anyway you get the idea…..it shows CO2 levels folowing his A perfectly…and the newest one shows temps taking a nose dive off the chart

  3. gator69 says:

    I cannot believe the childish language being used by someone who is supposed to be a brilliant intellect, especially when he is communicating with the public!

    “professional climate change deniers… industry-funded climate change denial effort and those who do its bidding… various actors in the climate change denial campaign…”

    That alone should tell most people what Mann really is, and really is not.

    • Latitude says:

      but gator…it plays into the liberal persecution mind set
      because they would do it…their first reaction is to think other people are doing it to them

      • gator69 says:

        Isn’t that known as ‘paranoia’?

        “Paranoia [ˌpærəˈnɔɪ.ə] (adjective: paranoid [ˈpærə.nɔɪd]) is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat towards oneself.”


        Just sayin’.

  4. philjourdan says:

    Just another case of Mikey hiding the decline.

  5. DirkH says:

    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.”

    Steven Schneider called this delicate balance the balance between being honest and being efficient. I fear Mann is neither.

  6. Latitude says:

    ok, now that’s a very old “observed”…..need newest on that

    …and can you make it pretty and in color?

    (anyone have the number for the witness protection program?)

  7. HankH says:

    If found this. It’s not Hansen’s ABC scenarios per se but it does present three scenarios.

  8. miked1947 says:

    History here!
    Steve Mac started his site because Mann would not discuss his work with Steve and he was attacked on RC. If memory serves even RC was started to counter Steve’s work. Steve Mac is not a Sceptic, he thinks they should provide accurate data / information so we will realize how serious the problem really is.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s