Thank you for the many responses we had to my last piece in this space, titled (lest you forget) Michael E Mann: Liar, Cheat, Falsifier and Fraud. Thank you also to those who've chosen to support our novel way of funding this campaign. I'm surprised that there have been those who were unclear that I'm standing on the truth of what I said: I called Mann's "hockey stick" graph "fraudulent", as I have done previously in other publications around the world. Indeed, my position on the "hockey stick" in newspapers from London to Sydney to Toronto has been consistent since the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report 13 years ago.
~To believe Michael Mann, you have to close your eyes and ears to everything except the cartoon climate narrative promoted by the hockey stick. Mann-child John Gibbons of Village, "Ireland's political magazine", does an excellent job in this fawning interview with Dr Mann - or, as Gibbons calls him, "Mike":
His 'hockey stick graph' became the defining symbol of man-made climate change – and made him a special target of the fossil-fuel lobby. He is author of 'The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars', an insider's account of the murky world of climate denialism. Mann was implicated in the so-called 'Climategate' hacking affair in 2009, but was exonerated of all alleged wrongdoing by several independent investigations.
And so it begins. It's only possible to be believe "Mike" was "exonerated" by "several independent investigations" if you've never read their reports. "Mike" was never investigated by the two East Anglia panels, NOAA, the British House of Commons, etc, and so was never exonerated by them. As we noted yesterday, in his fraudulent legal pleadings Mann claims to have been "exonerated" by Lord Oxburgh's committee, but in his book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars he says his work "did not fall within the remit of the committee". So which is it? Is Dr Mann lying to the Court? Or is he lying to his book customers? John Gibbons doesn't care: He hasn't read the reports or Mann's unreadable book. In fact, Mann's only "exoneration" came in an inquiry set up by a guy called Graham Spanier, now under criminal indictment and facing 20 years in the slammer for obstruction of justice. But John Gibbons doesn't want to hear that, either. He's got his fingers in his ears going, "Nya-nya, can't hear you..."
Yet the interesting thing is that the comments underneath the Mann interview are (at the time of writing) full of far more specifics than the bland pap of Gibbons' cobwebbed boosterism - and they're overwhelmingly critical of Mann. Poor Mr Gibbons writes like a Tiger Beat interviewer, but a slightly out-of-touch one still drooling over last decade's boy band.
~To return to that point about Mann and the Oxburgh panel, this is what he writes on page 235 of his book:
The statistician on the Oxburgh panel, David Hand, caused a bit of trouble with offhand remarks he chose to make at the press conference announcing the panel's findings. Though our own work did not fall within the remit of the committee, and the hockey stick was not mentioned in the report, Hand commented that "the particular technique [Mann et al.] used exaggerated the blade at the end of the hockey stick." This was instant fodder for the denial mill with papers such as the Telegraph happily reporting the claim that "the hockey stick was exaggerated."
David Hand was not any old statistician but the President of the Royal Statistical Society, and it wasn't just the "denial mill" but publications such as New Scientist and Mann's own newspaper The Guardian that reported, happily or otherwise, that his hockey stick was "exaggerated". I wrote about Hand's intervention here. But notice how Mann in his book rebuts Hand's charge:
The statement was nonsensical, however. The end of the blade of the hockey stick was simply the instrumental temperature record; there was no way that our reconstruction, or any reconstruction for that matter, could either underestimate it or overestimate it.
That's a great example of the smooth ease with which Mann evades addressing criticism from other scientists. Yes, the "end of the blade" is simply the late 20th century temperature record. But the 900 years in front of it aren't: they're Mann's own calculations as to what the temperature was in 1737 or 1439 or 1102. And what David Hand is disputing is "the particular technique" Mann deployed to get from the apples of the proxy data to the oranges of the temperature record. When the proxy data became inconvenient (as with the downturn in Keith Briffa's tree-ring data after 1960) it got tossed in the trash - because it would have lowered the upward swing of the blade. As I said yesterday, if the proxies are an unreliable guide to the climate of the late 20th century, why are they reliable for the early 16th century? Or, as one climate scientist put it to me recently, if you applied the methods Mann used to establish what the climate was like in, say, the 13th century to our own time, they would give you an entirely inaccurate picture of 21st century climate.
~As I mentioned yesterday, the Climategate inquiries settled on an artful fudge, claiming that East Anglia's scientists had done nothing wrong in their papers but the IPCC had played somewhat fast and loose with how they presented it to the world. At Climate Audit, Ross McKittrick writes:
An important point that you [Steve McIntyre] make in the last paragraph is that for all intents and purposes, IPCC = Team = IPCC. The various inquiries sometimes pull the trick of exonerating a Team member for having once pointed to (e.g.) the divergence problem in an academic journal article somewhere, while blaming "the IPCC" for concealing it, without pointing out that it was all the same people. When Oxburgh makes an ever-so-gentle rebuke of "presentations of this work by the IPCC and others" who "have sometimes neglected to highlight this issue" it's disingenuous, since Mann and the CRU guys were the authors both of the underlying papers and the IPCC chapter alike.
That's the point: The deception was not perpetrated by some vast bland bureaucracy called "the IPCC". In 2001, the IPCC was Mann, as Lead Author on climate variability, and a handful of cronies.
~The other day, the Swedish climatologist Lennart Bengtsson outed himself as having "defected" to the skeptic side of the street:
I have always been a skeptic and I believe this is what most scientists really are.
But Professor Bengtsson was previously a reliable warm-monger who took the party line "up to and including the belief that Michael Mann's Hockey Stick was a scientifically plausible assessment of the relationship between CO2 emissions and global mean temperature".
He now says:
The whole concept behind IPCC is basically wrong.
As this headline puts it, "Lennart Bengtsson: He Knows How Little We Know." Which is more than you can say about Mann's latest dupe John Gibbons above. But, at 77 and with his career winding down, Bengtsson also knows enough to know that the cartoon climatology advanced by Mann through the IPCC will one day, soon, be seen as a kind of madness of which real science will be deeply ashamed. He doesn't want to be remembered as part of that madness. He won't be the last, either.
~UPDATE: In the wee small hours since the above was posted, the climate mullahs went to work. Lennart Bengtsson:
I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.
This is the "climate of fear" I've written about. The ugly climate that Mann has made. I'll have more on this later.
~We're currently preparing to move to trial, which I'm looking forward to, because I think it's time for the fake Nobel Laureate to be investigated as thoroughly as he falsely claims he already has been. Investigating Dr Mann is an expensive proposition, so, if you would like to support the endeavor via the SteynOnline bookstore or by buying one of our SteynOnline gift certificates, I'd be very gratified.
Comment on this item (members only)
Viewing and submission of reader comments is restricted to Mark Steyn Club members only. If you are not yet a member, please click here to join. If you are already a member, please log in here: