Michael mann refuses to produce data, loses case

[Slowman]

I guess I haven’t paid close enough attention to the climate debate. I’m assuming this decision is really important or your caps lock is broken. I read up on it a bit from another, less biased article. What I couldn’t find was if this guy’s research is the basis for every climate study? I guess I’m looking for a reason why I should care about some guy losing a defamation suit. Are we assuming the docs are not real because he didn’t produce them?

in 2006 i really delved into this. interviewed a lot of big hitters. james hanson, when he was still at NASA. several climate scientists at NOAA. michael mann was a big hitter back then, but there were a lot of places where climate science was then (and still is) getting done.

this not a good look for mann, and i’d like to find out more. what he says is that the case was dismissed because the person “defaming” mann is so unlikely to be taken seriously that it’s not a valid case, that this guy did not have a toolkit capable of defaming mann. however, it was dismissed with prejudice, as i understand it, which means mann has to pay defense costs. but i think that might be standard practice in canada. i think mann has more explaining to do.

but, no, climate science is not based on mann and his research. on the contrary, what i did find when i took my deep dive into this in 2006, is that anti-climate-change “science” was generated by scientists who, in their prior jobs, denied the effect of secondhand smoke. denied the effect of asbestos. defended big oil. they were professional science deniers, basically.

what i would suggest to you, perhaps, just go to the national academies and read its executive summaries on climate change.

[efernand]

I guess I haven’t paid close enough attention to the climate debate. I’m assuming this decision is really important or your caps lock is broken. I read up on it a bit from another, less biased article. What I couldn’t find was if this guy’s research is the basis for every climate study? I guess I’m looking for a reason why I should care about some guy losing a defamation suit. Are we assuming the docs are not real because he didn’t produce them?
That was my thought, maybe this guy is a fraud, I have hard time we are looking at a vaccines cause autism type situation where there was really on 1 study concluding that. I would think climate science would come at man made global warming from a whole host of directions.

I am assuming you guys are just playing dumb, since Michael Mann and his hockey stick graph have been at the center of the climate change debate going back to the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report.

Does his refusal to produce the documents/data mean that the hockey stick isn’t real? Or that climate change isn’t real? No. But it does mean that Mann has no credibility. And it also shows that the “scientific consensus” isn’t based on multiple scientists looking at the same data and coming to the same conclusions, since, obviously, no one else has looked at this data.

IIRC, there are also issues with the tree ring data that Mann used.

[TheRef65]

I guess I haven’t paid close enough attention to the climate debate. I’m assuming this decision is really important or your caps lock is broken. I read up on it a bit from another, less biased article. What I couldn’t find was if this guy’s research is the basis for every climate study? I guess I’m looking for a reason why I should care about some guy losing a defamation suit. Are we assuming the docs are not real because he didn’t produce them?

in 2006 i really delved into this. interviewed a lot of big hitters. james hanson, when he was still at NASA. several climate scientists at NOAA. michael mann was a big hitter back then, but there were a lot of places where climate science was then (and still is) getting done.

this not a good look for mann, and i’d like to find out more. what he says is that the case was dismissed because the person “defaming” mann is so unlikely to be taken seriously that it’s not a valid case, that this guy did not have a toolkit capable of defaming mann. however, it was dismissed with prejudice, as i understand it, which means mann has to pay defense costs. but i think that might be standard practice in canada. i think mann has more explaining to do.

but, no, climate science is not based on mann and his research. on the contrary, what i did find when i took my deep dive into this in 2006, is that anti-climate-change “science” was generated by scientists who, in their prior jobs, denied the effect of secondhand smoke. denied the effect of asbestos. defended big oil. they were professional science deniers, basically.

what i would suggest to you, perhaps, just go to the national academies and read its executive summaries on climate change.

But those summaries are by scientists, what do they know? My friend George down the street says it ain’t true and I believe George and it was cold outside yesterday.

[eb]

I guess I haven’t paid close enough attention to the climate debate. I’m assuming this decision is really important or your caps lock is broken. I read up on it a bit from another, less biased article. What I couldn’t find was if this guy’s research is the basis for every climate study? I guess I’m looking for a reason why I should care about some guy losing a defamation suit. Are we assuming the docs are not real because he didn’t produce them?

Quick summary: Two pigs wrestle; mud flies everywhere.

A bit longer:
Michael Mann (Penn State faculty) is a renowned climate scientist whose massive ego and desire for fame sometimes get a little ahead of his science. In particular, his 1998 “hockey stick” graph of temperature became a focal point in the climate change debate. Mann’s publicity seeking and combative attitude have made him a favorite target of climate change skeptics.

Tim Ball is a retired geography professor. He published some work on historical climatology during his career but it should be noted he has little background in hard science; he is a geographer. He has found a lucrative second career as a climate skeptic.

At some point, Ball said something to the effect of “Mann should be in the state pen, not at Penn State”. Mann took offense and sued, and they’ve been going back and forth ever since. It’s interesting to note that Ball has both sued and been sued in the past for various issues related to his academic history.

This whole affair really has little to do with science, and a lot to do with big egos.

[j_p_o]

I guess the glaciers can stop melting now.

“National Parks Quietly Toss Signs Saying Glaciers ‘Will Be Gone’ By 2020 (They’re Growing)”

It seems the come, they go, and they come back again…

https://lidblog.com/...rk-service-glaciers/

Scientists have recognized, however, that glacier retreat is not a linear process. Climate variability sometimes causes more snow to accumulate on glaciers, causing them to grow. Yet the mass trend in the northern Rockies, where Glacier National Park is located, and in nearly all mountain ranges in the world is on a steady decline.

https://glacierhub.org/2019/08/20/new-signage-at-glacier-national-park-raises-climate-change-uncertainties/

[eb]

“National Parks Quietly Toss Signs Saying Glaciers ‘Will Be Gone’ By 2020 (They’re Growing)”

It seems the come, they go, and they come back again…

https://lidblog.com/...rk-service-glaciers/

While it’s amusing to see the Park Service changing their signs, that’s a remarkably ignorant article. Worse than ignorant, actually, much of it is flat-out wrong, and even deliberately misleading.

Just one example of it’s falsehoods:
"Here’s the bottom line— some glaciers in the U.S. are growing others are shrinking. If however, they were shrinking because the global warming hypothesis was correct, they would all be shrinking …"

That’s completely wrong. Temperature is only one of many factors affecting whether glaciers shrink or grow. Global warming (if correct) will likely lead to some glaciers shrinking, but it may also lead to some glaciers growing, most likely in areas which receive enhanced precipitation.

[getcereal]

I guess the glaciers can stop melting now.

“National Parks Quietly Toss Signs Saying Glaciers ‘Will Be Gone’ By 2020 (They’re Growing)”

It seems the come, they go, and they come back again…

https://lidblog.com/...rk-service-glaciers/

Scientists have recognized, however, that glacier retreat is not a linear process. Climate variability sometimes causes more snow to accumulate on glaciers, causing them to grow. Yet the mass trend in the northern Rockies, where Glacier National Park is located, and in nearly all mountain ranges in the world is on a steady decline.** **

https://glacierhub.org/2019/08/20/new-signage-at-glacier-national-park-raises-climate-change-uncertainties/

This maybe true. I am not a scientist and I don’t study this stuff.

But don’t you think making up shit with out any scientific proof will only erode your case long term?

[chaparral]

I guess the glaciers can stop melting now.

“National Parks Quietly Toss Signs Saying Glaciers ‘Will Be Gone’ By 2020 (They’re Growing)”

It seems the come, they go, and they come back again…

https://lidblog.com/...rk-service-glaciers/

Scientists have recognized, however, that glacier retreat is not a linear process. Climate variability sometimes causes more snow to accumulate on glaciers, causing them to grow. Yet the mass trend in the northern Rockies, where Glacier National Park is located, and in nearly all mountain ranges in the world is on a steady decline.** **

https://glacierhub.org/2019/08/20/new-signage-at-glacier-national-park-raises-climate-change-uncertainties/

This maybe true. I am not a scientist and I don’t study this stuff.

But don’t you think making up shit with out any scientific proof will only erode your case long term?

No, it won’t. The evidence is that the anti-climate change group is still going strong.

[getcereal]

I guess the glaciers can stop melting now.

“National Parks Quietly Toss Signs Saying Glaciers ‘Will Be Gone’ By 2020 (They’re Growing)”

It seems the come, they go, and they come back again…

https://lidblog.com/...rk-service-glaciers/

Scientists have recognized, however, that glacier retreat is not a linear process. Climate variability sometimes causes more snow to accumulate on glaciers, causing them to grow. Yet the mass trend in the northern Rockies, where Glacier National Park is located, and in nearly all mountain ranges in the world is on a steady decline.** **

https://glacierhub.org/2019/08/20/new-signage-at-glacier-national-park-raises-climate-change-uncertainties/

This maybe true. I am not a scientist and I don’t study this stuff.

But don’t you think making up shit with out any scientific proof will only erode your case long term?

No, it won’t. The evidence is that the anti-climate change group is still going strong.

Is there a big group that doesn’t believe climate changes?

I think a lot of people believe climate always changes and they can’t believe half of the crap the media sells us about doom and gloom because of their horrible history of being wrong.

[veganerd]

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8/28/1881956/-Tim-Ball-Pleads-For-Mercy-As-An-Irrelevant-Sick-Old-Man-Gets-It-Declares-Victory
.

[chaparral]

I guess the glaciers can stop melting now.

“National Parks Quietly Toss Signs Saying Glaciers ‘Will Be Gone’ By 2020 (They’re Growing)”

It seems the come, they go, and they come back again…

https://lidblog.com/...rk-service-glaciers/

Scientists have recognized, however, that glacier retreat is not a linear process. Climate variability sometimes causes more snow to accumulate on glaciers, causing them to grow. Yet the mass trend in the northern Rockies, where Glacier National Park is located, and in nearly all mountain ranges in the world is on a steady decline.** **

https://glacierhub.org/2019/08/20/new-signage-at-glacier-national-park-raises-climate-change-uncertainties/

This maybe true. I am not a scientist and I don’t study this stuff.

But don’t you think making up shit with out any scientific proof will only erode your case long term?

No, it won’t. The evidence is that the anti-climate change group is still going strong.

Is there a big group that doesn’t believe climate changes?

I think a lot of people believe climate always changes and they can’t believe half of the crap the media sells us about doom and gloom because of their horrible history of being wrong.

Yes, I am talking about the group you refer to. See, a history of making shit up has not hurt that group.

[j_p_o]

I guess the glaciers can stop melting now.

“National Parks Quietly Toss Signs Saying Glaciers ‘Will Be Gone’ By 2020 (They’re Growing)”

It seems the come, they go, and they come back again…

https://lidblog.com/...rk-service-glaciers/

Scientists have recognized, however, that glacier retreat is not a linear process. Climate variability sometimes causes more snow to accumulate on glaciers, causing them to grow. Yet the mass trend in the northern Rockies, where Glacier National Park is located, and in nearly all mountain ranges in the world is on a steady decline.** **

https://glacierhub.org/2019/08/20/new-signage-at-glacier-national-park-raises-climate-change-uncertainties/

This maybe true. I am not a scientist and I don’t study this stuff.

But don’t you think making up shit with out any scientific proof will only erode your case long term?

Who made up stuff? A prediction was made, the timing was off, but the trend continues. There is a difference between being slightly off and making things up.

What part are you saying s made up?

[ironclm]

I thought this was going to be about Miami Vice.

Yes, ditto. One of the best shows ever.

[efernand]

This whole affair really has little to do with science, and a lot to do with big egos.

Actually it does have a lot to do with science. Specifically the “science” that came up with the hockey stick graph.

Ball called Mann a fraud, Mann sued for libel. Ball said show me the data and analysis and I’ll prove it’s fake, and Mann said… nothings, and delayed, and finally the court found for Ball.

Why wouldn’t a prominent climate change proponent be more than happy to educate the court and the world on his oft cited findings? Why can’t he just point to where it’s all been published in a peer reviewed journal?

I believe it’s Slowman’s stance is that all the data and analysis it out there for anyone to review. Well, evidently it’s not, and at least Mann will do anything to prevent it’s release.

Does that mean that climate change is bunk? Maybe, maybe not. But it certainly torpedoes Mann’s credibility, and anyone who pushes the hockey stick graph.

Like I said in the other thread. It’s a question of faith, which scientists do you believe, and Mann just made it a lot harder to believe the pro-climate change side.

[eb]

This whole affair really has little to do with science, and a lot to do with big egos.

Actually it does have a lot to do with science. Specifically the “science” that came up with the hockey stick graph.

Ball called Mann a fraud, Mann sued for libel. Ball said show me the data and analysis and I’ll prove it’s fake, and Mann said… nothings, and delayed, and finally the court found for Ball.

Why wouldn’t a prominent climate change proponent be more than happy to educate the court and the world on his oft cited findings? Why can’t he just point to where it’s all been published in a peer reviewed journal?

I believe it’s Slowman’s stance is that all the data and analysis it out there for anyone to review. Well, evidently it’s not, and at least Mann will do anything to prevent it’s release.

Does that mean that climate change is bunk? Maybe, maybe not. But it certainly torpedoes Mann’s credibility, and anyone who pushes the hockey stick graph.

Like I said in the other thread. It’s a question of faith, which scientists do you believe, and Mann just made it a lot harder to believe the pro-climate change side.

No, it really does have little to do with science. You could completely ignore the “hockey stick”, pretend it never happened, and the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change would be 99.999% unchanged.

What Mann did with the “hockey stick” was to monkey with the data (leaving some out, and using principal components inappropriately). The effect was to downplay the medieval warm period and make the graph look more like a hockey stick. He got called on it, and rightfully so. As I said in my earlier post, his “massive ego and desire for fame sometimes get a little ahead of his science.”

The important thing to note is that none of the monkeying around that Mann did affected the fundamental conclusion: the current warming is highly unusual. The National Academy of Sciences reviewed the case and declared (in 2006) :
“The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence …”

In the years since that NAS assessment the case has only strengthened.

The controversy over Mann’s “hockey stick” is essentially an irrelevant side show. Mann’s credibility has been questioned and in my opinion that’s appropriate. And the intense resulting scrutiny has IMO ensured that anyone publishing in this area since then has been particularly careful with their analysis. So perhaps we should be thankful that Mann got so much attention, as it may have made the conclusions of subsequent authors more believable. Would you accept that?

[getcereal]

I guess the glaciers can stop melting now.

“National Parks Quietly Toss Signs Saying Glaciers ‘Will Be Gone’ By 2020 (They’re Growing)”

It seems the come, they go, and they come back again…

https://lidblog.com/...rk-service-glaciers/

Scientists have recognized, however, that glacier retreat is not a linear process. Climate variability sometimes causes more snow to accumulate on glaciers, causing them to grow. Yet the mass trend in the northern Rockies, where Glacier National Park is located, and in nearly all mountain ranges in the world is on a steady decline.** **

https://glacierhub.org/2019/08/20/new-signage-at-glacier-national-park-raises-climate-change-uncertainties/

This maybe true. I am not a scientist and I don’t study this stuff.

But don’t you think making up shit with out any scientific proof will only erode your case long term?

Who made up stuff? A prediction was made, the timing was off, but the trend continues. There is a difference between being slightly off and making things up.

What part are you saying s made up?
Isn’t that what this thread is about (for one example)?

This hokey stick graph has been around since the 2006 Oscar winning documentary. Even though the graph shows years when it got hotter before a rise in CO2. Yet 13 years we are just finding out it could be bogus.

[eb]

Isn’t that what this thread is about (for one example)?

This hokey stick graph has been around since the 2006 Oscar winning documentary. Even though the graph shows years when it got hotter before a rise in CO2. Yet 13 years we are just finding out it could be bogus.

I can show you more than a dozen peer-reviewed temperature reconstructions that are broadly similar to the top chart.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years

Can you in turn show me the peer-reviewed paper that shows Tim Ball’s plot? And could you also explain why you’re comparing Ball’s reconstruction of temperature changes in Europe to Mann’s reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperatures?

The point you seem to have missed is that in the twenty years since Mann’s graph, its main findings have been reinforced and confirmed. So even though Mann’s work had issues, the subsequent work by others is anything but “bogus”.

[Slowman]

I believe it’s Slowman’s stance is that all the data and analysis it out there for anyone to review. Well, evidently it’s not, and at least Mann will do anything to prevent it’s release.

sorry. not me. i don’t know what or who you’re referring to. i didn’t address it at all.

[getcereal]

I guess the glaciers can stop melting now.

“National Parks Quietly Toss Signs Saying Glaciers ‘Will Be Gone’ By 2020 (They’re Growing)”

It seems the come, they go, and they come back again…

https://lidblog.com/...rk-service-glaciers/

Scientists have recognized, however, that glacier retreat is not a linear process. Climate variability sometimes causes more snow to accumulate on glaciers, causing them to grow. Yet the mass trend in the northern Rockies, where Glacier National Park is located, and in nearly all mountain ranges in the world is on a steady decline.** **

https://glacierhub.org/2019/08/20/new-signage-at-glacier-national-park-raises-climate-change-uncertainties/

This maybe true. I am not a scientist and I don’t study this stuff.

But don’t you think making up shit with out any scientific proof will only erode your case long term?

Who made up stuff? A prediction was made, the timing was off, but the trend continues. There is a difference between being slightly off and making things up.

What part are you saying s made up?
Isn’t that what this thread is about (for one example)?

This hokey stick graph has been around since the 2006 Oscar winning documentary. Even though the graph shows years when it got hotter before a rise in CO2. Yet 13 years we are just finding out it could be bogus.

Well that’s perfect, if Tim Balls version is bull shit, than produce the data, take him to court, make him look like a jack ass and then Mann will be the hero.

[TimeIsUp]

The controversy over Mann’s “hockey stick” is essentially an irrelevant side show. Mann’s credibility has been questioned and in my opinion that’s appropriate.

From what I have gathered so far this is about as accurate a description as one could come up with. Mann could be completely discredited (and maybe should be), but ultimately it doesn’t change a thing. However, the anti-climate change crowd will be pointing at this as a “gotcha” moment.