Scientists Expose Data Manipulation, ‘Hide The Decline’, And The Post-1940s Hockey Stick Temperature Myth

Why ‘Hide The Decline’?

There Has Been No Net NH Warming Since The 1940s

In the press release for a newly published and controversial  peer-reviewed scientific paper, Australian scientist Dr. Jennifer Marohasy unveiled one of climate science’s better-kept secrets.

She and her colleagues are well aware that the post-1940s Northern Hemisphere (NH)  proxy evidence from tree-rings, bore holes, pollen, etc., consistently fails to affirm sharply rising temperatures from the late 20th century onwards.

In fact, Marohasy points out that a lack of rising temperatures for recent decades is so common in paleoclimate reconstructions that tendentious climate scientists have necessarily added heavily adjusted, hockey-stick-shaped instrumental records (e.g., from NASA GISS, HadCRUT) on to the end of the trend so as to maintain the visualization of an ongoing dangerous warming.

The lack of recently rising temperatures in proxy evidence is somewhat furtively referred to as the “divergence problem”, and the “trick” of adding instrumental records is utilized to “hide the decline”.


Dr. Jennifer Marohasy, The Spectator  (Australia):


Marohasy’s conclusions about proxy temperatures are routinely verified in the scientific literature.

Last year, for example, Dr. Pei Xing and co-authors unveiled a new method (MVDM) for calibrating low-frequency NH tree-ring data for the last 1,200 years in  The Extratropical Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction during the Last Millennium Based on a Novel Method.   Using a large volume of 126 proxy temperature records from the Northern Hemisphere, they found (1) a clearly discernible Medieval Warm Period  (MWP) (950-1150) and Little Ice Age (LIA) (1450-1850), (2) “likely unprecedented” modern temperatures (relative to the last 1,000 years), as well as a (3) “significant” link between the high temperatures of the MWP and recent times and the high solar activity that characterized both periods (the Medieval Maximum and the Modern Grand Maximum).

“The smoothed MDVM reconstruction exhibited a general agreement with the variation of the reconstructed total solar irradiance (TSI), and the correlation between the two series during the common period 849–2000 AD was significant (r = 0.498). Specially, the records shared high correlation coefficients in the epochs of the solar maximum (i.e. during the Medieval and Modern age)

Interestingly, when examining the Xing et al. (2016) reconstruction of the Northern Hemisphere from Figure 7,  the lack of sustained proxy temperature warming for the more recent decades is clearly detectable.  There is a very noticeable temperature decline after 1980.   The Xing et al. (2016) reconstruction also documents a lack of any net NH warming for the 60 years following the 1930s and 1940s peak.

Now consider the instrumental record and its conducivity to hiding the post-1980s decline.  Notice the amplitude of the HadCRUT data not only raises the 1980s temperatures well above the tree-ring data, it reduces the 1960s cooling by a few tenths of a degree too.   A similar divergence can be found in Briffa et al., 2002, who used 387 NH proxy records in showing that temperatures cooled as instrumental temperatures showed abrupt warming after the 1960s.  It’s the illustrated version of “Mike’s Nature Trick”.


Flashback: The leaked Hide the Decline conversations with temperature data overseers…

 “…you really ought to replace the values from 1961 onwards with observed [instrumental] temperatures due to the decline.”
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were” …. “Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures – another way of ‘correcting’ for the decline, though may be not defensible!”

Climategate ‘hide the decline’ explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller

The D’Arrigo et al. (2006) Northern Hemisphere reconstruction derived from “66 high elevation and latitudinal treeline North American and Eurasian sites” also reveals a NH temperature decline after the 1940s and again after the 1980s.


Christiansen and Lungqvist (2012) utilize proxies from 91 locations across the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere to reveal no net warming since the 1940s.


Schneider et al., 2015 use proxy evidence from 15 IPCC-referenced locations in the Northern Hemisphere to document no net warming since the 1940s and a flattening after the 1980s.


Wilson et al., 2016


Stoffel et al., 2015 used proxy data from 22 Northern Hemisphere locations to illustrate there has been no net warming since the 1940s.

Of note, consider how closely the Stoffel et al. (2015) NH reconstruction resembles the trends in total solar irradiance since the 18th century, including almost identical timings and amplitudes for the 20th century.


Below are selections from a much larger collection of graphs taken from recently published papers that also document a lack of any net warming since the mid-20th century…from both hemispheres.

With the large and growing discrepancy between the instrumental record that hides the decline and the proxy evidence from tree-rings and ice cores that doesn’t, one wonders how much longer the illusion of a linearly warming Earth may continue to be promulgated.


Balanzategui et al., 2017


Büntgen et al., 2017


Turney et al., 2017

Occupying about 14% of the world’s surface, the Southern Ocean […] … a cooling trend since 1979.”


Zywiec et al., 2017

 


Fuentes et al., 2017


Parker and Ollier, 2017


Wilson et al., 2017


Tejedor et al., 2017

De Jong et al., 2016

“[T]he reconstruction…shows that recent warming (until AD 2009) is not exceptional in the context of the past century. For example, the periods around AD 1940 and from AD 1950–1955 were warmer..”


Zafar et al., 2016


Zhao et al., 2016


Sunkara and Tiwari, 2016


Turner et al., 2016

“Absence of 21st century warming on Antarctic Peninsula consistent with natural variability”


Chandler et al., 2016


Zhu et al., 2016


Hasholt et al., 2016


de Jong and de Steur, 2016


O’Donnell et al., 2016


Christy and McNider, 2016


Thapa et al., 2015

[T]emperature in Central Asia and northern Hemisphere revert back towards cooling trends in the late twentieth century.”


Yan et al., 2015


Wei et al., 2015

76 responses to “Scientists Expose Data Manipulation, ‘Hide The Decline’, And The Post-1940s Hockey Stick Temperature Myth”

  1. yonason

    You know you want to watch it…
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dul_hYde0nk

    (-;|

    1. tom0mason

      And there’s a simple graphic to explain the Mannian method.
      https://co2islife.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/adjustocene_scr.jpg

      🙂

  2. David Johnson

    Very good compilation of indisputable facts. Well, indisputable as long as you are a sentient reasoning being.

    1. tom0mason

      And they show that Mann’s hockey stick nonsense is just that, utter undeniable nonsense!

  3. SebastianH

    Marohasy’s conclusions about proxy temperatures are routinely verified in the scientific literature.

    Unbelievable, you still believe their proxy record actually goes to the year 2000 because they say it is.

    You have seen the overlay of the Moberg proxy data over the Marohasy proxy data and should have noticed that both are identical, except that the Moberg data needs to be scaled by 10% and shifted/stretched to the present by 35 years to correctly “match” their graph.

    What more evidence do you need that Marohasy made a mistake?

    Then you show us other graphs and claim they are similar to that Marohasy proxy. They are not. I combined their proxy with the Schneider 2015 proxy: http://imgur.com/a/RiCKO

    Do you think they look similar? They aren’t …

    1. Kenneth Richard

      “You have seen the overlay of the Moberg proxy data over the Marohasy proxy data”

      What does Moberg (2005)data have to do with the proxy data used by Marohasy and Abbot in 2017? As shown above, other data sets that use 126, 91, 66, 22, 15…different proxy temperature records from across the NH also devise curves that go through to the year 2000 that don’t look like Moberg’s 2005 reconstruction either. Should we assume that all those hundreds of reconstructions got it wrong every time too?

      1. SebastianH

        What does Moberg data have to do with the proxy data used by Marohasy and Abbot?

        You keep claiming that they somehow composed their own NH proxy data record. In their paper, they state that they digitized proxy data and it is obvious which proxy data they digitized … only they made a mistake while doing that and thus their resulting graph is stretched/shifted.

        And don’t get me started on the other graphs you present here as if they would show a peak in 1980 and then a decline. They don’t.

        You write (regarding Xing 2016):

        Now consider the instrumental record and its conducivity to hiding the post-1970s decline. Notice the amplitude of the HadCRUT data not only raises the 1980s temperatures well above the tree-ring data, it reduces the 1960s cooling by a few tenths of a degree too.

        Either you are blind or you are seeing a different graph than this one: http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Holocene-Cooling-Northern-Hemisphere-Xing-2016-Instrumental-.jpg

        You write:

        Christiansen and Lungqvist (2012) utilize proxies from 91 locations across the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere to reveal no net warming since the 1940s.

        The green line is not proxy data and this graph (figure 8 in their paper) clearly demonstrates that their proxy data ends in 1960, too.

        You write:

        Schneider et al., 2015 use proxy evidence from 15 IPCC-referenced locations in the Northern Hemisphere to document no net warming since the 1940s and a flattening after the 1980s.

        There is flattening after the 1980s in that reconstruction. Here is a closeup: http://imgur.com/a/RiCKO (red line is the instrumental record, the divergence problem is clearly visible). The Marohasy proxy doesn’t look like this reconstruction at all … you know why? Because it is stretched/shifted.

        And it goes on like this …

        Why do you think it’s unnecessary to know the details of the Abbot and Marohasy proxy data to leap to the conclusion that they made the mistake?

        The details? From their paper: “Published graphical temperature proxy reconstructions were digitized using UN-SCAN-IT software. Table 1 gives a summary of the temperature proxy reconstructions used for analysis.”
        Since it is the same curve as Moberg (but stretched/shifted) they obviously made a mistake digitizing it.

        Do you think it’s possible you don’t have enough information?

        Are you blind? (Honest question)

        What do you see in this graph comparison?
        http://imgur.com/a/3ZEZY

    2. Kenneth Richard

      By the way, SebastianH, why do you think it was so important for Phil Jones and Michael Mann to hide the decline in temperatures by inserting instrumental records (showing abrupt warming) into their post-1960s and post-1980s NH graphs?

      Could it be because they recognized that tree-ring records show a decline in temperatures after the 1980s – just as Marohasy has noted in the press release for her paper?

      If not, why else does the extensive proxy evidence from so many reconstructions (i.e., 126 locations, 66 locations, etc.) show temperatures leveling off or declining after 1980? Do you think it’s possible the tree ring data was correct up until about 1960-’80, and then the data somehow became wrong after that?

      Or could it be that the temperature data set overseers didn’t want their reconstructions to depict declining temperatures after the 1960s-1980s period, and thus they hid the decline by grafting in their heavily adjusted instrumental records with “mostly made up” data for large regions of the globe (i.e., the SH sea surface temperatures)?

      Because this is what it looks like they did.

      Do you think it’s reasonable for skeptics to suspect that this is what happened, given the uncovered let’s-hide-the-decline conversations?

      1. SebastianH

        You mentioned the divergence problem in your post. Did you put it in quotes because you think it is some funny AGW invention?

        Do you think it’s possible the tree ring data was correct up until about 1960-’80, and then the data somehow became wrong after that?

        A number of things are possible that makes tree rings proxies diverge from the instrumental record beginning in the 1960s. Global temperature decoupled from solar radiation in the 1960s (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034020/pdf), there was global dimming/brightening. Maybe tree rings aren’t just dependent on temperature alone. Etc … read up on the divergence problem and you can find many possible reasons.

        Do you think it’s reasonable for skeptics to suspect that this is what happened, given the uncovered let’s-hide-the-decline conversations?

        Nope: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climategate

      2. tom0mason

        Also Kenneth,
        The paper “Harmonic Analysis of Worldwide Temperature Proxies for 2000 Years” by Horst-Joachim Lüdecke1 & Carl-Otto Weiss (https://benthamopen.com/FULLTEXT/TOASCJ-11-44).
        Their aggregated temperature reconstructions to a global mean they call G7, and reconstruction from the teased out harmonic structure of the temperature variations from the proxy records, both shown in the graphic Figure 3, are very similar to Abbott & Marohasy’s.

        https://benthamopen.com/contents/figures/TOASCJ/TOASCJ-11-44_F3.jpg

        Yet another paper that does not support Mann’s hockey stick temperature uplift, and correctly shows the well documented MWP.

      3. tom0mason

        I think my comment is in the spam bin again…

      4. richard verney

        It is more fundamental than you state.

        In the climategate emails, they mention that the tree rings did not show the 1970 warming. It is not that they showed a decline in the 1980s, but rather that there was no recovery in the 1970s from the 1940 to 1970 cooling, whereas the adjusted thermometer record had by this stage (late 1990s) removed much of the cooling and showeed substatntial warming from the early 1970s and throughout the 1980s and continuing through the 1990s.

        But of course, we know from the satellite data (which did not undergo the endless adjustments that the land based thermometer record underwent in the 1980s and 1990s) that there is no statistical warming between 1979 and the run up to the super El Nino of 1997/98, so that is why Mann could not use the tree ring data.

        At the time of the Mann paper (this coincided with the Super El Nino but before the step change in temperature coincident with that event had taken place), the tree rings showed no warming from 1970 through to circa 1996/97 whereas the adjusted land thermometer record showed relentless warming.

        Mann had discovered that the way in which the Team had adjusted the land based thermometer meant that it had significantly diverged from reality.

        One must remember that prior to the endless adjustments to the land based thermometer record, both Phil Jones in 1980 and Hansen in 1981 accepted that the Northern hemisphere temperatures as at 1980 were some 0.3 to 0.4 degC cooler than they were in 1940.

        If there was no warming between 1980 and say around 1996 (the last date for the tree rings) as the satellite data suggested then the paper should have concluded that the Northern Hemisphere was still some 0.2 to 0.4 degC cooler than it was in 1940.

        The tree ring data would have supported that, but of course, this did not fit with the meme of cAGW, and hence the splice on of the adjusted land thermometer record which had been so heavily adjusted that it diverged significantly from reality.

        Even with the step change coincident with the 1997/98 Super El nino, it is probable that the Northern hemisphere is no warmer today than it was in 1940.

        There has been no significant warming after the 1920 to 1940 warming, merely multidecadal variations; some ups and some downs and we are now back where we were in 1940..

        1. SebastianH

          No warming between 1980 and 2000? http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

          I guess there is no possible way to convince you that global warming is real, is there? We just have to wait 50 years and see what proxy data and instrumental data then shows us about this period of time.

          1. richard verney

            Your plot distorts the position, since it includes the step change coincident upon the Super El Nino of 1997/98, and therefore does not answer the point I made.

            The point I made is that at the time of the Mann paper (MBH98) in the satellite data there was no statistically significant warming between 1979 and the run up to the Super El Nino of 1997/98.

            If you look at your plot, my point is made out, since there is a slight positive trend of up to about 0.1degC in a period of about 17 years, and that is not statistically significant. You cannot increase the very slight positive trend by including the step change in temperature of about 0.3 degC coincident with the 1997/98 Super El Nino, since that event had yet to occur at the time when MBH98 was written!!!

            It may have warmed by 0.1degC in those 17 years, or it may not have warmed at all during those 17 years, or indeed, it might have cooled very slightly. The fact is that we simply do not know. From a scientific perspective all we can conclude and say is that there is no statistically significant warming as from inception of the satellite record (1979) and the run up to the Super El Nino of 1997/98.

            The Tree ring data of course agreed with the satellite, namely that there was no statistical warming between 1979 and about 1996 (the end date of the tree ring data), and we know from the climategate emails, that the tree ring data showed no 1970s warming at all. There being no warming during the 1970s is actually stated in those emails.

            Mann had discovered that the relentless adjustments made to the land based thermometer record had caused that record to diverge from reality, and he had identified a need to re-examine the land based thermometer record and to consider the accuracy and efficacy of the numerous adjustments made to the record between 1980 and 1997 that had caused the land based thermometer record to diverge.

            Shame he never acted like a genuine scientist and investigated that point. The MBH98 paper could have been an important scientific paper if only it had addressed and investigated the divergence and examined closely all the adjustments made to the land thermometer record as from about 1980 onwards.

            That was a real missed opportunity, and one that would have genuinely enhanced his reputation. History is likely to judge him very badly on this missed opportunity.

  4. yonason

    Steve McIntyre exposes Mann’s deception.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqzcA7SsqSA

    Warmists are scoundrels!

    1. tom0mason

      Not so much professional kriging of two groups of results together more like a ham-fisted and schoolboy attempt to staple the instrumental series over the inconvenient tree-ring data.

      🙂

  5. SebastianH

    It is weird that you guys (again) argue that all the data is fake anyways and that there is no global warming (decline after 1980?) … why bother to argue against anything else when this is your core belief?

  6. RAH

    Mann to this day refuses to release his data and methods even when ordered by a court to do so. https://www.spartareport.com/2017/07/michael-mann-refuses-hand-data-judge-climate-change-trial/

    Thus Mann’s hockey stick is not science because the modern scientific method requires transparency so that outside researchers can test the hypothesis by reproducing results (or failing to) by experiment or their own review of the raw data and calculations and review of the methods used.

    Mann’s hockey stick hypothesis cannot be tested because he refuses to release the information and data required to do so, and so is not science.

    1. SebastianH

      Mann to this day refuses to release his data and methods

      Really? Because it took like 20 seconds to find it: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Reconstructions

      Thus Mann’s hockey stick is not science

      You guys should get over this “hockey stick isn’t real” idea. The instrumental record goes back far enough so one can combine it with proxy data. Both match pretty well until the 60s, then they deviate from each other suggesting it’s not temperature alone that determines the size of the tree rings.

      Mann’s hockey stick hypothesis cannot be tested because he refuses to release the information and data required to do so, and so is not science.

      Go on, test it! Here is the data and code for the 2009 paper: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/supplements/MultiproxySpatial09/

      Here is the data for the 2008 paper:
      http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/supplements/MultiproxyMeans07/

      Looks pretty complete and very transparent to me …

      1. richard verney

        You guys should get over this “hockey stick isn’t real” idea. The instrumental record goes back far enough so one can combine it with proxy data. Both match pretty well until the 60s, then they deviate from each other suggesting it’s not temperature alone that determines the size of the tree rings.

        Either tree rings are a sufficiently good proxy for temperatures, or they are not. There is no fudged middle ground.

        When Mann in around 1996/97 discovered the divergence problem, he had a choice. He could have concluded that tree rings are not sufficiently good temperature proxies and therefore thrown out the tree ring study on that basis, and never had the MBH98 paper published. That would be one legitimate conclusion.

        The other choice was to accept the tree ring data as a sufficiently good proxy for temperature and then investigated the divergence problem, ie., what had caused the temperature record post the 1960s to so significantly diverge.

        He would then have seen that the problem was caused by the manner in which the land based thermometer record had been adjusted throughout the 1980s and 1990s. As we know these adjustments have cooled the past and warmed the present. They have have sought to render the 1940s less warm so as to compress the 1920s to 1940s warming, they have warmed the period between 1940 and 1970 thereby reducing the amount of the 1940s to 1970s cooling (in accordance with the Team’s declared intention, to eradicate or at any rate reduce the 1940s blip), and they have increased the post 1970s warming exaggerating the trend. It is this trend of adjustment that has brought about the divergence problem.

        Now Mann should either have stuck to the tree rings and presented his findings through to circa 1996 (the end date of the tree ring data). This would have shown that the 1940s was the warmest period of the 20th century, and that there had been very slight cooling post the 1940s. This conclusion would have fitted well alongside the Jones and Wigley 1980 paper, and the Hansen 1981 paper which suggested that as at 1980, the Northern Hemisphere was some 0.3 to 0.4degC cooler than 1940. Thus the tree ring data would have suggested that the NH as around 1996 was about 0.2 to 0.3 degC cooler than 1940. That is very probably correct.

        Alternatively, Mann should have confronted the divergence problem head on, and shown how the trend in the adjustments to the thermometer record had brought about the divergence. He could then also have compared it with the satellite data that suggested no statistical warming between 1979 and the date of his study. He would have commented that according to the GHE, it is a top down warming theory such that the atmosphere should show the effect of warming before the land, and the atmosphere should show a greater amount of warming than is seen with the land.

        Thus even if the satellite data showed say nearly 0.1 degC warming between 1979 to about 1996/7 (which is not statistically significant) then one would expect to see less than this amount of warming in the land based thermometer record if the warming is due to the GHE. thus if the adjusted land based thermometer record was showing more than about 0.07degC of warming between 1979 to 1996 there is a problem with the adjustments.

        One of the problems is that if the land is warming faster and to a greater extent than the atmosphere, then the warming pattern is not consistent with the GHE and there must be some other explanation for the land warming. The most likely explanation being that teh land based thermometer record has become inaccurate due to station drop out, particularly high latitude drop out, a biasing towards airport stations, poor station siting and a failure to properly allow for UHI which is having an ever increasing impact upon post 1960s temperatures because of not simply an increase in urbanisation but also the drop out of rural stations and the ever increasing percentage of airport stations and airports have so greatly changed during the 1970s and 1980s. The package holiday revolution of the mid to late 1970s has had a huge impact on the temperature record especially during the period covered by the MBH98 study.

        MBH98 could have been a very interesting paper if only proper science had been conducted.

        1. SebastianH

          So you believe the instrumental record is incorrect and tree ring proxies are correct?

    2. SebastianH

      Reply in spam?

      Here is the data and code … wasn’t hard to find:
      http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/supplements/MultiproxySpatial09/
      http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/supplements/MultiproxyMeans07/

      Have fun “testing the hypothesis”.

      1. RAH

        If that is what is necessary to recreate Mann’s hockey stick and validate his findings then he would not be facing possible contempt of court for refusing to release his computer codes and all his data.
        http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

        “Michael Mann, who chose to file what many consider to be a cynical SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) libel suit in the British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver six long years ago, has astonished legal experts by refusing to comply with the court direction to hand over all his disputed graph’s data. Mann’s iconic hockey stick has been relied upon by the UN’s IPCC and western governments as crucial evidence for the science of ‘man-made global warming.’”

        Face it. It’s not science. The man will not comply and provide ALL the information necessary to replicate his results.

        This despite the fact that he produced it as a member of the faculty of publicly funded university. IOW tax dollars were used to produce the hockey stick.

        His refusal to release computer codes and data needed is indefensible. His hockey stick is not science.

        1. SebastianH

          Don’t believe the fake news that is principia scientific …

          What is missing from the linked data?

          1. sunsettommy

            Sebastian, he has never come clean with his bogus paper:

            “Mann and his co-authors created a temperature reconstruction of the past 1,000 years (of the northern hemisphere) which had the shape of a “hockey stick.” It showed relatively flat temperatures for approximately 900 years followed by a sharp increase in temperatures over the last hundred. This gave the impression modern temperatures were unprecedented in the last millennium, strongly suggesting humans were the cause. Critics of the hockey stick say this shape, and thus the implication, can exist solely by giving undue weight to a small amount of data. For all the disagreements and technical issues which have arisen, that point is what everything comes down to.

            Mann’s original reconstruction was created in two parts. The first part went back to 1,400 AD, and it was published in 1998. In this paper, that central criticism was dismissed prior to ever being raised when the authors said:

            the long-term trend in NH is relatively robust to the inclusion of dendroclimatic indicators in the network, suggesting that potential tree growth trend biases are not influential in the multiproxy climate reconstructions.

            The next year, Mann and his co-authors published a second paper, extending their reconstruction back to 1,000 AD. Prior to this, Mann did an analysis, the results of which he describes on page 51 of his book:

            The tests revealed that not all of the records were playing an equal role in our reconstructions. Certain proxy data appeared to be of critical importance in establishing the reliability of the reconstruction–in particular, one set of tree ring records spanning the boreal tree line of North America published by dendroclimatologists Gordon Jacoby and Rosanne D’Arrigo.

            Amazingly enough, Mann now admits his original hockey stick existed solely because of “one set of tree ring records,” directly contradicting his 1998 paper which said the reconstruction was “relatively robust to the inclusion of dendroclimatic indicators” (dendroclimatic indicators are tree ring data). Despite admitting he knew this, he has never corrected his original paper. Instead, he built upon that paper and never told people his conclusions were based on only a tiny fraction of the data he used.”

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/07/a-detailed-review-of-manns-book-the-hockey-stick-and-the-climate-wars-as-it-relates-to-the-wegman-report-to-congress/
            ============================================

            The NAS stated that Bristlcone pine tree rings should not be used in temperature reconstructions. Not only that they say his paper is WORTHLESS!

            There He Goes Again, Version 4.0: Mann Claims His Hockey Stick was Affirmed by the NAS

            1. The NAS indicated that the hockey stick method systematically underestimated the uncertainties in the data (p. 107).

            2. In subtle wording, the NAS agreed with the M&M assertion that the hockey stick had no statistical significance, and was no more informative about the distant past than a table of random numbers. The NAS found that Mann’s methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. Mann’s data set does not have enough information to verify its ‘skill’ at resolving the past, and has such wide uncertainty bounds as to be no better than the simple mean of the data (p. 91). M&M said that the appearance of significance was created by ignoring all but one type of test score, thereby failing to quantify all the relevant uncertainties. The NAS agreed (p. 110), but, again, did so in subtle wording.

            3. M&M argued that the hockey stick relied for its shape on the inclusion of a small set of invalid proxy data (called bristlecone, or “strip-bark” records). If they are removed, the conclusion that the 20th century is unusually warm compared to the pre-1450 interval is reversed. Hence the conclusion of unique late 20th century warmth is not robust—in other word it does not hold up under minor variations in data or methods. The NAS panel agreed, saying Mann’s results are “strongly dependent” on the strip-bark data (pp. 106-107), and they went further, warning that strip-bark data should not be used in this type of research (p. 50).

            4. The NAS said ” Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions”, i.e. produce hockey sticks from baseball statistics, telephone book numbers, and monte carlo random numbers.

            5. The NAS said Mann downplayed the “uncertainties of the published reconstructions…Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.’

            Mann never mentions that a subsequent House Energy and Commerce Committee report chaired by Edward Wegman totally destroyed the credibility of the ‘hockey stick’ and devastatingly ripped apart Mann’s methodology as ‘bad mathematics’. Furthermore, when Gerald North, the chairman of the NAS panel — which Mann claims ‘vindicated him’ – was asked at the House Committee hearings whether or not they agreed with Wegman’s harsh criticisms, he said they did:

            CHAIRMAN BARTON: Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

            DR. NORTH [Head of the NAS panel]: No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

            DR. BLOOMFIELD [of the Royal Statistical Society]: Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

            WALLACE [of the American Statistical Association]: ‘the two reports [Wegman’s and NAS] were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.’”

            http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/09/there-he-goes-again-version-40-mann.html
            =================================================
            Since his bogus paper was published,new papers comes out to take down part of his crap,here is one:

            “New paper finds bristlecone pines (used for Mann’s hockey stick) grow at significantly different rates & often not related to temperature

            A paper published today in Environmental Research Letters has very important implications for tree-ring paleoclimate research [dendrochronology], including Michael Mann’s debunked hockey sticks. The paper finds that growth of bristlecone pines varies significantly depending on altitude, and also depending on whether the trees are located on the North or South side of a mountain. According to the authors, such differences are often not temperature-related and thus could contaminate tree-ring datasets for which the false assumption is made that tree-rings accurately reconstruct temperature variations.”

            http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/new-paper-finds-bristlecone-pines-used.html

            =====================================================
            Only bogus researchers create bogus papers.

          2. SebastianH

            and refers to us as “conspiracy theorists”

            You are conspiracy theorists.

          3. KGans

            Fake news are news contradicting your opinions ?
            That’s the reason for “inventing” “Fake News”.

          4. yonason

            “You are conspiracy theorists.” – Chatbot_troll_SebH

            After what was exposed in the emails of climate-gate, it was no longer “theory” but established fact.

    3. tom0mason

      Without releasing the data and methods it can be legitimately said what Michael E. Mann has done was not science. Michael E. Mann (as lead author of a paper produced in 1998 with co-authors Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes) has deliberately mislead people in to thinking that the results given in his infamous ‘hockey-stick’ paper is anything but a fiction.
      To say it was a science paper is wrong, it is not, it was a paper deliberately crafted fabrication, with a high probability it was intended to mislead. It is just junk. It should never be quoted in other scientific papers, as it has no scientific bona fides.

      If Michael E. Mann says it is scientific as it stands then he is wrong. Science relies on verification and validation. Michael E. Mann acts to block such checks on his work, and thus shows he is NOT a scientist, or at least not acting as someone who understands what it is to be scientific.

      Thankfully many other papers show what is really happening as listed by Kenneth above and many others. Their papers can be subjected to validations and verifications. A such these paper show that Michael E. Mann 1998 paper was wrong. Pain and simple.
      AGW advocates should be upset over this, but until Michael E. Mann can man-up and reveal what is required, then what he has done was not by any stretch of the imagination science.

      1. SebastianH

        Is something missing from the data I linked to?

        Speaking of data and code. Where can I find the data and code used by Abbot&Marohasy again?

        Why is combining the instrumental record with proxy data unscientific? Don’t you want to know if both match?

        1. Allen Eltor

          Sebastian H your church teaches you, that green house gases warm the planet. Green House Gases refract to space 20% of total otherwise available warming firelight from the sun, so it never warms the Earth.

          Your church teaches you that each time green house gases refract additional percentage light from the sun to space, instruments on earth detect and depict more light from the sun, reaching and warming the planet.

          When insulation mixed into a bath that is conduction chilling a sun-warmed rock, causes less and less light to reach the rock, instruments cannot detect and depict, more light reaching and warming it, with every percent less reaching and warming it.

          Your church’s teachings are therefore in direct violation of conservation of energy.

          Furthermore when I was a young man my first career was as an atmospheric and environmental chemist.

          Your church can not correctly calculate the proper temperature of the planet’s average global atmospheric temperature.

          Since your church cannot attain the actual global atmospheric temperature through it’s calculations, this leads me to believe you, personally, are probably incapable of even naming the law of thermodynamics responsible for calculation of global average atmospheric temperature.

          1) What is the name of that law of thermodynamics?

          2) What is the equation of that law?

          You’re in here arguing that you’re an expert on analysis of temperature records, so you should be able to tell me the name of the law, for calculating the temperature of a volume of gas or atmospheric air.

          3) What do each of the factors in the equation of the Law stand for?

          4) Which of those factors leads you to believe it is possible to place insulating refractive gases, between a fire and rock the fire is warming, and have the gases cause instruments to detect and depict more light warming the rock, each time more insulation makes less light warm the rock?

          Be specific.

          5) Tell me why there has to BE another law, for calculation of temperature of atmospheric air, than for calculation of the temperature of sand, or water or ice on a beach, the air that you can’t name the law of thermodynamics governing temperature of, sits over?

          If you can’t answer these fundamental questions, then you’re what’s called a posing, fraudulent fake, too stupid to realize there’s no such thing as insulation that can be placed between fires and rocks they warm, that causes sensors to depict more light warming rocks, the insulation is causing less light to warm.

          I’ll wait, and you tell me the name of the law of physics even governing all your ridiculous claims, and we’ll see if you’re as stupid as I’m telling everyone here, you are.

          1. SebastianH

            there’s no such thing as insulation that can be placed between fires and rocks they warm, that causes sensors to depict more light warming rocks, the insulation is causing less light to warm.

            This is not how the greenhouse effect works. You don’t seem to know the difference between SW radiation and LW radiation, as this and the fire few paragraphs show us.

            As for the laws of thermodynamics, they would be violated by most of what skeptics (on this blog) say is true and they don’t seem to care. It’s not violated by the existence of the greenhouse effect.

      2. tom0mason

        seb asks in reply to my observation

        “Is something missing from the data I linked to?”

        the answer, of course is, YES!

        Now seb go back and read what I said and when asking a question please directly quote me, otherwise don’t bother.

        1. SebastianH

          Now seb go back and read what I said and when asking a question please directly quote me, otherwise don’t bother.

          So you won’t bother to tell us what is missing and why you can’t replicate the results from what is provided in code and data at those links? Hmm …

          I still don’t quite understand the problem you have with hockey sticks. It combines the data from two different temperate time series which happen to deviate somewhere around the 1960s. Is the argument you guys are making really that the instrumental record after 1960 is wrong and that it should look like what the proxies are showing?

          1. SebastianH

            I’ll ask once more: do you think the instrumental record is incorrect to the extent that it should look exactly like that decline visible in tree ring proxy records?

  7. richard verney

    Mods

    I have tried to post a comment but it appears to have been lost.

    Please look out for it, and please indent the first paragraph. i failed to properly close the blockquote

  8. yonason

    STILL A STEAMING PILE OF YKW

    Already in 2005 Michael Mann’s work was known to be garbage. I can’t believe anyone still gives it any credibility. Michael Crichton here reveals a few not so minor problems, some of which I hadn’t been aware of.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cecmvYq_91A&t=6

  9. Wissenschaftler weisen Daten­manipu­lationen nach: die Mythen ,Hide The Decline‘ und ,Hockey­schläger‘ – EIKE – Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie
  10. KGans

    @SebastianH
    ” It combines the data from two different temperate time series which happen to deviate somewhere around the 1960s”
    If proxies ans measurements are combined in a scientific paper, it has at least to be declared. If not, it’s not scientific at all, it’s fraud.

    1. SebastianH

      We are talking about the Mann 2008 paper, right? Have you even read it?

      The whole paper ist about proxies and how to combine them with the instrumental record to show that the warming in the recent decades is likely an anomaly.

      1. KGans

        I speak about P.Jones – using the mentioned “trick” without declaration and wrote that proudly to Mann and col.