16 March 2010

Curry vs. Mann in Discover

There is an interesting set of interviews in Discover with Judy Curry, of Georgia Tech, and Michael Mann, of Penn State. It is worth reading in full to see two very different views of climate science and how it should engage with the broader community. One of these voices represents the future of climate science, and the other, its recent past.

Here are some excerpts from the interview with Curry:

Where do you come down on the whole subject of uncertainty in the climate science?

I’m very concerned about the way uncertainty is being treated. The IPCC [the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] took a shortcut on the actual scientific uncertainty analysis on a lot of the issues, particularly the temperature records.

Don’t individual studies do uncertainty analysis?

Not as much as they should. It’s a weakness. When you have two data sets that disagree, often nobody digs in to figure out all the different sources of uncertainty in the different analysis. Once you do that, you can identify mistakes or determine how significant a certain data set is.

Is this a case of politics getting in the way of science?

No. It’s sloppiness. It’s just how our field has evolved. One of the things that McIntyre and McKitrick pointed out was that a lot of the statistical methods used in our field are sloppy. We have trends for which we don’t even give a confidence interval. The IPCC concluded that most of the warming of the latter 20th century was very likely caused by humans. Well, as far as I know, that conclusion was mostly a negotiation, in terms of calling it “likely” or “very likely.” Exactly what does “most” mean? What percentage of the warming are we actually talking about? More than 50 percent? A number greater than 50 percent?

Are you saying that the scientific community, through the IPCC, is asking the world to restructure its entire mode of producing and consuming energy and yet hasn’t done a scientific uncertainty analysis?

Yes. The IPCC itself doesn’t recommend policies or whatever; they just do an assessment of the science. But it’s sort of framed in the context of the UNFCCC [the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]. That’s who they work for, basically. The UNFCCC has a particular policy agenda—Kyoto, Copenhagen, cap-and-trade, and all that—so the questions that they pose at the IPCC have been framed in terms of the UNFCCC agenda. That’s caused a narrowing of the kind of things the IPCC focuses on. It’s not a policy-free assessment of the science. That actually torques the science in certain directions, because a lot of people are doing research specifically targeted at issues of relevance to the IPCC. Scientists want to see their papers quoted in the IPCC report.

And here is an excerpt from Mann's interview:
Judith Curry has been an outspoken critic of your work and of a lot of climate researchers in general.

Did you ask Judith to turn over her e-mails from the past three years? Once she does that, then she’s in a position to judge other scientists. Until she does that, she is not in a position to be talking about other scientists. Glass houses. Look, I’ll just say this. I’ve received e-mails from Judith that she would not want to be made public.

She said that some data discussed in these e-mails concerned a temperature bump in the 1930s and 1940s, caused by a coincidence of Atlantic and Pacific decadal oscillations.

Yeah, I came up with the term: Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. I coined the term in an interview with Richard Kerr [a writer for Science] in 2000 over a paper with Tom Delworth of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory and the NOAA Laboratory in Princeton, where we actually were the ones to articulate the existence of this oscillation. And you know what? It was celebrated by contrarians. My work has been celebrated by climate skeptics. It’s an interesting footnote.

Is Curry wrong in that regard?

I don’t know exactly what she is referring to. She might be referring to a paper by Thompson et al. that appeared in Nature a couple of years ago about a spurious cooling in the 1940s that scientists couldn’t quite understand.

She was referring to a rise and fall in temperatures in the 1930s and ’40s that might have been caused by a coincidence of these oscillations in the Atlantic and Pacific, and another that could account for a lot of the warming in the 1990s. She was saying that it looked bad that you were trying to smooth out the bump in the ’30s and ’40s but not the one in the 1990s. Is that a valid critique?

The way you characterize it, it sounds like nonsense. I’m not sure how much familiarity she has, for example, with time-series smoothing. I’ve published a number of papers on this topic, and in fact, the approach that I take was used in the most recent IPCC report. I actually take a very objective approach to the problem of time-series smoothing. I’m not sure she understands the problem. It is very much the mainstream view in the climate research community that you cannot explain the warming of the past few decades without anthropogenic and human influences on climate.

Read the whole thing.

42 comments:

  1. Interesting article. I understood Curry's section - Mann's made little sense.

    I guess Curry's comment about some scientists 'more hubris and professional ego.' is aimed at people like Mann, still claiming the Hockey Stick is valid.

    Is he in a different planet?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I’m not sure she understands the problem

    Translation: she doesn't agree with me, therefore she must be an idiot.

    It astounds me that he can believe that everyone who disagrees with him is stupid. He's clearly refusing to even consider contrary ways of looking at the data.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'd bet money Mann and Schmidt largely communicate with each other via Gmail these days, rather than their work emails.

    Discover: Has the political polarization had a detrimental effect on progress in climate science?

    Mann: It has. Here’s the most basic example: Scientists like to communicate by e-mail. It’s much more efficient. You can respond whenever you want. Scientists aren’t going to be doing that as much anymore. When you do write an e-mail, you’ll probably take twice as long because you want to make sure that every word can’t be cherry-picked and distorted.

    Obviously Mann is speaking for himself. I'd bet Judith Curry still uses her work email for all her professional correspondence, and doesn't have to take special care to compose messages so they sound 'just right'.

    It's no contest between the two, really.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Actually, as an employee of an organization funded by the public, Judith Curry's e-mail is potentially open to FOIA requests.

    How can such obviously brilliant people find it so difficult to comprehend what millions understand and consider to be SOP; (1) when you're at work, there is no private e-mail; everything you do on the job belongs to your employer: (2) if your employer is funded by public funds, your e-mail belongs to the public: (3) FOIA is the law of the land, If you can't handle or deal with FOIA maybe another line of work is an option.

    I have been employed by organizations funded by the public. I fully understood the conditions of my employment. I've had to deal with FOIA. Millions of others have also.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ps:

    After sending the above off into electron land, I saw this article.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Roger,

    Why do you think Judy represents the future of climtae science?

    What in Mann's interview suggests he represents the past?

    I'm confused.

    ReplyDelete
  7. -6-Marlowe

    Which would you prefer? Openness and engagement vs. closure and "circle the wagons"?

    Am I being too optimistic about the future? I hope not.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Maybe it's just me, but I have yet to read anything by Mann, or read an interview with Mann, where he strikes me as having anything other than a mediocre mind. I disagree with Curry on many things, but she's obviously a bright person. Same thing with respect to Mr. Pielke Jr. here. Even in just the CRU e-mails, Kevin Trenberth comes across as a smart guy. But Mann gives some of the most flaccid replies to simple questions I've ever seen.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Prof. Mann quipped to the Discover reporter, "Did you ask Judith to turn over her e-mails from the past three years?"

    As he raises the issue, I'd encourage Prof. Mann to make that FOIA request. There might be passages in her emails that strengthen his case, somehow. If not, then the matter is taken care of, and he can focus on more germane arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't agree with Dr.Curry on many things, but she gets my respect for the courage she shows by rowing into the stream of the AGW dogma's. Her open mind is refreshing and clearly lacks the egocentric approach of Dr.Mann, maybe it's a male thing not being able to admit being faulty?

    Dr.Mann comes over as a narrow minded, very suspicious almost paranoid person. Problem is he thinks all people are like him and therefore treats them likewise.

    ReplyDelete
  11. One thing to bear in mind here is the human perspective. Mann and his work has been under constant scrutiny--much of it politically motivated by people who didn't like his conclusions (e.g. Inhofe and Morano)--for over a decade.

    I am not as familiar with Curry's work, but I don't think it has been nearly as close to the center of controversy.

    People posting here might not agree with his work, or even like him, but I think this history should be recognized and considered when assessing his tone relative to Curry's. From a human perspective, it is probably easier for Curry to be open and engaging with critics than it is for Mann.

    I agree that Curry's approach is far preferrable, but would she be so open and willing to engage if she had been subject to the same sustained levels of attack as Mann? Remember, much of the attacks Mann has sustained are personal in nature, and focusing on his motives, rather than his science. I think most people do not have the necessary thickness of hide to sit at the center of controversy and not react defensively (I sure don't).


    Thanks, M

    ReplyDelete
  12. I wonder if Michael Mann will return the $2.4 million he received in Obama “stimulus” money.

    Yeah, I don’t think so.

    I wonder if Dr. Lindzen got any “stimulus” money.

    Yeah, I don’t think so.

    Purely political favor to Michael Mann? You decide.

    ReplyDelete
  13. mazibuko and Marlowe:
    Are you trying to defend Mann's interpersonal style?
    For many of us the CRU emails did little but to confirm behaviors and attitudes that were already visible in other emails and the moderating behavior at RealClimate and other sites.
    The startling thing is that Dr. Curry's behavior is what one should expect. Mann's behavior remains perverse.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I love the way that Mann tries to discredit Curry by his snide reference to her emails.
    He really is a most unpleasant character. Interestingly, it appears to be a fairly common attribute for the high profile AGW proponents. Is it a prerequisite in order to work in the field I wonder?
    You know, like you have to be completely sold on the hypothesis to get or hold down a job these days?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi Bernie,

    I am not defending Mann's interpersonal style, I am simply explaining at as rather natural given his circumstances. I don't think that a comparisons between the two scientists' styles is entirely appropriate given the disparate levels of flak they have been exposed to in this ongoing climate brouhaha (of course, I could be wrong about how central Curry has been to this debate, and how much controversy her work has elicited).

    Defensiveness is rarely admirable or productive, but it can be very hard to avoid, particularly when one feels that one is on the receiving end of unjust attacks. Mann has been subject to a number of attacks that go well beyond his methods, results, and conclusions, and focus on his motives and personal integrity.

    Best. M

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Is it a prerequisite in order to work in the field I wonder?"

    I would think not. It is probably a prerequisite to becoming a "world renown climatologist" who speaks with authority and is always right. Most of the rest of the workers in the field go to work each day and do what most scientists do. They research and report and try to refrain from drawing undue conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  17. what M said, again :)

    I would also add that it would appear that Mann has learned the value of transparency having posted the code for his subsequent work upon publication. I suspect that this doesn't fit well into the contrast that Roger is trying to setup between Mann and Curry.

    ReplyDelete
  18. -18-Marlowe

    The contrast between Curry and Mann was set up by Discover.

    ReplyDelete
  19. mazibuko:
    But Mann has behaved this way for a long time. This can be seen in his early emails. I do not disagree that becoming defensive when attacked is understandable - but how do you distinguish his understandable defensiveness from his unprovoked arrogance?
    When Dr. Curry visited Steve McIntyre's site she was treated both politely and very rudely by various commentators. She responded appropriately unlike one of her other young GT colleagues. As a result she won many admirers - even among those who still disagree with her on some points.
    For many years my wife had a shop. Returns were the bane of her life largely because a surprising number of people tried to return merchandise that they had ruined or was far beyond the return by date. Her experience over countless episodes was that those who were trying to cheat invariably were hostile and defensive when they came in. IMHO, Mann's behavior is like one of those naughty shoppers trying to cheat my wife.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hi Bernie,

    Dr. Curry has started engaging at CA fairly recently, I believe (please correct me if I am wrong), and perhaps has benefited of being able to observe how Mann and others at the center of the controversy achieved the opposite of their intentions (to defend their personal and professional integrity) by circling the wagons. It is also possible that she is more temperamentally suited to criticism than Mann. Perhaps you can tell me this (I don't know), but has she actually defended her own work at CA (other than her post-CRU essay), or merely commented on others (e.g. Lindzen and Choi's recent paper)?

    I cannot comment whether Mann's arrogance was unprovoked or not--not without going way back to the beginning of the hockey stick controversy and recreating a chronology of who said what. However, given the context, I think it is safe to say that there was at the very least a two-way street in terms of poor behavior and arrogance. Remember that Mann had been hauled in front of congress by people whose default assumption is that Mann and his colleagues are fraudsters, or practicing some sort of group think. This was at a time when the party in power was pretty hostile to, and manipulative of, science that it didn't like coming out of its own agencies. Meanwhile, some of the same people who claimed to be acting only in the interest of understanding the science and correcting Mann's methods were arguably engaged in their own form of stealth advocacy for their preferred policy approaches.

    I think it is fair to say that Mann has reacted arrogantly at times, but I think it is tough to say that the storm Mann has faced is caused entirely by his own arrogance (and remember, arrogance is in the eye of the beholder).

    In my mind, the store analogy you relate is more aptly applied to Mann's behavior if one thinks of him as a shopper who is reacting to a crowd of bystanders that is accusing him of outright theft for a product he believes he lawfully purchased.

    Thanks, M

    ReplyDelete
  21. Mazibuko:

    "Remember that Mann had been hauled in front of congress by people whose default assumption is that Mann and his colleagues are fraudsters, or practicing some sort of group think. This was at a time when the party in power was pretty hostile to, and manipulative of, science that it didn't like coming out of its own agencies. Meanwhile, some of the same people who claimed to be acting only in the interest of understanding the science and correcting Mann's methods were arguably engaged in their own form of stealth advocacy for their preferred policy approaches."

    Please read this: http://www.masterresource.org/2010/03/what-real-scientists-do-global-warming-science-vs-global-whining-scientists/


    A quote:

    " Are Scientists Under Attack?

    It is unusual that scientists fighting other scientists make newspaper headlines. One isn’t supposed to be bludgeoned at all, and the discourse isn’t supposed to be on the BBC webpage, but rather in the scientific literature. Hence, the second question: Are scientists under attack?

    Here nuance begins to enter. Some scientists who should be under attack are under attack. Some who should be are not, and some who should not be are. A small number of examples make this point.

    Scientists at the East Anglia University’s Climate Research Center (CRU), the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and the University of Pennsylvania, to name but three, have refused to respond to Freedom of Information requests seeking data and the code for the computer models they have used in preparation of scientific papers. These scientists deserve to be under attack. As the Institute of Physics explained in its submission to Parliament regarding the released CRU emails:"

    ReplyDelete
  22. Darnit, this should have been added to the bit quoted in my last post:

    "Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary.

    If honest science is to survive, the information underlying scientific studies must be available to anyone seeking to validate or replicate the work. Any scientist who stands in the way of that principle should not only be under attack, they should be cashiered from the profession."

    ReplyDelete
  23. Heck, most researchers are arrogant, especially good researchers, what´s the point? Moral test?

    ReplyDelete
  24. If you read the full interview both of them come off pretty well IMO. Mann comes across as a bit defensive on a few points, not surprising given the attacks he has been subject to. He also responds quite effectively to some of Curry's criticisms.

    Since scientists will continue to be human beings, I would say both of these people represent the future of science. In other words scientists will continue actively (and in some cases aggessively) defend their methodologies work against criticism. They will also improve or clarify that work as a result of the criticism. Will some scientists continue to defend their work after most evidence suggests they are wrong? Past evidence would suggest - YES.

    Is Mann occasionally arrogant? Judging by some of the inline replies at Real Climate - probably. Does that make him a bad scientist - NO. Has his body of work stood up to scientific (and political) criticism - largely YES.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'm not an expert on this, but I don't think the Congressional hearings, etc. started until several years into the hockey stick controversy. If Mann (and others) had responded to the initial McIntyre and McKitrick criticisms more constructively the whole thing could have been defused and never developed into a big deal. Am I wrong about that?

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Has his body of work stood up to scientific (and political) criticism - largely YES."

    Whew. I don't see how anyone can come to this conclusion, if he/she has studied the issues at all...

    ReplyDelete
  27. > the store analogy you relate is more aptly applied to Mann's behavior if one thinks of him as a shopper who is reacting to a crowd of bystanders that is accusing him of outright theft for a product he believes he lawfully purchased.

    I don't find these analogies, pro or con, altogether helpful.

    Look, if Prof. Mann is a good scientist, then he practices good science. Among other things: if he makes an error, he acknowledges it, corrects it, and moves on.

    This isn't a question of whether he visits his invalid aunt or is a generous tipper or is "arrogant" -- a common and venial sin.

    Here is a simple, specific, data-oriented matter that Prof. Mann has declined to address for well over a year. The answers speak directly to the validity of the high-profile Hockey Stick reconstructions published by his research group in PNAS in 2008.

    1. Can the four Tiljander proxies used in the PNAS paper be calibrated to the instrumental temperature record that spans 1850 to 1995?

    2. Do the PNAS paper’s reconstructions use the temperature information in the “tiljander-2003-xraydenseave” and “tiljander-2003-lightsum” series in a manner that is consistent with the interpretation offered by Mia Tiljander in her 2003 paper?

    As far as I can tell, the story told by the data is clear-cut.

    1. No.
    2. No.

    Background here.

    It seems to me that Prof. Mann's conduct as a scientist should factor in to how we interpret his standing as a scientist. Saintliness is too much to ask. A more reasonable standard is accountability for high-impact publications on which he is the first author.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "I am not as familiar with Curry's work, but I don't think it has been nearly as close to the center of controversy."
    Dr.Curry was at the receiving end of quite an amount of flak when she dared to enter the lions den Climate Audit and WUWT after the Climategate emails were rvealed (and even before that). People just didn't trusted her motives. Yet she always graciously adressed this mistrust. Quite a different approach to the usual very defensive AGW climatologists. A classy lady IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  29. PS:
    Santer also seem to mistrust Dr.Curry:

    http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/24/my-response-to-dr-judith-currys-unconstructive-essay/

    "Aside from some factual misstatements and the false equivalence that suffuses piece, the essay makes no useful contribution to the climate debate because it fails the two great tests of any serious essay on the subject:

    * She never defines her key terms like alarmism — different readers can read completely different things into her main points. And if you challenge a statement, she can just say she meant something else.
    * She never spells out her answer to the key question of our time, “If you were running national and global climate policy, what level of global CO2 concentrations would be your goal and how would you achieve it?”

    ReplyDelete
  30. jae:

    "Scientists at the East Anglia University’s Climate Research Center (CRU), the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and the University of Pennsylvania, to name but three, have refused to respond to Freedom of Information requests..."

    Lest you libel my alma mater, be aware that Mann is from Pennsylania State University, State College, PA and not the private University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA :)

    ReplyDelete
  31. Mann's "hockey stick" work was largely vindicated after being dragged through the mud. Don't just take my word for it. I refer you to the opinion of our host: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000859quick_reaction_to_th.html

    IMHO a more humble and collegial attitude by both Mann and the self appointed "auditors" could have avoided most of that tempest in a teapot.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I think there is a lot of kid-gloving with Mann here. Jeff's comment above is more accurate.

    Examine the track-record of Mann - his public appearance via media interviews in the popular media and science media. He repeats the same banal nostrum over and over again - nothing in reality has ever had any impact on his climate evangelism.

    Michael Mann gloats in his emails about his superior media skills and powers of persuasion as opposed to the clueless contrarians. He then masquerades in public as an innocent scientist up against the well-funded denial public relations machine. How do you explain that?

    Every utterance from him is in tune with the latest rationalization and propagandist justification meme floating around at the moment. I do not see any defensiveness at all in his words - just someone using one more opportunity to push the agenda.

    Not that there is anything wrong with that (tm).

    Regards

    ReplyDelete
  33. Jae,

    Thanks for the link, which I perused. I think the tone used in that post is the sort that would make someone like Mann rather defensive. Honest criticism on the merits of the science is one thing, labeling people as "propagandists" and "fellow travellers" means that motives and integrity are being questioned, which invites a defensive response and the start of the endless cycle of finger-pointing.

    To the issue of FOIA requests, sure it is bad to not respond to them. But I submit that FOIA requests are not simply being used by innocent questers after the truth, they have often been used (and continue to be--see Institute, Competitive Enterprise) to badger climatologists by political operatives.

    AMac, I agree, if Mann is a good scientist, then his work will stand up in time. Perhaps this is already the case. In addition to the NAS review mentioned by caveat emptor (and I am aware that people (e.g. McIntyre) are critical of the review), there are independent paleo-reconstructions (boreholes, stalactites, etc.) that indicate the same temperature trends illustrated by the hockey stick.

    itisi69, thanks for letting me know when Curry's involvement started at CA. I did see that post-CRUgate essay, and thought it very courageous. Her approach and method of dealing with criticism is admirable (evident again when commenting at CA on the Lindzen and Choi paper), and is one that anyone facing tough scrutiny should emulate. That said, I go back to my original point--I don't think she has been under the gun like Mann has. Despite his work now being only one of several showing similar findings, Mann remains firmly in the center of the controversy. A tough place to be for so many years.


    Thanks, M

    ReplyDelete
  34. mazibuko: "I don't think she has been under the gun like Mann has."

    Well, not quite like Mann (since her work was higher quality), but Curry's hurricane papers were pretty intensively attacked by some skeptics a number of years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  35. mazibuko:
    Mann screwed up when he put together the hockey stick using inappropriate PC analysis. Have you read the Wegman Report? He brought this on himself by using a poor analytic process and then not acknowledging the fact. Read the emails his colleagues including Briffa knew that Mann had screwed up. It is like you are defending the indefensible.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Mazibuko- you said "But I submit that FOIA requests are not simply being used by innocent questers after the truth, they have often been used (and continue to be--see Institute, Competitive Enterprise) to badger climatologists by political operatives."

    We often get FOIA requests from people who are about to litigate us. We get them from classes who are using them as school projects. We get them from people who seemingly are just curious. The point is we just have to follow the law, we don't get to take others' intentions into account and then follow the law once we have determined that their intentions are OK.

    So for those of us who follow laws, this attitude is that "we are above the law, that other inferiors need to follow." That's why some of us find this annoying and not a good argument for why some people are grumpy (poor me, I have to follow the law, and I shouldn't).

    ReplyDelete
  37. I thought they both came out pretty well in their interviews. Mann was a little defensive over the Climategate emails, not surprisingly, and he took one cheap shot at Curry, but he was very realistic about the current political situation.

    Like nearly all scientists, he is more sure of what his field is finding than he should be. He is right that models are rapidly improving. However, they are still a long way - a very long way - from being able to accurately forecast climate 40 or 50 years from now.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Mazibuko #34 --

    "AMac, I agree, if Mann is a good scientist, then his work will stand up in time. Perhaps this is already the case... there are independent paleo-reconstructions (boreholes, stalactites, etc.) that indicate the same temperature trends illustrated by the hockey stick."

    There is a pair of questions and answers that may rebut the pleasing notion that you advance.

    Q1. -- Can the educated layperson discover an instance where an important, published, peer-reviewed finding of Prof. Mann's can be shown to be obviously wrong?

    A1. -- Yes. The calibration and Upside-Down use of the Tiljander proxies. (Google that sentence.)

    Q2. -- Are the self-correction mechanisms of science operating properly in the discipline of paleoclimatology?

    A2. -- No. AGW Consensus scientists and advocates have rallied around Prof. Mann in public. It seems his methodological errors aren't as important as the pleasing Hockey Stick result that his papers reliably deliver. For instance, AGW Consensus science-bloggers at RealClimate and Stoat endorse Prof. Mann's use of the Tiljander proxies. (Google that sentence.) Climategate emails by Darrell Kaufman and Nick McKay tell a different story about what AGW Consensus scientists say about Prof. Mann's use of Tiljander in private. (Google that sentence.)

    Richard Feynman famously pointed out in "Cargo Cult Science" that the scientific process is always vulnerable -- scientists are all-too-human. Until paleoclimatologists stop "hiding the decline" in the standards of their chosen profession, why should we believe any of the Consensus Hockey Stick reconstructions?

    ReplyDelete
  39. caveat:
    Your link does not work for me. But I would be very intrigued and surprised if Roger has ever supported the pathetic "science" behind the hockey sticks. This episode of pseudoscience, along with IPCC’s whole pseudoscientific fiasco, will probably be cited for a hundred years as an example of just how terrible science can get when it is used for political purposes. Unfortunately, all of science has a black eye now, due to a few arrogant arrogant and unapologetic climate “scientists." This black-mark on science will be way worse than previous ones (DDT, etc) because so many people are aware of the scam.

    ReplyDelete
  40. My comment to this post never saw the light of day. Please advise thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  41. One thing that many here may not realize is that Mann's original hockey stick, published over 10 years ago, was an outlier. It was not the consensus or majority view of the paleoclimate community.

    I grew up with a Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age. While these periods were most dramatic in the Northern Hemisphere, research before and after the hockey stick indicates that they were, indeed, global. Most recently, a study of tree rings in the Sequoia National Forest show a MWP warmer than today in that region:

    http://uanews.org/node/30720

    All together, evidence of a global MWP is very convincing and very similar to the current warm period (mostly in the Northern Hemisphere).

    The fact that Mann's work was contrary to the prevailing ideas of the time immediately made him subject to investigation of his theory. The additional fact that he refused to open his data and methodology to inspection indicated that he had something to hide.

    Mann was inappropriately elevated to celebrity status by the political motivations of the IPCC, receiving far more accolades than his work deserved. Perhaps he liked it. Regardless, he has been scathing to his critics from the beginning. His current demeanor is no different now than it was right after the Hockey Stick was published. It is not a product of too many attacks. It was there when he was initially questioned.

    I, for one, was particularly hard on Judith Curry's hurricane work about 5 years ago. She received a lot of criticism, but she has never responded to that criticism with the arrogance displayed by Michael Mann. Some have praised Ms. Curry for her behavior, which I think is rather sad. Her behavior should be the norm, but is so far above the behavior of other climate scientists that it appears exceptional.

    ReplyDelete