Manufacturing the finest hockey sticks since 1998

Dr. Michael Mann – he of local weather “Hockey Stick” repute – is a systematic fraud.  Worse, he is a one-trick pony: all his frauds are achieved precisely the identical method. He’s now not even a just right clinical fraud as all of his hockey stick video games are busted the very same method.

For the ones of you who’ve now not been following alongside at house, I at the start posted about this ten years in the past in a publish known as Scientific Fraud:

Orson Scott Card mentioned this a while in the past.

What’s an important is that Steve now understands why the “censored” information units are smaller than the ones Mann used. The complete supply information comprises the ones deceptive effects that do not have been used. But the “censored” information units go away it out.
This signifies that Mann knew precisely what he was once doing. This was once now not an coincidence. Mann ran the program on the information with out the deceptive numbers, after which he ran it with the deceptive numbers. What he printed was once the effects that made his ideological case. 

This is background to the “Jesus Paper” publish. It’s extra obtainable (now not a lot dialogue of statistics, as an example), and extra entertaining, however each describe the identical fraud. I might love to suppose that that is an remoted incident, however it isn’t.

I did not have any thought simply how “now not remoted” this was once.  First, a little bit background.  1998 noticed the newsletter of a blockbuster clinical paper, one that confirmed local weather that were strong for one thousand years had abruptly begun to overheat.  Dr. Mann was once the lead creator, and that is the well-known symbol from the article:

This image was once now not simplest utilized in Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth”, it was once despatched to each family in Canada through the Canadian Government.

As my publish from 2008 says, it was once a fraud, and Mann knew it was once a fraud.  But he is achieved it two times extra since then.  I might like to give an explanation for how so you spot simply how deep the rot is going.

The image above does now not depend on thermometer information, since the thermometer wasn’t invented till the 17th century.  Instead, it’s proxy temperate information, depending on measurements of alternative issues which might be associated with temperature: ice cores, corals, and maximum particularly tree rings.  You can get extra background in this right here.

The downside is that bushes don’t seem to be thermometers.  While a large ring would possibly imply that the temperature was once heat, it’s going to imply different issues – extra rainfall after a duration of drought, extra daylight after a taller tree in the woodland fell, and many others.  You can get much more in this matter (and the way it’s abused) right here.  Yes, I have been writing about this for a very long time.

One factor that results tree ring proxies is the quantity of carbon dioxide in the environment.  Some species of bushes are effected greater than others through this.  It has been widely recognized for many years (actually since the 1980s) that bristlecone pine bushes use atmospheric carbon dioxide as fertilizer and so cores from those bushes cannot be used appropriately as temperature proxies.  Well wager what Mann did in his 1998 paper?

Mann were given busted through a fellow named Steve McIntyre, who has busted every of Mann’s papers.  He has a must-read article that slices the guts out of Mann’s outdated and new papers.  Here’s the bit about the 1998 deception:

Mann had, after all, achieved a main parts research of his North American tree ring community with outstripbark bristlecones – an research now not reported in his articles, however which may well be established via opposite engineering of his now infamous CENSORED listing – see CA publish right here. ) These non-descript PCs additional illustrate the non-HSness of the Mann et al 1998 North American tree ring community with out strip bark bristlecones.
Figure 2. Plot of five main parts in MBH98 CENSORED listing i.e. with out Graybill stripbark chronologies, basically from bristlecones, however a few limber pines. 

Do you spot a hockey stick?  I do not.  Mann had so as to add the bristlecone pine proxies to get the graph at the best of this publish.  He had two information recordsdata, one of which was once categorised CENSORED, that didn’t come with the pines.  He printed the different one.  So he knew what he was once doing right here.  Read the hyperlinks above for lots on the outdated 1998 paper.

One fallout from this was once that the National Academy of Sciences had a panel glance into this, and in 2006 stated ix-nay on the istlecone pine-bray.  The science, you may say, is settled in this.

Anyway, Mann has a brand new paper out, which – wonder! – presentations a hockey stick.  And wager what?  Mann manufactured the hockey stick the very same method that he did two times ahead of:

The PAGES (2017) North American community is composed fully of tree rings. Climate Audit readers will recall the distinctive position of North American stripbark bristlecone chronologies in Mann et al 1998 and Mann et al 2008 (and in the majority of IPCC multiproxy reconstructions).  In lately’s publish, I’ll parse the PAGES2K North American tree ring networks in each PAGES (2013) and PAGES (2017) from two sides:
  • even if PAGES (2013) was once held out as the made of excellent high quality regulate, greater than 80% of the North American tree ring proxies of PAGES (2013) have been rejected in 2017, changed through a nearly precisely equivalent choice of tree ring sequence, the majority of which date again to the early 1990s and which might were to be had now not simply to PAGES (2013), however Mann et al 2008 or even Mann et al 1998;
  • the one consistent in those huge networks are the stripbark bristlecone/foxtail chronologies criticized at Climate Audit since its inception. All 20(!) stripbark chronologies remoted through Mann’s CENSORED listing re-appear now not simplest in Mann et al (2008), however in PAGES (2013). In impact, the paleoclimate neighborhood, in obvious cohesion with Mann, ostentatiously flouted the 2006 NAS Panel advice to “keep away from” stripbark chronologies in temperature reconstructions. In each PAGES (2013) and PAGES (2017), regardless of ferocious information mining, simply as in Mann et al 1998, there’s no Hockey Stick form with out the sequence in Mann’s CENSORED listing. [red bold text is my emphasis – Borepatch]

An image is value one thousand phrases.  Bristlecone pine proxies are proven in crimson; different proxies are proven in blue, inexperienced, and yellow right here.

Other than the crimson bristlecone pines, so you spot any hockey stick?  I do not.  Remember, we all know that you do not use the ones as temperature proxies as a result of (duh!) the NAS stated they were not have compatibility for goal that method.

And this was once peer reviewed (such a lot for peer overview, I suppose) and printed in Nature mag – one of the best clinical journals (such a lot for clinical journals, I suppose).

We listen that there’s consensus amongst scientists that the local weather is dramatically warming and all of us must pay trillions of greenbacks to the UN on account of this (no, I am not making this up).  Does that clinical consensus come with the conclusion that it is simply dandy to forget about the National Academy of Science pointers on bristlecone pine as a temperature proxy?  If sure, then simply what will we imply through the time period “science”?  If no, then how did this cross peer overview and get printed in Nature?  For like, the 3rd time?  What else has gotten previous peer overview this is now a part of the “consensus” this is according to a crock of hooie?

Actually, to invite those questions is to respond to them, particularly the remaining.  The conclusion – for those who in truth have a look at the underlying science – is that Climate Science as practiced lately is a swamp of fraud.  Don’t imagine me?  Here’s any other publish from the archives: NASA Scientists: ‘We’re now not allowed to post papers that cross towards the ‘clinical consensus'”.