"Gold Standard" - Mann was correct

Yoho another example of Yohe abusing of our free speech rights. Malicious vandalism. The ruthless amoral relentless fallacious attack on the good character of a very respected scientist, but on complete deception and misrepresentation of the fact and ignoring truck loads worth of available information.

Yohe: "But he handled the Hockey Stick wrong. If he had said, if there is a problem, let see what it is and get everyone on the same page."
It's been done, hell the "hockey stick" is forgotten ancient history and the science has moved way beyond those days, yet the story it tells remains the same. Yohe and Trump and the GOP ciphers refuse to recognize physical reality itself has vindicated Mann's early work, as have quite a few investigations. Of course every exoneration only proves the fix was in, to these conspiracy dependent simpletons.

Will the trumpeters ever absorb the information and learn any of the rational constructive lessons to be had?

Apparently hell no, they are on their *God’s mission (read *EGO run amok).

Dr. Mann’s paper (actually there were many scientists involved in all these papers, Mann was team leader) has been examined up and down inside and out. But Yoho must reject all of that out of hand, or his card house reality falls apart. Only winning their political game matters, well that and increasing those personal short term riches.


NSF IG report on Michael Mann investigation: “No research misconduct. Case closed.” Don’t bother telling Rick Perry.

This is getting old. Completing yet another investigation of the co-author of a seminal study of the 1,000-year temperature record (commonly referred to as the “Hockey Stick”), the National Science Foundation Inspector General concluded: “Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed.” But don’t waste your breath telling that to global warming denialist Rick Perry, oil-money governor of Texas and would-be president.

See Joe Romm, Climate Progress: Climate Secret: NSF Quietly Closes Out Inspector General Investigation with Complete Vindication of Michael Mann


Two things we know with extremely high confidence:

1. Recent warming is unprecedented in magnitude and speed and cause (so the temperature history looks like a Hockey Stick).
2. Michael Mann, the lead author on the original Hockey Stick paper, is one of the nation’s top climatologists and a source of first-rate analysis.

We know these things because both the Hockey Stick and Mann have been independently investigated and vindicated more times than any other facet of climate science or any other climate scientist.

Also Richard Littlemore, DeSmogBlog: National Science Foundation vindicates Michael Mann


Mann’s work has been ‘vindicated’ against allegations of research misconduct by seven investigations — or is it eight now, I’m losing track. …


No Mike Yohe, Dr. Mann did not handle a Hockey Stick at all!

That was a label our hollywood-shackled imaginations pasted onto a graph Mann’s team produced based on their rigorous computational work and the available data. It was also pioneering work, and perfection has never ever been a hallmark of important pioneering work, nor has it ever before been demanded the way it has in Dr. Mann’s case.


What happened to ‘libertarian’ humanity - what about respecting the good will in others? Trumpeteers must proceed from a fundamental conviction that all scientists are lying to them unless they report what they want to believe. Any joker is elevated to final authority of a topic, while actually experts who have spent their lives consumed with working these problems get defaced and branded as fools and liar. It’s so profoundly disgusting I still can’t wrap my head around it, no matter how I try.

What Dr. Mann was doing was processing complex climate proxy data to track specific markers that had been previous established as enabling an interpretation of past climate conditions. Sort of like your hair contains a ‘blueprint’ of all the substances you’ve been ingesting, if you know how to read it. The data drove their conclusions.

Another thing Yohe won’t share is that if you look at the original graph and put it next to Mc/Mc’s misleadingly called “corrections” - finding the difference is difficult for the untrained so. Who what kind of mountain have they fabricated out of lint?

But, contrarians can’t be bothered with learning enough to appreciate the details of what’s going on.

Yohe, can’t bring himself to admit that there have been many studies of those two pioneering papers and how they were written. All the experts agree that Mann did nothing, not a damned thing shady. As for technical problems with his paper, it was pioneering work and of course scientists always argue about choices made, and they consider alternative processing algorithms. All that is the stuff of science moving forward - but Trumpteers have entered a totally alternate self-certain, Faith-Blinded, attack oriented reality and learning is anathema to them.

So we have the endless dog chasing the tail of pointless arguments that the Yohe’s of ‘libertarian’ sect have evolved into a true literary art form. Still, containing nothing about constructive learning from the evidence at hand, just more endlessly distracting drivel of yeah but, yeah but, yeah but, yeah but, yeah but, yeah but, yeah but, yeah but, yeah but, yeah but, yeah but, yeah but, yeah but, yeah but, yeah but, yeah but then again there is this:

SkS hockey team graph

<p style=“text-align: center;”>https://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm</p>

David explained it quite well, so I’ll hand over the stage to him.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 21, 2015 The Thing Is, the Hockey Stick Isn't a Surprising Result


In fact, physics says it’d be far more surprising if the hockey stick wasn’t true. And this is true regardless of any particularities of the proxy data – it depends only on the track followed by atmospheric carbon dioxide, and the basic physics of global warming.

On his blog, Steyn wrote: …

I don’t doubt that Steyn looked at some of the other hockey stick papers, waved his hands and wrote some words about them – the usual junk about Yamal proxies and upside down proxy arrays and the like. In other words, a lot of gossip and hearsay that can be found on many denier blogs over the years.

Steyn hasn’t made a scientific argument about the hockey stick yet. Gossip, hearsay and (especially) blog posts aren’t science. Science is what you find in the peer reviewed literature – careful detailed work that is reviewed by experts. We’re supposed to think that a blogger known mostly for his Islamophobia somehow disproved and dismissed all the independent mathematical work by Ammann and Wahl, Tingley and Huybers (and again in 2013), Marcott et al, and PAGES 2k – the latter a huge, comprehensive paper written by over six dozen scientists?

That Steyn saw some simple thing that all these experts missed and was able to dismiss all the work and expertise in a few pages of a self-published book? And overthrew basic physics? Not. Bloody. Likely.

As I wrote, the hockey stick result is obvious, since it’s based on some simple observations and simple physics:

  1. The emissions of manmade CO2 increased faster than exponential after the start of the Industrial Revolution – it was a “superexponential” increase:


This isn’t surprising – human population itself has been on a superexponential increase since 1000 A.D., so energy use has been as well. So have the other prominent greenhouse gases: methane and nitrous oxide concentrations in the atmosphere.

  1. Global temperatrure change is proportional to changes in radiative forcing. And for the levels of CO2 we’re at, the change in radiative forcing is logarithmic with CO2 concentration.

The logarithm of a superexponential function is an exponential function. So basic physics says the increase in temperature after the Industrial Revolution should be something like an exponential – something like the hockey stick graph. … {there’s more check out the link, David a smart interesting guy.}

It’s the physics, and it’s deniable, but unavoidable.

And just like Hillary the story keeps changing and changing and changing.

Now you are trashing the term “Gold Standard”.

Where is the proven THEORY?

And just like Hillary the story keeps changing and changing and changing.

Now you are trashing the term “Gold Standard”.

Where is the proven THEORY?

Sorry Mike. I missed the place where the story changed? Care to elaborate?


First it was no ice age and mid-evil warming, then it was the Nobel Peace Prize, then the lawsuits, then the rewriting of history, then the science is all done. The sun and clouds don’t count. And now the Gold Standard.

Gold Standard means Theory. Where’s the theory. All we got is hypothesis.

Mann had tree ring data. And made hypothesis based upon that data. The IPCC picked it up and Gore ran with it and the rest is history.



Dr. Michael Mann: I would like to say it was my desire to change the world and to advance the cause of environmental stability. But in fact, it was simply an interesting area of science to me. I was in physics, and it was a tough time in physics. There was a loss of funding around the time of the super conducting supercollider. And when it didn’t get funded, this was in the late 80s and early 90s, that meant that physicists were looking for other problems to work on, [and] I was getting funneled into an area of physics that I just wasn’t that excited about.

So I literally opened up the catalog of applied science at Yale University, where I was a graduate student, and leafed through the catalog to see what other areas of science there were folks at Yale working in where I could use the math and physics skills and knowledge that I’d attained to work on an interesting problem. I saw that there was an individual in the department of geology and geophysics who was using math and physics to model earth’s climate, and that sounded like a fascinating problem to me. So I went and talked to him – his name was Barry Saltzman – and as they say the rest is history.

I sort of was forced into the public spotlight – it wasn’t really something I chose to do – when our graph, the hockey stick graph, became this iconic graph in the climate change debate. I tell the whole story in another book of mine, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. I suddenly found myself in the spotlight because of this graph that we published, and it wasn’t what I signed up for.

That about it in a nutshell. America was screaming for climate scientists. The door was open, and Mann stepped in. He was young and willing to take chances. Nothing wrong with that. The rest is the results of the paths that were chosen.

First it was no ice age and mid-evil warming, then it was the Nobel Peace Prize, then the lawsuits, then the rewriting of history, then the science is all done. The sun and clouds don’t count. And now the Gold Standard.

Gold Standard means Theory. Where’s the theory. All we got is hypothesis.

Mann had tree ring data. And made hypothesis based upon that data. The IPCC picked it up and Gore ran with it and the rest is history.

That would be the history of what you’ve read and understood. Not the actual story. Thanks though.


Yeah, that’s where good faith curiosity is essential. Mike, is all about political outcomes, the actual substance of the science interests him not one flying fart. As his self-certain ignorance keeps re-reminding us.

BS. Let’s hear the actual story then. You guys are getting as bad as the fake news with the fake postings. All political.

Mike, it’s called the considered scientific consensus on global warming and there are plenty of links that have been shared with you. But it requires honest curiosity and a genuine desire to learn. You just want to play politics. Oh and how about simply listening to the Mann himself?


Michael E. Mann Explains His Hockey Stick Graph

Michael E. Mann is a renowned pioneer in the study of climate change and the understanding of how humans impact the Earth’s climate. In 1999, Mann and a team of researchers published a graph which came to be known as the “Hockey Stick Graph,” now an iconic symbol in the fight against climate change.

In a recent episode of Straight Talk MD, Dr. Sweeny spoke with Michael Mann about his infamous “Hockey Stick Graph,” what it means, and the controversy surrounding it.

“The hockey stick graph that my coauthors and I published a decade and a half ago is an estimate of how temperatures changed in the distant past. We only have about a century of widespread thermometer measurements, and we know the Globe’s warmed by about a degree Celsius (about a degree and a half Fahrenheit) over the last century. To place that warming in a longer term context and assess how unusual it is, we need to turn to other indirect measures of climate that we call proxy data, like tree rings and ice cores.

We used those sorts of data to reconstruct the pattern of how the climate changed over the past thousand years, and what we found was that indeed the modern warming spike is unprecedented as far back as we could go. If you look at the graph, it looks sort of like an upside down hockey stick, where the handle represents the long term slow decline, with a slight cooling as we enter into the little Ice Age of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, and then of course the blade of the hockey stick being the abrupt warming spike of the last century which has no precedent as far back as we can go. In fact, many studies are now are finding that the modern warming spike is probably unprecedented in tens of thousands of years.

That graph became an icon in the climate change debate. I think it became an object of attack by industry funded climate change deniers and fossil fuel industry front groups because it represented a threat. You didn’t need to understand the complexities of the science to understand what this graph was telling us, that there is something unprecedented about the changes that are taking place today. And by implication, it probably has to do with human activity. As a result, as a post-doctoral researcher who you know wanted nothing other than to continue to work on interesting problems in science, I found myself at the center of what is arguably the most suicidally contentious issue that we face today: the issue of human caused climate change and what to do about it.”