What’s natural about Steele trashing Dr. Mann?

Considering the slander some feel comfortable unloading around here - I’ll insist on my right to correct the record. As it happens just finished a detailed review of different contrarian’s slander towards Dr. Mann, one who’s a bit smoother and craftier than our repetitive Mike Y. . . .

What’s natural about Jim Steele trashing Dr. Mann? - via Pacifica Tribune


We The People of the United States have a moral, ethical, and pragmatic right to learn what scientists have learned about this planet’s biosphere and climate engine without constant dishonest crossfire. We should not tolerate serious scientists constantly being drown out by amoral, ruthless and frankly ignorant arguments - that an astoundingly ruthless GOP PR factory repeats over and over again, without ever learning a damned thing from the evidence in front of us.

Thus my examination of Jim Steele’s “What’s Natural?” column, “Changing Sea Levels, Part 1” (2/13/19), published in the Pacifica Tribune - this installment focusing on Mr. Steele’s repeated malicious attempts at character assassination of Dr. Michael Mann reputation as a highly competent scientist in his speciality.

I’ll admit the following is aimed at rationalists, children of the intellectual enlightenment so to speak, since I’ve found that trying to engage in a constructive debate with Jim Steele is a fool’s errand. He hides. Thus I settle for this informative Virtual Debate format.

There is value in exposing and understanding the tactics of libertarian deception, so I continue to strive to share my discoveries and learning curve with anyone interested in confronting the lies and deceptions being broadcast about our planet’s physical reality.


<blockquote>Dear Editor of the Pacifica Tribune,

Jim Steele’s February 13th, Changing Sea Levels column is an example of propaganda rather than informative enlightenment.

43 discombobulated sentences of admittedly (somewhat)* factual tidbits and anecdotes, but with raging omissions.  All artfully spun to keep the self-certain GOP crowd within their comfort zone.

Along the way Steele devotes some 7 sentences to maligning Dr. Michael Mann, twice using the term “Mann’s followers” which, me thinks, is a bit of projection considering the Trump phenomena amongst today’s right wing.

Incidentally, Dr. Mann works on paleoclimate and interpreting proxy data, so naturally he doesn’t write about local land movement, but to imply he is unaware of it or ignores it, is ludicrous.

Why does Steele feel the need to destroy Dr. Mann’s reputation in the eyes of his audience?  That's not serious constructive dialogue, it’s political theater.

In a talk about changing sea levels, our planet’s cryosphere is mentioned five times, all with a dismissive spin, finishing with “there is still no consensus”.

In reality our planet’s Cryosphere is melting at an accelerating rate, alarmingly beyond what any experts anticipated.  Really!  Look it up.  We’ve already squandered the past 20 irretrievable years yet Steele’s advice is to squander yet another 20.  Really?

Sincerely, pm</blockquote>
Then the real fun starts, with such classics as:
<blockquote>“Prominent climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann gives scant attention to the critical issue of sinking lands.”

“He prefers scary models supporting his theory"

“So, does Mann’s disaster scenarios represent an extreme climate doomsday cult? Or is he offering sage scientific advice we should heed?”

"Some of Mann's followers believe it's impossible for sea levels to fall in an age of climate warming.  But they are ill-informed.”</blockquote>
<em> <a href="https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2019/02/jimsteele-trashing-mann-pacificatribune.html">Come on down for a gander, . . .</a></em>

<em>Or for the full review,<a href="https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2019/02/whatsnatural-slr-steele-pacificatribune.html"><strong> What's Natural about Sea Level Rise? - Jim Steele - Pacifica Tribune - EXAMINED</strong></a> </em>


&lt;i&gt;Cheers, cc&lt;/i&gt;

Mann brought attention to himself by not releasing tax funded research papers so his peers could review his work. Taxpayers have invested over 350 billion dollars in climate research. We have the right to review the work. The taxpayers gave these guys open checkbooks. And Mann has how many court cases going? Why do we not have those same problems with the thousands of science people working on climate change. If we did, then nothing would get done. Thirty years now! At the speed they are going we will be in the middle of the next ice age before they get global warming understood.

You being of far left views, the tax money thing probably went over your head and sounds all Greek to you.

As far as Steele and Mann. Those two have been at it for a long time now. I have no idea what the beef is this time.

Has Mann settled with Mark Stine yet?

Stine, yeah, right. Oh and NO Dr.Mann has not been at it with Steele, he doesn’t have the time for that walking talking bullshitter - But Steele sure has been dogging the good PhD.

Again that dependence on the slanderous lies, show through.

Yo, Mike, can you explain specifically what was wrong with Mann et al 98/99 papers? Bet you don’t have a clue? Give it try. Lets see what you got.

What specifically did he do wrong in those studies - please explain??? Well, if you can.


Mike, in your circles I’ll bet you’ve never been informed of where to find those allegedly hidden away files, but in the world of grown ups, Mann’s methods were, are, quite available:

July 18, 2013 Discovered and revealed! - Where the climate codes and data have been hiding


(At my blog you’ll find most of those title are linked to their files)

While compiling my previous post I came across this interesting list. I know that a lot of folks have been talked into believing that climatologists are hiding data - I think a review of the following list makes clear that such talk is political dirty tricks - and not a reflection of reality or the situation within the climate science community.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Data Sources
Filed under: — group @ 27 November 2009

This page is a catalogue that will be kept up to date pointing to selected sources of code and data related to climate science. Please keep us informed of any things we might have missed, or any updates to the links that are needed.

Climate data (raw)
Climate data (processed)
Auxiliary data
Paleo Reconstructions (including code)
Large-scale model (Reanalysis) output
Large-scale model (GCM) output
Model codes (GCMs)
Model codes (other)
Data Visualisation and Analysis
Master Repositories of climate and other Earth Science data
Climate data (raw)
GHCN v.2 (Global Historical Climate Network: weather station records from around the world, temperature and precipitation)
USHCN US. Historical Climate Network (v.1 and v.2)
World Monthly Surface Station Climatology UCAR
Antarctic weather stations
European weather stations (ECA)
Italian Meterological Society IMS
Satellite feeds (AMSU, SORCE (Solar irradiance), NASA A-train, Ocean Color)
Tide Gauges (Proudman Oceanographic Lab)
World Glacier Monitoring Service
Argo float data
International Comprehensive Ocean/Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS) (Oceanic in situ observations)
AERONET Aerosol information
Arctic data from the Cooperative Arctic Data and Information Service (CADIS)
Climate data (processed)
Surface temperature anomalies (GISTEMP (see also Clear Climate Code), HadCRU(alternate site), NOAA NCDC, JMA, Berkeley Earth)
Satellite temperatures (MSU) (UAH, RSS, Zou et al)
Sea surface temperatures (Reynolds et al, OI)
Stratospheric temperature
Sea ice (Cryosphere Today, NSIDC, JAXA, Bremen, Arctic-Roos, DMI)
Radiosondes (RAOBCORE, HadAT, U. Wyoming, RATPAC, IUK, Sterin (CDIAC), Angell (CDIAC) )
Cloud and radiation products (ISCCP, CERES-ERBE)
Sea level (U. Colorado, NOAA)
Aerosols (AEROCOM, GACP)
Greenhouse Gases (AGGI at NOAA, CO2 Mauna Loa, World Data Center for Greenhouse Gases, AIRS CO2 data (2003+))
AHVRR data as used in Steig et al (2009)
Snow Cover (Rutgers)
GLIMS glacier database
Ocean Heat Content: NODC, PMEL
Ocean CO2 (CDIAC)
GCOS Essential Climate Variables Index
NOAA Climate Indicators State of the Climate 2009
NOAA Paleoclimate
GRIP/NGRIP Ice cores (Denmark)
GISP2 (note that the age model has been updated)
National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC)
Insolation (i.e. Milankovitch cycles): Lasker (2004), Berger and Loutre (1991), Huybers (2006)
Auxiliary data
Solar System Calculations (JPL Horizons)
Paleo Reconstructions (including code)
Reconstructions index and data (NOAA)
Mann et al (2008) (also here, Mann et al (2009))
Kaufmann et al (2009)
Wahl and Ammann (2006)
Mann et al (1998/1999)
Large-scale model (Reanalysis) output
These are weather models which have the real world observations assimilated into the solution to provide a ‘best guess’ of the evolution of weather over time (although pre-satellite era estimates (before 1979) are less accurate).
ERA40 (1957-2001, from ECMWF)
ERA-Interim (1989 – present, ECMWF’s latest project)
NCEP (1948-present, NOAA), NCEP-2
JRA-25 (1979-2004, Japanese Met. Agency)
North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR)
20th Century Reanalysis (1871-2008)
Large-scale model (GCM) output
These is output from the large scale global models used to assess climate change in the past, and make projections for the future. Some of this output is also available via the Data Visualisation tools linked below.
CMIP3 output (~20 models, as used by IPCC AR4) at PCMDI
GISS ModelE output (includes AR4 output as well as more specific experiments)
GFDL Model output
Model codes (GCMs)
Downloadable codes for some of the GCMs.
GISS ModelE (AR4 version, current snapshot)
NCAR CCSM(Version 3.0, CCM3 (older vintage))
EdGCM Windows based version of an older GISS model.
Uni. Hamburg (SAM, PUMA and PLASIM)
NEMO Ocean Model
GFDL Models
Model codes (other)
This category include links to analysis tools, simpler models or models focussed on more specific issues.
Radiative Transfer models (AER RRTM)
Rahmstorf (2007) Sea Level Rise Code
Vermeer & Rahmstorf (2009) Sea Level Rise Code and Data
ModTran (atmospheric radiation calculations and visualisations)
Various climate-related online models (David Archer)
Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) (FUND, FAIR, DICE, RICE)
CliMT a Python-based software component toolkit
Pyclimate Python tools for climate analysis
CDAT Tools for analysing climate data in netcdf format (PCMDI)
RegEM (Tapio Schneider)
Time series analysis (MTM-SVD, SSA-MTM toolkit, Mann and Lees (1996))
Data Visualisation and Analysis
These sites include some of the above data (as well as other sources) in an easier to handle form.
ClimateExplorer (KNMI)
Dapper (PMEL, NOAA)
Ingrid (IRI/LDEO Climate data library)
Giovanni (GSFC)
Wood for Trees: Interactive graphics (temperatures)
IPCC Data Visualisations
Regional IPCC model output
Climate Wizard
Master Repositories of Climate Data
Much bigger indexes of data sources:
Global Change Master Directory (GSFC)
PAGES data portal
NCDC (National Climate Data Center)
NCAR’s ClimateDataGuide
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Lab: Atmospheric trace gas concentrations, historical carbon emissions, and more
CRU Data holdings
Hadley Centre Observational holdings
UCAR Climate Data Guide

(take a look, of course those files don’t do any of us mortals any good. Got to have some real education and smarts to even understand it, let alone work with it.)


July 15, 2013 Evidence of Patrick Michaels manipulating data - a collection



May 8, 2016 Judge rules: Drs. Spencer, Lindzen, Happer are not credible expert witnesses!



Yo, Mike, can you explain specifically what was wrong with Mann et al 98/99 papers? Bet you don’t have a clue? Give it try. Lets see what you got.

What specifically did he do wrong in those studies – please explain??? Well, if you can.

I’m in a hurry, so let’s do this quick. Time period you’re talking about is the hockey stick. I believe information was requested on the hockey stick because the little ice age was left out. Then mann claimed the little ice age did not exist. Is that still his viewed today?

Mann never claimed that the little ice age didn’t exist and you are a cold blooded liar!

As usual no sourcing for your crap - but then understanding and clarifying is not your goal here. General Insanity appears to be.

Oh and both the LIA and MWP were acknowledged. They just aren’t big deals compared to the situation we’ve unleashed!


Have you ever looked at Mann, et al 1998?


Bradley, R. S. & Jones, P. D. ‘Little Ice Age’ summer temperature variations: their nature and relevance to recent global warming trends. Holocene 3, 367–376 (1993).
Hughes, M. K. & Diaz, H. F. Was there a ‘Medieval Warm Period’ and if so, where and when? Clim. Change 26, 109–142 (1994).

or 1999:

Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations,

Geophysical Research Letters
Article (PDF Available) · March 1999 with 977 Reads
DOI: 10.1029/1999GL900070

Michael E. Mann and Raymond S. Bradley
Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts

Malcom K. Hughes
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

Published: © 1999, American Geophysical Union
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 26, No. 6, p.759-762



Building on recent studies, we attempt hemispheric temperature reconstructions with proxy data networks for the past millennium. We focus not just on the reconstructions, but the uncertainties therein, and important caveats. Though expanded uncertainties prevent decisive conclusions for the period prior to AD 1400, our results suggest that the latter 20th century is anomalous in the context of at least the past millennium. The 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, at moderately high levels of confidence. The 20th century warming counters a millennial-scale cooling trend which is consistent with long-term astronomical forcing.

Look at the real reports, look closely.

Mann never claimed that the little ice age didn’t exist and you are a cold blooded liar!

Books written about the bad scientific methods. lawsuits in two countries. I personally never talked a mann.

Two decades of talk about the fraudulent hockey sticks. That’s a lot of smoke, are you sure there is no fire?

All this could’ve been avoided if mann would’ve released his data, like everyone else. Nobody else was able to recreate the hockey stick. To add more confusion mann created a second hockey stick.

You wouldn’t happen to be related to mann by any chance would you?


And The Hockey Stick: A New Low in Climate Science

www john-daly.com


What Michael Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’ Graph Gave to UN Climate Fraud …


Jan 5, 2018 - Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ graph (above) made the very cold LIA …. to fabricate a temperature proxy that would eliminate the Little Ice Age.”.


Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph analysis!


This graph is the Hockey Stick Graph created by geophysicist Michael Mann. … events such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were absent.


Enough hockey sticks for a team - Seeing the environmental forest


(1999)'s hockey sticks to examine the cause of temperature changes over the past … (a) The “Little Ice Age” was not recorded in the proxies that Mann used.


Medieval Warm Period - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics


The contrived elimination of the MWP and Little Ice Age by Mann et al. became known as “the hockey stick” of climate change where the handle of the hockey …


Hockey Stick - Climate Illuminated


The Little Ice Age is a problem because global temperature has been warming since then due to natural causes, not related to CO2. Enter Dr. Michael Mann with …


Analysis: Michael Mann Used Well Known Deceitful Statistics to


Jun 25, 2018 - As you can see from the above Hockey Stick graphic, Michael Mann … Note, the instrumental data shows the Little Ice Age, and current …


Two decades of the ‘hockey stick’ - American Thinker


Jan 24, 2019 - The “hockey stick” graph refers to the results of Dr. Michael Mann … of the Northern hemisphere, without the “cooling” of the Little Ice Age (LIA), …

Mike, if you spent any time getting familiar with the evidence at hand, you’d understand why the above is total bullshit. You would also appreciate that Singer comes from the heart of the incestuous clique that’s been at the heart of Corporate Crazy making.