Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Michael Mann, hounded researcher

Posted on 30 December 2011 by Andy Skuce

Here is a translation of  recent article (December 25th, 2011) in the French newspaper Le Monde by science journalist  Stéphane Foucart. He reports on a talk that Michael Mann gave at the 2011 AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco, in which Mann introduces his forthcoming book  The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front LinesFoucart interviews Mann and discusses the background of the Hockey Stick and Climategate controversies. What is refreshing is the absence of the false balance, both-sides-of-the-story, style of reporting that is found so often in English language newspapers. 

Original article (in French) from Le Monde

In early December, at the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (the annual grand gathering of the bigwigs of the geoscience world), Michael Mann introduced his forthcoming book to his peers. The lecture was entertaining and the audience laughed heartily.  The American climatologist, Director of the Earth System Center at Pennsylvania State University, cracked numerous jokes and made many witty asides. He scoffed at the anti-science of the Republican politicians and mocked their ridiculous statements on climate change; everybody laughed out loud.

But this, surely, is no laughing matter. Michael Mann’s forthcoming book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines (Columbia University Press), is not really a science book; rather, as its title suggests, it deals instead with the war on climate science, which has at times turned into a manhunt, frequently with Mann as the quarry.

Lively, talkative and likeable, passionate about his research, Michael Mann is Conservative America’s most hated scientist. His crime is defined by two words, Hockey Stick, the nickname given to a curve showing how temperature has changed; a diagram that he will now forever be associated with.

In 1998, and again in 1999, with co-authors Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes, he published a “reconstruction” of Northern Hemisphere temperatures, from the year 1000 to the present day.  Using the traces of past climates recorded in tree rings, corals and sediments, he succeeded in producing a striking curve in the shape of a hockey stick. The long handle shows a fairly regular decline in temperatures from 1000 to around 1900, whereas the blade displays a sudden and a rather worrying sharp upward increase that is very obvious since 1950. The main conclusion of the Hockey Stick is that the last decade of the twentieth century was probably the warmest in over a thousand years.

“The irony is that I wasn’t originally working on anthropogenic climate change but on natural climate oscillations”, says Michael Mann. “I wasn’t looking for a hockey stick; it simply emerged from the data!”

The curve was given pride of place in 2001, in the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It provided a striking visual image of the climate emergency. It became a symbol, and consequently, for all climate skeptics, an icon to destroy.

There began, at the beginning of the past decade, “an intense campaign of defamation, essentially financed by industry”, according to Mann. A statistician—also a consultant for the fossil fuel industry—disputed the data processing that produced the famous curve. The basic data themselves were subsequently put under suspicion and soon Mann was accused of having deliberately manipulated them. The Internet became awash with all kinds of myths linked to the Hockey Stick, urban legends that are occasionally passed on by scientists misled by the technicality of the arguments put forward. It is impossible today to Google the term Hockey Stick without finding hundreds of pages that detail alleged frauds, intentional errors and manipulations attributed to its creator.

The campaign worked wonderfully. In 2006, an American Congressman asked mathematician Edward Wegman (George Mason University) to prepare a report on the famous curve. The “Wegman Report” piled on with more criticism of the Hockey Stick. The American National Academy of Sciences was soon put to work to produce a report on the Hockey Stick, but they didn’t find much to complain about. “There was a legitimate technical discussion on the statistical method used in the data processing”, said Pascal Yiou (with France’s Climate Science and Environment Laboratory), “but others have processed the same data with different methods and that didn’t change the shape of the curve”.

Above all, as the controversy was artificially kept alive on the Net, a dozen other temperature reconstructions reached the same general conclusions as the original Hockey Stick.

The attacks were not just restricted to the iconic curve, however. Its author also was personally targeted. At the end of 2009, his emails—along with those of a number of other climatologists— were pirated and published on the Web. Most of the sentences, taken out of context, suggested collusion. A Republican Senator called for an enquiry into several researchers, Michael Mann first among them. The Attorney General for Virginia demanded that Mann’s Alma Mater, the University of Virginia, hand over all documents relating to him, including his archived emails, to search for possible evidence of fraud.  As for Pennsylvania State University, it was pressured in 2010 to open an investigation on Mann, but ended up exonerating him.

Michael Mann feels that things can get carried away at times. “One day, a year and a half ago, I received a letter with white powder inside it that looked like it could be anthrax. I forwarded the letter to the police who sent it for analysis: it turned out to be corn flour.” Since then, he won’t open letters unless he knows the sender.

How does anyone survive almost a decade of attacks and slander? “Getting caught in such storms isn’t something that scientific training prepares you for”, he says. “You have to become expert in defending yourself and dealing with misinformation and attacks. But I like a fight!” When the attacks started to focus on him, one of his mentors, the late Steve Schneider (Stanford University), suggested to him that if “they” were coming after him, it was because his work was important. “That was really something that helped me to have the courage to face all this”, he says.

What, ultimately, is the outcome of all this? He suddenly becomes less talkative. “Those who attack us have won in the sense that they have succeeded in delaying any action on global warming by ten, twenty, maybe thirty years,” he concedes with worry as he sees his country succumbing to anti-science. “Denying either anthropogenic climate change or evolution has become a condition of admission to the Republican Party. That’s something quite new and very scary”.

By Stéphane Foucart

(Translated by Andy S. Please note that the quotes attributed to Mann were translated back into English from the French version of his words as reported in Le Monde. They will not therefore correspond exactly to what he originally said.)

 

Further reading: additional translations of newspaper articles and commentary (in English) on the reporting of climate change controversies in the French press can be found here.

0 0

Bookmark and Share Printable Version  |  Link to this page | Repost this Article Repost This

Comments

Prev  1  2  

Comments 51 to 62 out of 62:

  1. With indulgence from the moderator, one small additional point. The 1966 guesstimate by Lamb much loved by deniers shows a 1.5 degree C difference between LIA and MWP, and hence shows to great a difference. As the LIA estimate is anchored by (an admittedly local) instrumental record, the conclusion must be that he overestimated the MWP warmth by about 0.5 degrees C, exactly as shown by MBH 99.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: Really, everybody please pick one of the several more relevant threads.
  2. Didn’t Mann 2008 include bristlecone pines in its dataset that had been discredited as reliable proxies?

    Didn’t Mann 2008 ignore the effects of ditch digging on Tiljander’s lake sediment proxies?

    Didn’t Mann 2008 reverse the meaning of the x-ray scores recorded by Tiljander, thus recording the temperatures upside down?

    Didn’t Mann include a proxy line as temperatures in Africa that turned out to be rainfall in Spain?

    Or not?

    Just asking.
    0 0
  3. No dawsonjg, you are not "just asking". You are in full fledged "quoting crafted disinformation mode".
    0 0
  4. Dawsonjg, you really are funny. So Mann did all these terrible things, with obviously the intent to commit fraud, and yet came so close to the result one gets when not commiting these abominable errors that they make no significant difference, even when all accumulated together. Why go through all the trouble then?

    Let me get this straight, this would be the theory of the fruitcakes accusing Mann of all evils in creation: he accumulated all these errors with the intention of accomplishing a deceitful goal and did not accomplish that goal, yet went ahead with the publication and all that. That makes perfect sense. Every time I see that kind of idiotic nonsense it becomes easier for me to remember why I was so quick to make up my mind about the so-called climate change skeptics years ago. Keep-up the good work.
    0 0
  5. dawsonjg,

    What effect does excluding the supposedly problematic bristlecone pines from Mann 2008 have on the results?

    What affect does excluding the supposedly problematic Tiljander proxies from Mann 2008 have on the results?

    You can download all of Mann's data/code and run those scenarios yourself. Get back to us when you have some results to show (but not before then).
    0 0
  6. Thanks Nick, I'll take that as a no he didn't make those errors.

    Thanks Philippe, glade to amuse. But I made no accusation that Mann made those errors purposely to deceive - I agree that its unlikely he's that stupid. That, however, doesn't answer my questions. I'll take your answer to mean: he might have made those errors but they dont matter.
    0 0
    Response:

    [DB] This fixation you have on Mann is useful only as an affirmation of the title of the OP.  You were earlier directed to place such specific questions on more specific threads on Mann, his research and the "hockey stick" (many exist; use the Search function to locate).

    Comments continuing here in this vein will be deleted.

  7. If I adopted the same mind set as those who crafted your twisted disinformation - that means they wrote it to deceive, not to enlighten, I would describe the supermodel Cindy Crawford as having a foul pestilential precancerous eruption on her face and highlight it microscopically to try to convince gullible people that not only was she ugly, but that all her family and relatives were ugly too.

    Other more rational people might see just a facial mole. Some might even call it a "beauty spot".
    0 0
  8. Thanks caerbannog. I confess that running those scenarios is beyond my capacities. But I would be interested if you can point me to where anyone has done that exercise. I believe that Mann and co have excluded Tiljander and bristlecone proxies one at a time to claim that they don't matter, but has anyone eliminated both at once and checked that result?
    0 0
    Response:

    [DB] Anyone responding to this please do so on the Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960 thread or other, more appropriate, thread; follow that up with a placeholder with a redirect link from here. Thanks!

  9. (-Pointlessly off-topic snipped-)
    0 0
    Response:

    [DB] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
     
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

  10. Dawsonjg:
    Please see my response on the tree ring thread linked above.
    0 0
  11. Say I wanted to be able to evaluate the claims made in MM03. How big a project is that? Years or weeks?
    0 0
  12. Steve McIntyre's brief response to caerbannog's argument is shown here on CA.

    It's possible he thought my quote was the entire argument, not just a portion of it. So I am still asking him questions about the importance of the small scale of the hockey sticks derived from noise, which I hope he will answer.
    0 0

Prev  1  2  

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.



The Consensus Project Website

TEXTBOOK

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

THE DEBUNKING HANDBOOK

BOOK NOW AVAILABLE

The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2014 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us