
Andrew Bolt Herald Sun Dec 6 2009
I’ve wondered whether Climategate scientist Tom Wigley, an Australian, finally choked on all the fraud, fiddling and coverups he was witnessing from fellow members of his Climategate cabal. Steven Hayward points out that many other Climategate scientists privately had trouble swallowing the practices of their colleagues:
In 1998 three scientists from American universities–Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes–unveiled in Nature magazine what was regarded as a signal breakthrough in paleoclimatology–the now notorious “hockey stick” temperature reconstruction (picture a flat “handle” extending from the year 1000 to roughly 1900, and a sharply upsloping “blade” from 1900 to 2000). Their paper purported to prove that current global temperatures are the highest in the last thousand years by a large margin–far outside the range of natural variability. The medieval warm period (MWP) and the little ice (LIA) age both disappeared.
The hockey stick chart was used prominently in the 2001 IPCC report as “smoking gun” proof of human-caused global warming. Mann and his coauthors concluded that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.” Case closed? Hardly. The CRU emails reveal internal doubts about this entire enterprise both before and after the hockey stick made its debut. In a 1996 email to a large number of scientists in the CRU circle, Tom Wigley, a top climatologist working at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, cautioned: “I support the continued collection of such data, but I am disturbed by how some people in the paleo community try to oversell their product.” Mann and his colleagues made use of some of the CRU data, but some of the CRU scientists weren’t comfortable with the way Mann represented it and also seemed to find Mann more than a bit insufferable. CRU scientist Keith Briffa … emailed Edward Cook of Columbia University: “I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative) tropical series,” adding that he was tired of “the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage [Mann”> has produced over the last few years .??.??. and (better say no more).” Cook replied: “I agree with you. We both know the probable flaws in Mike’s recon[struction”>, particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff. …” In yet another revealing email, Cook told Briffa: “Of course [Bradley”> and other members of the MBH [Mann, Bradley, Hughes”> camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to view their evaluations as starting out from a somewhat biased perspective…” Even as the IPCC was picking up Mann’s hockey stick with enthusiasm, Briffa sent Mann a note of caution about “the possibility of expressing an impression of more consensus than might actually exist. I suppose the earlier talk implying that we should not ‘muddy the waters’ by including contradictory evidence worried me. IPCC is supposed to represent consensus but also areas of uncertainty in the evidence.” Briffa had previously dissented from the hockey stick reconstruction in a 1999 email to Mann and Phil Jones: “I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.” Even Malcolm Hughes, one of the original hockey stick coauthors, privately expressed reservations about overreliance on their invention, writing to Cook, Mann and others in 2002:
All of our attempts, so far, to estimate hemisphere-scale temperatures for the period around 1000 years ago are based on far fewer data than any of us would like. None of the datasets used so far has anything like the geographical distribution that experience with recent centuries indicates we need, and no one has yet found a convincing way of validating the lower-frequency components of them against independent data….
Mann didn’t react well to these hesitations from his colleagues. Even Ray Bradley, a coauthor of the hockey stick article, felt compelled to send a message to Briffa after one of Mann’s self-serving emails with the single line: “Excuse me while I puke.”






To the tune of ‘Modern Major General’
By Gilbert and Sullivan (Pirates of Penzance)
I am the very model of a modern climatologist
I’m partly statistician, partly palaeo-phrenologist
I’ve temperature readings from thermometers coniferous
my data are the same (or not, well, maybe) as Keith Briffa has
I bought them from a bloke who brought them hotfoot from Siberia
and mixed them with some algae from the mud in Lake Superior.
When counting different isotopes I’m really in my element
and sucking up to journalists from Guardian Environment
I know what makes the treerings from Siberia to the Rockies tick
And I can make spaghetti and transform it to a hockeystick.
My data’s got dark matter that would shatter a cosmologist
I am the very model of a modern climatologist
H/T Geoff Chambers
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/9/the-modern-climatologist.html
“I’m partly statistician” – hmmm. *Data adjuster* might not fit the rhythm, but…
– – –
Right on cue 🙄 …
JANUARY 19, 2024
Now, a collaborative team of researchers led by Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Arts & Sciences have peeled back layers of atmospheric dynamics to reveal a startling truth: The interplay of natural systems and human-induced climate change is setting the stage for more frequent and severe weather events.
https://phys.org/news/2024-01-climate-atmospheric-dynamics-unveil-future.html
‘peeled back layers of atmospheric dynamics’ — really?
A late 2023 post on climateaudit revisits Mann’s MBH 98 paper and finds more quirks.
And some reportage from the first day of the Mann vs Mark Steyn trial
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/01/mann-v-steyn-gets-under-way.php
I’ve no interest in a/the ‘trial’ tallbloke. Only the truth of the data that’s realized from this/its disclosure.
Kind regards, Ray Dart (AKA suricat).
Sorry ‘TB’. I find it impossible to respond when a response is impossible to respond to.
Give me something that I can ‘respond to’.
Best regards to Tall Bloke.
Best regards, Ray Dart, ( AKA suricat).
Hi Ray,
Have a look at the climate audit post linked three comments up. Plenty of data to get your teeth into there. Cheers.
JAN 19, 2024.
Out-Of-Touch Davos Elites Insist Disinfo On ‘The Science’ No. 1 Global Threat
https://climatechangedispatch.com/out-of-touch-davos-elites-insist-disinfo-on-the-science-no-1-global-threat/
– – –
Indeed. Some of the biggest culprits appear in their ‘elite’ mirrors every day.
“Hi Ray,
Have a look at the climate audit post linked three comments up. Plenty of data to get your teeth into there. Cheers.”
TB. This has similar ‘myths’ to the ‘Post Office and Fujitsu’ ‘Horizon’ fiasco that we currently have here in the UK (undisclosed/concealed computer error), so I couldn’t possibly comment. However, I will say that there’s something ‘odd’ going on. I’ve been away from the ‘climate debate’ too long, but your post did peek my interest when I revisited your site.
Kindest regards, Ray Dart (AKA suricat).
Ray – the Telegraph reported yesterday:
The failures of Fujitsu’s Horizon system, in which transactions were often double-counted, leading to artificial deficits at Post Offices, have attracted enormous attention…
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/01/21/post-office-horizon-scandal-fujitsu-uk-it-problems/
Audio of the trial opening statements. Steyn from 26 mins in lays into Mann.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-3-a-nobel-mann/id1713827256?i=1000642238509
tallbloke says: January 22, 2024 at 10:23 am
“Audio of the trial opening statements. Steyn from 26 mins in lays into Mann.”
Thanks for the link TB (I’ve not read it yet), but IMHO the ‘detail’ of the ‘data’ may be corrupted in many ways!
There are many ways that the ‘data’ may be corrupted by different individuals reading a result with a different ‘outlook’ to the data where/when ‘physical observations are/were made’, where any ‘digital’ (computer reading/compilation) is involved there may be changes ‘between O/Ses’ (operating systems) which induces anomalies due to any ‘interpreter’ between ‘operating systems’ that don’t fully ‘interpret’, and where a singular O/S (operating system) is employed the/any ‘updates’ to that ‘operating system’ could well cause an anomaly to the data that is/was compiled over an extended time period.
I’ve learned this from the ‘Horizon’ fiasco.
Hope this helps.
Kind regards, Ray Dart (AKA suricat).