Hide The Decline

This page is devoted to collecting information about self-proclaimed Nobel Peace Prize winner Michael Mann’s work.

25 Responses to Hide The Decline

  3. Mike Mangan says:
    July 25, 2013 at 7:41 pm

    Richard Mueller’s wonderful smackdown of Mann’s “hide the Decline.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

    Reply
  4. Mike Mangan says:
    July 25, 2013 at 9:10 pm

    Steve McIntyre’s fisking of Mike’s Nature Trick…

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/

    From the relevant Mann Climategate email…

    So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that “something else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. [Perhaps Keith can help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series and the potential factors that might lead to it being “warmer” than the Jones et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this regard] Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I don’t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have to give it fodder! (Mann Sep 22, 0938018124.txt)

    Reply
  5. miked1947 says:
    July 25, 2013 at 9:12 pm

    This is a link to CA and Michael Mann. Lots of stuff
    http://climateaudit.org/?s=Michael+Mann

    Reply
  6. Mike Mangan says:
    July 25, 2013 at 10:17 pm

    The Lavoisier Group has a breakdown of the original Climategate emails. Mann’s words are all highlighted in orange…

    http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

    Reply
    • gofer says:
      July 25, 2013 at 11:50 pm

      That site reads like a novel. The comments along with the corresponding e-mails paints a picture of people who were actively conspiring to control the conversation. They pre-determined that all skeptical papers were crap before they even read them. What a slimy bunch. They stopped papers from being printed and then pointed out how skeptics hadn’t published any papers in “reputable” journals and then blackballed journals that published papers they disagreed with, even without reading the paper. In speaking about a particular paper, it was said to be “hard to refute because the math seems correct” but instead of following the scientific method, they were going to somehow refute the paper. Nowhere do you find anybody mentioning the possibly that the papers might be correct. The meme is that all skeptical papers are bad and the people writing them are bad.

      How anybody can read their own words and still come away thinking they are practicing science is beyond me.

      Reply
      • gofer says:
        July 26, 2013 at 12:11 am

        “Cleaning” up his programs:

        August 10, 2004: email 1092167224
        Mike Mann writes to Phil Jones, Gabi Hegerl, and Tom Crowley:

        Dear Phil and Gabi,
        I’ve attached a cleaned-up and documented version of the computer
        programs that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) calculations.
        I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more
        crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so it is best to clean up
        the programs and provide them to some of my close colleagues in case
        they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use these programs for your own
        internal purposes, but don’t pass them along where they may get into the
        hands of the wrong people.”

        So here we are, in mid 2004, before Mike Mann finally feels the need to bring his
        computer programs up to the standard that would be required of any high-school
        student—and not because of any feelings of guilt about their parlous state, but simply
        because “the heat was on” from the skeptics, and it becoming increasingly likely that
        he would be forced to provide these programs for independent scrutiny in the near
        future.

        To anyone who has spent their career performing numerical computations, Mann’s
        email is simply astounding. Firstly, by “cleaning up” his programs, he is not, in fact,
        providing the programs that generated the results that his publications were based on;
        he is providing an altered version. It would be like the police prosecutor “cleaning up”
        the evidence before showing it to the jury.

        Speaking to Jones about turning over data:

        “I would not give them anything. I would not respond or even acknowledge
        receipt of their emails. There is no reason to give them any data, in my
        opinion, and I think we do so at our own peril!”

        Peril? That is not a word that an innocent man would use.

        July 31, 2003: email 1059664704
        Tim Osborn writes to Mike Mann, trying to make sense of some of Mann’s data, which
        appear to have simplistic estimates of uncertainties. After an exchange in which Mann
        attempts to explain what he has done, he adds:

        Tim,
        Attached are the calculations requested…
        p.s. I know I probably don’t need to mention this, but just to ensure
        absolutely clarity on this, I’m providing these for your own personal use,
        since you’re a trusted colleague. So please don’t pass this along to others
        without checking with me first. This is the sort of “dirty laundry” one
        doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to
        distort things…”

        In other words, Mann lacks so much confidence in his own calculations that he refers
        to them as his “dirty laundry”, that is to be hidden from scrutiny at all costs.
        And this is the basis of global climate policy.

        Source: Lavoisier.com

        Reply
    • ND says:
      August 4, 2013 at 12:45 am

      Great link and a very illuminating evening’s reading. Any vestiges of doubt I still held over the climate debate are gone. The actions of these climate ‘scientists’ are shameful. Scientific truth and professional accountability seem to have been the least of their concerns. It’s laughable until you remember the impact this three-ring-circus is having on the decisions of governments around the world.

      Reply
  7. Mike Mangan says:
    July 25, 2013 at 10:37 pm

    The emails that I personally consider the most insightful to Mann’s point of view…

    /// The Cause ///

    Mann:

    By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year
    reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that
    reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.

    Mann:

    They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic
    example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted
    upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a
    bit.

    Mann:

    I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s
    doing, but its not helping the cause.

    I don’t want to hear about context. The content of all of Mann’s public statements and actions since he slithered on the scene supports the idea that he holds the Cause as his highest priority. Not the Truth. Not the Facts. Not Science. The Cause.

    Reply
    • solvingtornadoes says:
      January 15, 2014 at 6:16 am

      Judith Curry’s whole career has been built upon playing both sides in the argument and using it to her own political advantage. She is a lynchpin in the AGW propaganda movement in that she controls who does and does not get published which, of course, dictates who does or does not get funded.

      Curry came out from hiding in the shadows somewhere around 2009 when she established her blog. And that was because the AGW skeptic movement was gaining such momentum that she could no longer ignore it.

      Contrary to what one might assume, the purpose of her blog is NOT to expose AGW fraud, but to pay lip service to such and put as much distance between herself (and her constituents) and the more obvious AGW frauds.

      Reply
  9. Mike Mangan says:
    July 25, 2013 at 11:08 pm

    How did Mann become a lead author of the 2001 IPCC report just a couple of years after receiving his Phd? No one knows because the whole selection process is closed and mysterious…

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/02/05/how-does-the-ipcc-safeguard-against-bias/

    He was selected because he was committed to The Cause.

    Reply
  10. Mike Mangan says:
    July 25, 2013 at 11:41 pm

    Mann was investigated in secret by a handful of Penn State employees who under no circumstances wanted to find any wrongdoing. Amazingly, they found no wrongdoing on the part of the grant-machine, Michael Mann. Rand Simberg’s blog post on this got him sued by the vindictive, overly-sensitive girly-man Mann…

    http://www.openmarket.org/2012/07/13/the-other-scandal-in-unhappy-valley/

    Reply
    • jkolb says:
      March 22, 2014 at 1:42 am

      Remember the lead person on this “investigation”, shamefully from my alma mater, was non other than Graham Spanier, now in deep dodo for similarly white washing the actions of a convicted child molestor.

      Reply
  11. @njsnowfan says:
    July 26, 2013 at 3:57 am

    A great Video Hide the decline – satire on global warming alarmists
    I did not make it but is a good laugh. From 2010
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

    Reply
  13. NikFromNYC says:
    August 8, 2013 at 7:23 pm

    “Tenured Prof Retires His ‘Boomer Butt,’ Leaves ‘Authoritarian Hellhole’ of Penn State.”

    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2013/08/tenured-prof.html

    “While I have been fortunate in my set of departmental colleagues at Penn State, the institution as a whole is phenomenally weird, following a North Korean governance model without the transparency [6], and with an Office of Sponsored Programs—OSP, the Office for the Suppression of Productivity—that has the tapeworm as their mascot. In discussing my decision to leave with a colleague who is an ardent supporter of the system, I referred to PSU as “an authoritarian hellhole,” which elicited the reply “Well, it is that…” [12] Suffice it to say that the serial pedophile Jerry Sandusky found a welcoming and protective environment at Penn State not out of luck, but rather as an all-but-inevitable consequence of the institutional culture.”

    Reply
  14. @njsnowfan says:
    August 14, 2013 at 1:38 am

    I would guess this chart would fall under hide the decline.
    The decline is big.
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    Reply
  16. @njsnowfan says:
    October 21, 2013 at 2:33 pm

    Seems mann deleted first tweet after taking on some heat from Tamsin Edwards @flimsin

    Tamsin Edwards @flimsin Calling a colleague denier = strong stuff. Am I one to you? MT @MichaelEMann Closet #climatechange #denier Rob Wilson http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/10/21/wilson-on-millennial-temperature-reconstructions.html …

    Then Mann comes out with this tweet.
    Michael E. Mann ?@MichaelEMann 17m
    Rob Wilson not a climate change denier but has played a contrarian role in debate…

    Reply
  17. Morgan Wright says:
    December 5, 2014 at 6:06 am

    This is a cartoon I created about Mann’s work.

    Paleological temperatures on the cartoon from GISP2 ice cores via Richard Alley

    http://www.hyzercreek.com/GISP2Mann.jpg

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *