Climate Lies Under Mann’s Control

Michael Mann, the author of the infamous “Hockey Stick” graph, has published a book in which he lies, makes misleading statements, and misrepresented sources, to defend himself from accusations that of poor science when putting together the Hockey Stick graph. The book of poor defenses is called The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. (He does not mention an excellent book that details this: The Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montford.)

The Hockey Stick has been taken apart — broken, so to speak — as have various attempts to salvage it. This graph is used as a sort of data poster child to push the idea that warming that occurred from the mid 1970s cold period to the late 1990s was “unprecedented.” Behind the scenes, the Climategate emails showed that Mann’s fellow climate scientists were writing to each other noting that Mann was refusing to admit obvious problems. In his new book, he’s still furiously defending this dishonest graph … by continuing to be dishonest.

Here’s a write-up by Hilary on “The View From Here” on the book, describing a review of the Mann book by Brandon Shollenberger. Both pieces are worth reading. I’m very familiar with the background issues, but these pieces lay out the details without requiring technical background or history.

Here’s one example, from Schollenberger’s review of Mann’s book: Mann accuses a scientist (critical of Mann’s work) of committing perjury under oath:

Not only had their apparently been substantial undisclosed collaboration between the WR authors and Stephen McIntyre, as hinted at earlier–something Wegman had denied in his testimony under oath in Congress[66]…

When you look at his footnote 66, you see Wegman denying being in contact with McIntyre, as Mann suggests:

66. See, specifically the following exchange between Rep. Stupak and Wegman:
Mr. Stupak: Did you or your co-authors contact Mr. McIntyre and get his help in replicating his work?
Dr. Wegman. Actually, no…

This looks pretty bad. But that link IS a live link, and there you can find more details. (Look for the word “Fortran” which is right above the quoted area.) There, you will find what Mann omitted after “Actually, no”:

Did you or your co-authors contact Mr. McIntyre and get his
help in replicating his work?
DR. WEGMAN. Actually, no. What I did do was I called
Mr. McIntyre and said that when we downloaded his code we
could not get it to work either, and it was unfortunate that
he was criticizing Dr. Mann when in fact he was in exactly
the same situation. Subsequently, he reposted his code to
make it more user friendly and we did download it
subsequently and verified that it would work.
MR. STUPAK. And then after you re-downloaded and verified
it worked, did you have any further contact with
Mr. McIntyre then?
DR. WEGMAN. Well, as I testified last week, Dr. Said and
myself had gone to one of the meetings where he was talking,
and we spoke with him but did not identify who we were at
the time. This was early in the phase. Subsequently, I had
had no contact with him until basically last week.
MR. STUPAK. Okay. Any of your co-authors that you know of,
Dr. Said or any others, have contact with Mr. McIntyre other
than that one time at this convention or wherever he was
DR. WEGMAN. One of my graduate students, John Rigsby, who
did the code for us, worked the code for us, did have some
interaction with him in order to verify some of the details
of the code.
MR. STUPAK. So you, Dr. Said and this Mr. Rigsby would be
the people who had contact with Mr. McIntyre then?
DR. WEGMAN. That is correct, yes.
MR. STUPAK. Thank you. Nothing further.

So, an obvious interpretation is that Mann is lying, falsely accusing another scientist of lying.

Most of the problematic climate work is not this blatant. Just a thumb on the scale here and there, a slight shading of the interpretation, is often enough. But there’s a bad, core group of catastrophist scientists, and Mann demonstrates here (and in many other examples) his place among them.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle