Recently, RSS satellite scientists decided they needed to proactively adjust atmospheric temperatures in order to rid the world of the widely reported global warming hiatus. It's a pause of insignificant warming that has existed since the major El Niño of 1998 that the 2015 El Niño recently stopped.
Thus, they produced a new study refuting their previous reported satellite temperature measurements for the mid-troposphere going back to 1979.
For the period from 1979 to 1997 (see left chart), these scientists saw little need for major adjustments to their earlier RSS dataset. Yet for the global warming pause period stretching from 1998 to 2014, significant adjustments (see right chart) apparently had to be made, stat.
The charts comparing the RSS old and new datasets of monthly observations includes the plot of simple 5-year averages (60 months). The obvious RSS cherry-picked adjustments of the post-1998 period versus the earlier period is clarified by the presentation of the 'old' and 'new' 5-year averages.
So, Carl Mears of RSS chose a specific start point and a specific endpoint to apply significant man-made adjustments to, which is clearly a blatant cherry-picked fabrication to produce a desired politically correct "empirical" objective, no?
It would seem this is politically correct anti-science at its worst on bold exhibit by RSS.
(And if you don't believe RSS is a politically correct, anti-science outfit, then you might not be aware that they refer to their science critics as 'denialists', a premeditated slander.)
The end result?
The study now identifies a higher global warming trend that they were previously unable to find with the best satellite technology available as a resource. Of course, for their new research, they are still using the same technology - go fabricate figure.
And there is more to come of this style of RSS "science" with the upcoming release of their new lower troposphere dataset.
Further analysis of the new RSS "empirical" evidence is discussed here, here, here, and here.
Additional past examples of clear temperature fabrications supporting the dogmatic religion of the climate alarmism anti-science cult.
Note: Excel used to plot the RSS v3.3 and v4.0 mid-troposphere datasets, including the 60-month averages.
A recent letter from 300 scientists is requesting that Congress assure that the Data Quality Act is complied with, which NOAA has not done regarding both the U.S. and global empirical temperature observations.
When 300 scientists put their name and reputations on the line criticizing NOAA, it can be assumed that the issue is one of significance and importance to science.
And this issue is now coming to a head after 7+ years of both NOAA and NASA blatantly adjusting historical temperature measurement records on a continual basis.
In essence, these two climate research agencies have purposefully cooled the past; and then warmed the modern temperatures in an effort to make global warming seem more severe than actually has taken place since the Little Ice Age. (See here a recent example of NOAA's adjustment handiwork.)
Their combined adjustment "methodology" has certainly mislead the public and policymakers, which has added to the growing mistrust that the public has for politicians, scientists and bureaucrats.
The group of charts above reveals the gross manipulation of temperatures that strongly indicates an anti-science motivation to meet the current administration's political needs.
Charts #1 & #2 show two examples of the constant adjustments by both NOAA and NASA. These examples show the number of adjusting steps taken since 2008 to cool past historical temperatures and the number of steps to raise a modern month's temperature.
Charts #3 & #4 show the total amount of adjustments by month since 1880 for NOAA and NASA. The fabricated warming of modern temps and cooling of pre-modern temps is more than obvious - it is unequivocally blatant and an unprecedented level of science tampering.
All of these charts were compiled by Ole Humlum, a well-known university scientist/professor from Norway who publishes peer-reviewed climate change research. Go to his 'Climate4You' site to access a large volume of valuable climate information.
Michael Mann's infamous 'hockey stick' graph, used by the IPCC "experts" as propaganda to convince gullible elites that modern warming was unprecedented, has had its science and respectability torn asunder by a multitude of experts over the years.
The graph's lack of both science creditability and statistical robustness eventually caused the UN's IPCC to throw in the towel and exclude it from future climate reports.
Climate research in recent years has confirmed that the hockey stick deserved the ash heap of bad paleo-science it now resides in.
This has again been proven in the latest study, which shows the non-existence of the 'hockey stick' and the rather similar (yet less) modern warming versus that of the Medieval Period. The study's summer temperature reconstruction is adjacent.
More charts indicating modern warming is not unprecedented. A fantastic book regarding the 'hockey stick' and the IPCC.
Mother Jones magazine and Chris Mooney provide further proof that the alarmism of greens and the fringe left/progressive/liberal extreme of American politics is a cornucopia of anti-science, falsehoods and misrepresentation...Catastrophic Global Warming Derangement Syndrome (CGWDS) victims have become a national embarrassment and tragedy, no?.....
(click on top images left #1 & right #2 to enlarge)
(click on bottom images left #3 & right #4 to enlarge)
Actual climate science and empirical evidence has long been the enemy of the green/left/Democrat consortium being funded by Obama's crony-donor billionaire friends. A classic example of their littering the editing floor with scientific truth can be found in this recentMother Jones article.
The top/left 'image #1' comes straight from the 'MJ' article and it immediately sets off one's B.S. detector.
Vast portions of the U.S. have just made it through a brutal winter and a cold, wet spring, yet Mother Jones is talking global warming "scorching"? In fact, after 30 years of gigantic CO2 emissions, the first four months of 2014 temperatures in the U.S. were, on average, -0.26 degree lower than those of January, February, March and April during 1984.
Yep, 30 years later the U.S. was cooler - as pseudo-journalist Chris Mooney would say: "It's about our scarcely recognizable present"
In determining where this Mother Jones pile of B.S. was leading, a closer scrutiny of the 'image #1' reveals that it is a temperature map for the last 22 years.
Whoa, 22 years!? WTF?
Honestly, what objective, impartial person interested in the empirical-based science would pick a 22-year snapshot as the sole climate representation of the U.S. with no other context? What major publication would publish such a temperature map without at least also showing what has happened to U.S temperatures since 1996?
Can you quickly say "amazingly, ludicrous, cherry-picking misinformation" three times in a row? It's safe to say Chris Mooney and Mother Jones can.
So, what would cause those brainy "elites," who suffer from an obvious CGWDS affliction, to basically misrepresent the climate as it is being experienced today, but instead focus on a specific 22-year period? Why not present the readers with multiple-period maps and graphs that provides a contextual full picture of reality?
Well, image #2 (top/right) provides the ready answer to their ludicrous cherry-picking deception.
Turns out that the 22-year period ending March 2014 had the highest per century rate of U.S. warming when analyzing multiple time periods. Yet, as the American public is well aware, the previous U.S. warming trend that generated that unique 22-year peak has since morphed into a cooling phase since 1996 - ahem...now look at all those negative blue bars in image #2 starting with the last 18 years.
Adding even more proof that the U.S. is not suffering from "scorching" global warming deception, images #3 and #4 reveal NOAA's climate reality for 1992 (22 years ago) and 2014, respectively.
How about that! NOAA, the principal U.S. climate research agency, reports that the U.S. recently experienced an actual cooler climate than that of 1992 (22 years ago).
Gee, why would Chris Mooney and Mother Jones leave important empirical evidence context like this out of their "scorching" article? Hmmm...makes one wonder if they purposefully want their readers to think they are liars; or maybe they think the readers of 'MJ' are just incredibly gullible and/or common sense stupid. Who knows?
For additional scientific context missing in the Mooney climate-doomsday article, go here, here, here, here and here.
Oh...and those "Seven Scary Facts About The Global Left & Greens":
1. they start with the initial bullshÎt;
2. then they sprinkle some more bullshÎt here and there and everywhere;
3. they advance their agenda by rapidly accelerating the bullshÎt spreading with over-the-top hyperbole;
4. they then deny their bullshÎttÎng when all the scary predictions fail;
5. then they claim they were misunderstood and really did not mean their previous bullshÎt to be literal;
6. they then introduce multiple new theories as to why some new bullshÎt should be believed, ignoring the fact all their previous bullshÎt was completely wrong;
and #7, hey, they finally state that you're a racist, Gaia-hating, homophobic, paid-by-the-Koch-brothers denier if you no longer believe all of their anti-science, doomsday bullshÎt.
Indeed, it's never ending CGWDS bullshÎt combined with crazy-person denial - similar to the famed Black Knight's relentless denial, despite his obvious and indisputable shortcomings.
The adjacent image represents a temperature reconstruction from the Greenland ice sheet boreholes. The image was included in a peer reviewed paper that was published in 1998, which is approximately the same time the infamous 'hockey stick' graph was produced.
Although this paper confirmed the findings of a massive amount of previous research that the Medieval Warming generated higher temperatures than the current warming, the IPCC instead conferred star status to the statistically-tortured 'hockey stick' graph, which showed the previous warming to be less than the current era, and then was subsequently found to be without credible merit - a statistical travesty.
Why did the IPCC go with the unproven, statistical abomination that quickly smeared (irreparably?) the reputation of climate science?
"Christy’s assessment, when combined with the UEA emails, provides substantial insight into how this hockey stick travesty occurred. My main unanswered question is: How did Michael Mann become a Lead Author on the TAR? He received his Ph.D. in 1998, and presumably he was nominated or selected before the ink was dry on his Ph.D. It is my suspicion that the U.S. did not nominate Mann (why would they nominate someone for this chapter without a Ph.D.?)...Instead, I suspect that the IPCC Bureau selected Mann; it seems that someone (John Houghton?) was enamored of the hockey stick and wanted to see it featured prominently in the TAR."
Additional climate-history articles. The Michael Mann self-perpetuated, embarrassing "science" fiasco continues, as described here and here.
Establishment climate science has been a never-ending cornucopia of fraud, fabrications, misrepresentations and wild exaggerations that multiple skeptics have publicly exposed, much to the chagrin and angst of the anti-science "consensus."
Without much argument from the masses, the climate science "elites" have done a yeoman's job of tarnishing the overall reputation of the science community.
Yet, as much as we complain about the scientific wrongdoings in the climate realm, the same is happening in other research fields. And medical research is likely the super nova of scientific misconduct.
The two images on the left are explained by the above short video clip provided. In a nutshell, the consensus hypothesis that fats and cholesterol cause heart disease is a result of extreme cherry-picking and other fraudulent practices of establishment science.
And, this heart-healthy science fraud has uncanny similarities to what has happened in the climate science establishment, as written about in this JoNovaarticle.
The above short video clip is a teaser. The entire Catalyst show episode on heart health can be viewed here - it is well worth one's time. It is a reminder that scientists, in general, should not be trusted at face value.
It's also a warning to those who are worried about cardiovascular disease. Instead of accepting traditional medical advice from "experts", you may be better served doing your own due diligence on the actual science of heart disease causes and potential treatments. A good place to start is here (I own the Kindle version; an excellent, informative and eye-opener read for the layperson).
Steve McIntyre analyzed the Southern Hemisphere historical temperature information contained in the recent IPCC AR5 report and documents an amazing discovery.
Extreme, absurd cherry-picking that defies objective, impartial science.
In essence, the IPCC's representation of Southern Hemisphere temperature changes is biased with unrelated Northern Hemisphere paleo-temperature datasets; the IPCC ignores established, widely accepted Southern datasets such as Antarctica's ice core evidence, as displayed here (click on image to enlarge).
Not only does the IPCC avoid utilization of the the inconvenient Vostok ice core temperatures that reveal the Medieval Warming period for the Southern latitudes, they chose to use Northern datasets that have been widely criticized for being error-filled and massively manipulated via questionable, non-standard statistical techniques.
Like previous IPCC reports, the AR5 edition obviously shares the agenda-science traits of absurd cherry-picking, gross misrepresentations and ludicrous fabrications, which confirms the accusations that green-alarmists have completely corrupted climate science.
Note: As the chart depicts, the polar region of the Southern Hemisphere has exhibited an overall cooling trend over the last 5,000 years, with multiple peaks and valleys. This persistent cooling trend is also evident from the Greenland ice core dataset. While the polar regions share many temperature change similarities, their warming/cooling phases occur during different years/decades with different amplitude - i.e., narrowly speaking, perfect synchronization of polar climates does not exist.
Back in 2008, Climate Sanity did an article about Arctic warming, creating the adjacent top graphic that highlights 14 different peer reviewed studies. (click to enlarge image)
The light pink areas represent large geographical areas where the past Arctic climate, over the last 3,000 to 9,000 years, was warmer than today's.
Recently, 'C3' posted an article regarding 15 studies that determined the Medieval Arctic warming was greater than the current warming.
In addition, the adjacent bottom graphic depicts both past and modern tree lines and permafrost boundaries. This inconvenient empirical evidence confirms that in the past trees were able to grow farther north (due to a warmer northern climate) than our modern period; also, today's permafrost boundary stretches farther south due to a modern climate that is cooler.
Despite this preponderance of empirical evidence and multiple peer reviewed studies about the present and past Arctic climate, a new moss (lichen) study by Miller et al. 2013 makes a bogus claim that today's Arctic temperatures are warmer than the past 44,000 to 120,000 years.
This bogus claim has all sorts of scientific lameness, falsehoods and wild misrepresentations associated with it, as described by experts here, here, here and here.
The criticisms of this study are extensive. But the obvious criticism of blatant cherry-picking is indisputable. As one expert pointed out, this research focused on just four moss sample sites on Baffin Island and ignored the island's 135 other moss sites' samples that completely discredit the bogus "warmer than the last 44,000 to 120,000 years" claim.
As this
latest study's bogus science affirms, anti-science cherry-picking
remains alive and well in "scientific" circles pushing the discredited catastrophic global warming hypothesis. Just another example of 'the ends justify the means' style of agenda-science.
And BTW, the top graphic does not include the recent Baffin Island icecap study and another Island study using lake sediment cores, which both confirm that the modern Arctic temps are cooler than the past.
It's climate science bimbo-time again: The Joelle Gergis Southern Hemisphere 'Hockey Stick' study suffers a fatal blow - has to be "put on hold" because of flaws --- aJuly 2016update of this continuing science fiasco...
Read here. Another bogus 'hockey stick' study can't withstand the scrutiny and thus is withdrawn from publication - "put on hold" is how they charitably describe its current status.
"Scientist" Gergis claimed to have found "unprecedented warming" down under but when she refused to provide all the data pertinent to her research this set off the alarms. With the expert analysts working in the background, they went about ferreting out the details of why she refused.
It didn't take long for them to determine why she refused. In essence, she stated that her research was done in a particular manner which has now proven not to be the case. In addition, her research amazingly includes 'upside-down' correlations that other 'hockey stick' studies have been discredited with doing.
"The refusal to release data was troubling, as it prevented anyone ever being able to replicate Gergis's work. And when Gergis's blog was unearthed and it was revealed that she was a committed environmentalist, the alarm bells became louder still"..."I tried to check the screening correlations of Gergis et al, and I’m getting such low values for a few proxies that there is no way that those can pass any test."..."difficulties were confirmed by others, including Steve McIntyre, but perhaps most significantly, by CSIRO's Nick Stokes, who is no sort of a sceptic. Stokes agreed with Sibelius that, when detrended, the correlations for the 27 proxies used in the Gergis reconstruction were insignificant, completely contradicting Gergis's paper."..."The finding of unprecedented warmth reported in the Gergis paper appears as though it is a function of the methodology used rather than of the underlying data."..."Worse still, proxies were selected with positive or negative correlation. In other words, some were used 'upside-down'."
Conclusion: The Joelle Gergis affair is another sad chapter in the travails of 'hockey stick' science. Her "unprecedented warming" for the Southern Hemisphere is likely just to be another statistical fabrication that can't withstand a proper forensic audit. For this bimbo to gain any respect and credibility in the future she needs to quit acting like...er...hmmm...a bimbo. Releasing all the data and algorithms that would allow others to completely replicate here research and results will be her path back to non-bimbodom. Until then, her studies she be automatically dismissed as science garbage.
Previous hockey-stick science postings. A wide selection of historical temperature charts that refute the fabricated 'hockey sticks'
Myles Allen is a self-avowed climate 'doomsday' scientist who attempts to convert others into global warming 'chicken-littles' - not too successfully it appears
Read here. How bad is a science argument when one is entirely unable to convince other scientists? Then, how bad is an argument when other scientists decide to very publicly eviscerate the argument?
The doomsday climate science of Myles Allen and his 'hockey stick' opinions are without merit, it seems, when objective and vocal scientists take issue. Especially when his responses are so pathetically lame.
"Update:Lucia responded to Myles ALlen in the comments as follows:
[Myles Allen said]
I appreciate that people like yourself who have devoted a lot of time to the analysis of paleoclimate data find it irritating when scientists who don’t work in that area dismiss it as uninformative.
First: communication tip: You need to learn to post complete thoughts. Uninformative about what? Everything? Climategate? Or the thermometer record? Or the strength of evidence for AGW? Depending on how I read your mind, you may be saying something true or utterly false. If you are going to lecture people on communicating science you might want to stop making readers guess which you mean.
Second: It seems to me you are misunderstanding what SteveMc writes. He’s not saying he is irritated that someone thinks paleo data is uninformative. He is saying that you suggest the “whole affair” (i.e. climategate) is an argument about the thermometer record. The fact is: climategate is not merely or even mostly about the thermometer record.
And I stand by the assertion that, thanks to the sloppy coverage the affair received in the media, it wasn’t just Sarah Palin who got the impression that the instrumental temperature record was seriously compromised
I would suggest that the main reason for this “sloppy coverage” was that reporters turned to people trying to rebut those discussing climategate at blogs and in forums. Some people people who (like you) might prefer to discuss the thermometer record rather than misbehavior of scientists or what “hide the decline” meant, diverted the discussion to the thermomeber record.
I strongly suspect the behavior of the scientists who wanted to suppress discussion of climategate succeeded in giving the media the incorrect impression that climategate was about the thermometer record is one of the reasons much of the media, some politicians, and Sarah Palin developed the impression climategate is about the thermometer record. That you can show they were confused about what people at blogs and forums were posting about merely shows you don’t know what it was about.
I would also suggest the only thing that can come of you continuing to try to convince people it was about the thermometer records is for people to explain that which you do not wish to be discussed: The Hockey Stick, misbehavior or scientists and the various whitewash investigations.
OTOH: If you simply wish to communicate that the topics that are central to climategate are not important to our understanding of climate change- that would be fine. But if you wish to make the case that the hockey stick doesn’t matter, then you need to make that clearly. Unfortunately for you, clear exposition requires discussion of the hockey stick!
A proper exposition might be to a) Discuss what the hockey stick “is” with a little history.(Accuracy would be useful here. Mention it was used as background at IPCC meetings, and in Gore’s talk.) b) Discuss why this shape is not important to our understanding of climate change. Show versions with and without the decline– and explain why even if the decline exists we do believe the world is warming. Do this by c) Explaining the thermometer record.
Don’t try to take the tack of inaccurately claiming that climategate is actually about the thermometer record. If you take that tack, you’ll find yourself trying to defend your position– downgrading much of what you seemed to present rather strongly as your opinion, and burying your arguments in favor of your opinion deep in comments at a blog. (I’d note: I think much of your argument amounts to “changing the subject”– but that’s another matter.)
Moreover, I would like to point out that unless say what paleo is uninformative about your claim that paleo is not important (at all) seems a bit thin. Climate blog addicts can easily see see that on May 26, 2012 you are chiding Bishop Hill for discussing the Hockey Stick and providing lengthy explanations of its lack of importance while Real Climate’s front page is simultaneously running a post on discussing Hockey Sticks (See Fresh hockey sticks from the Southern Hemisphere, May 22). It’s quite likely some will suspect that your opinion that the hockey still is uninformative (about something you don’t quite spit out) is maybe not entirely correct.
Third: Returning to “first”. When I watched your talk, I was struck by your tendency toward vagueness. Based on what you write in your defense in comments, I learn that the allusion to “the data” at minute 2:37 likely meant “the thermometer record” and “impact of the whole affair” (i.e. climategate) must have meant “impact of portions of the climategate discussions that relate to the thermometer record”. Your talk is riddled with these types of vague ambiguities. The consequence is that– on the whole– what your talk appears to communicate is false. If the audience comes away thinking you are suggesting that climategate was not about the paleo records, and that you think the only impact of climategate is a small tweak on the thermometer record, then the fault for their misunderstanding you falls on you for communicating rather badly.
Next time you want to make a presentation telling reporters that they shouldn’t focus on the paleo record but rather the thermometer record, you might be wise not to try to turn that into a talk about how the media got climategate wrong. Try to bite off less– stick to just discussing the thermoter record and why you think it tells us that the world has warmed and it’s because of man.
If you want to discuss climategate and how scientists failed to communicate their position, you have a hard row to hoe. Much of the reason scientists communicated the issues in climategate badly is they didn’t want to talk about them. Scientists mistake was to respond to journalists by trying to change the subject; others with plenty of ink keep talking all the whining in the world isn’t going to get people to stop discussing the topic. You can keep trying to do that: it isn’t going to work any better in 2012 than it did from 2009-2011.
The climate science community literally went off the rails with the new 'hockey stick' science introduced by Michael Mann - from utilization of questionable statistical techniques to the ugly Climategate and Fakegate fiascoes, a 'dark science force' was unleashed which is still reverberating
Read here. There is a growing consensus among experts that bogus science does significant and irreparable harm to both the science community and the general public. And there is a greater realization that bogus science is happening way too frequently.
A new study takes a crack at the quantification of bogus "questionable research practices" (QRP). Below are a few findings and quotes related to the study:
"John et al. used multiple methods to assess the prevalence of questionable research practices (QRP) among psychology researchers. They found a surprising high prevalence of such practices in their study."
"...simulations that showed how greatly QRPs increase the likelihood of finding support for a false hypothesis. QRPs are the steroids of scientific competition, artificially enhancing performance and producing a kind of arms race in which researchers who strictly play by the rules are at a competitive disadvantage. QRPs, by nature of the very fact that they are often questionable as opposed to blatantly improper, also offer considerable latitude for rationalization and self-deception."
"QRPs can waste researchers’ time and stall scientific progress, as researchers fruitlessly pursue extensions of effects that are not real and hence cannot be replicated. More generally, the prevalence of QRPs raises questions about the credibility of research findings and threatens research integrity by producing unrealistically elegant results that may be difficult to match without engaging in such practices oneself. This can lead to a “race to the bottom,” with questionable research begetting even more questionable research."
For a better understanding (and a fascinating read to boot) of the 'hockey stick' science disaster, read this book. Read a previous 'C3' summary on the same subject.
Latest global temperature info refutes the extraordinary 'cherry picking' of Tom Yulsman, well known CAGW climate model cultist advocate - the doomsday kool-aid "science" of fanatics green-disoriented individuals
(click on each image to enlarge)
To be honest, I've been waiting for almost three years to write about this article penned by Tom Yulsman, but never mentioned it until now. His recent, idiotic challenging article about 'cherry picking' by skeptics just flat-out exhibits the typical brain-gyrating hypocrisy mental process of your standard cult fanatic warmista, and then I got thinking about that old article.
"...I [Tom Yulsman] drank the cap-and-trade Kool-Aid, spiked by a generous portion of climate modeling."
No shit, Sherlock. Tom Yulsman fancies himself an environmental journalist, but in reality, he's a hack propagandist advocate for the climate doomsday cult tribe located in his region of Colorado. An propagandist advocate for a cargo cult unique style of climate-science where Kool-Aid appears to be the chosen elixir.
In his most recent article, he chooses to push the blatant propaganda misunderstanding that skeptics only 'cherry pick' their climate data, but then proceeds, in literal black and white, to demonstrate his superior skills as the ultimate 'cherry picking' CAGW cultist tribe spokesperson. Let's review:
Tom Yulsman, doomsday cultist advocate and cherry picking expert
Synopsis: Yulsman uses the first three weeks of March, 2012 as evidence that humans are causing global warming - "But over the very long run, the picture has been pretty clear: Humans are winning — as this March’s extraordinary weather suggests"...alrighty then, Tom.
First, talk about 'cherry picking'. This cultist advocate basis his whole article on a portion of a single freaking month
Second, the early March warmth was primarily located in certain regional areas of the U.S., not a global phenomenon - more convenient 'cherry picking'
Third, as the NASA global atmosphere temperature chart #1 shows, March through the 26th has not exhibited global temperatures out of the ordinary.
Fourth, as the HadCRUT global temperature charts #2-5 reveal, global warming has been modest, to non-existent over the last 30 years, depending on the given time span examined, despite the obvious 30-year, non-stop growth of CO2 levels.
Fifth, Yulsman exposes his amazing lack of climate science knowledge (cultist ignorance?) when he wonders about the following: "Watts up with the 17-year period." It's a 'you've-got-to-be-kidding' moment - this "science" journalist isn't even aware that a major CAGW climate modeler published a study in 2011 claiming that temperature benchmarks should be using 17 years as the measurement period. (Psssst...Tom, try googling "climate +17-years"...second item on first page of search. You're welcome. Say hello to Ben S. for me. Thanks.)
Sixth, he 'cherry picks' quotes from Jeff Masters, a known internet weather crackpot, who expounds on the March warming in Michigan, yet actual NOAA U.S. temperature data has March 1910 as warmer and that goes unmentioned.
Seventh, he 'cherry picks' a single study about the 2003 European heat wave that claims that event was a result of human factors, yet ignores all the other studies suggesting such heat waves are natural phenomenons.
Eighth, I'm not making this up, Yulsman 'cherry picks' a single, "renowned," cartoon video as his scientific evidence that humans are to blame for global warming - gee, I wonder if instead this video would help better explain AGW to Tom's erudite readers:
xxxxx
Ninth, knowing full well that the CAGW cultists scientists can't explain the lack of recent global warming over the last 15 years, Tom chooses to 'cherry pick' a single study that speculates that all the previous predicted warming from the climate models is really disappearing into the deep oceans. However, as our cult propagandist advocate fails to mention, all the empirical scientific evidence disproves that AGW alarmist speculation.
Tenth, going back to those 'cherry picked' first 3-weeks of March, 'Kool-Aid' Tom just happens to forget to speak of the previous 52-week period - and for good reason. Obviously, as the chart on the right shows, the CAGW fanatics faithful are notoriously reluctant to talk about those temperatures, which has the world monstrously cooling at a minus 18.3 degrees by 2100.
Note: Readers, please remember that linear trend figures used in the charts are not predictions! Also, the charts' blue curves are 2nd order polynomial trend fits as calculated by Excel.
Conclusion:Tom Yulsman, the 'cherry picking' expert and climate doomsday cultist advocate, reminds me of Harold Camping and all the other crazies eccentrics. In my mind's-eye, Tom even looks like Harold - yikes!
A plethora of temperature charts that CAGW cult tribe 'cherry pickers' always avoid: Modern, regional, historical and fabricating-fake temperature charts, and of course, an extensive list of severe weather events prior to the 1980's that the cultists always seem to forget about.
p.s. Update: Rest assured, image #6 above is not really Tom Yulsman! He is infinitely better looking and younger. And more than 'robustly' likely, he is a great guy; someone to go out have an after work beverage with and shoot the skeptics shit with - just don't let him 'cherry pick' the Kool-Aid drinks. :-)
A new peer reviewed study determines that research efforts based on tree rings are likely to be wrong due to 'big tree selection bias' - Mann's infamous 'hockey stick' highly likely to be corrupted by this bias
Read here. The majority of scientists have come to believe that Michael Mann's study that produced the infamous 'hockey stick' graph was flawed in a number of ways. A major problem with Mann's research was that it did not match the multiple empirical studies and anecdotal evidence that confirmed the extreme warmth of the Medieval Warming and the cold of the Little Ice Age.
Newly published research by Brienen et al. indicates that Mann's work with tree rings, and others, is likely to be wrong due to a 'big tree selection bias.'
"A paper published this week finds that many tree-ring proxy studies are highly biased and calls for "great caution in the interpretation of historical growth trends from tree-ring analyses." The authors find that "big tree selection bias" resulted in a fictitious "doubling in growth rates over recent decades." Consequently, tree-ring analyses claiming to link growth rates to historical temperatures would show a fictitious large 'hockey stick' increase in temperature over recent decades..."The big-tree selection bias is caused by sampling only the biggest trees in a population. As a result, slow-growing small trees are underrepresented in recent times as they did not reach the minimum sample diameter." [Roel J. W. Brienen, Emanuel Gloor, Pieter A. Zuidema 2012: Global BioGeochemical Cycles]
Conclusion: Michael Mann's infamous 'hockey stick' portrayal of historical temperatures has already proven to be damaged from bizarre mathematical and statistical techniques used, and now the tree ring data utilized in his study is likely to be significantly biased also.
Previous postings about the bizarre science behind the 'hockey stick.'
Read here. In regards to the infamous Michael Mann and IPCC 'hockey-stick' chart, it was claimed that past climate temperatures could be ascertained by tree ring growth. Subsequently, it was determined that Mann had ignored other important factors in tree ring growth, including: water availability, atmospheric CO2 levels, atmospheric nitrogen levels, parasites, and sunlight.
Now, scientists have discovered a much more important influence than temperatures on tree ring growth: animal (domestic or wild) behavior, especially chewing on the trees. If browsing on the trees has a great impact, then the animals' dung may be another influence that goes unaccounted for.
Regardless of the dung issue, clearly the 'hockey-stick' reliability as a past temperature record is further weakened by this study.
"Nibbling by herbivores can have a greater impact on the width of tree rings than climate, new research has found...“We found tree ring widths were more affected by sheep than the ambient temperature at the site, although temperatures were still visible in the tree ring records. This shows that the density of herbivores affects the tree ring record, at least in places with slow-growing trees.”..."Our study highlights that other factors interact with climate to affect tree rings, and that to increase the accuracy of the tree ring record to estimate past climatic conditions, you need to take into account the history of wild and domestic herbivores. The good news is that past densities of herbivores can be estimated from historic records, and from the fossilised remains of spores from fungi that live on dung.”" [James D. M. Speed, Gunnar Austrheim, Alison J. Hester, Atle Mysterud 2011: Functional Ecology]
Read here. Michael Mann, the "scientist" behind the infamous hockey-stick and Climategate fiascoes, decided that the world could use his brand of discredited statistics and data manipulation concerning Atlantic Ocean hurricanes. He subsequently published a study purporting to show an increasing trend of hurricanes supposedly due to human-caused global warming. To the surprise of no one, a new peer-reviewed study by actual, honest-to-god, hurricane scientists makes a complete mockery of Mann's non-expertise of hurricanes.
Villarini et al., using widely accepted statistical and data methodology techniques, examined the hurricane information and compensated for the superior satellite hurricane detection capabilities over the last few decades. The end result? There is no increasing trend of hurricane activity.
"By using statistical methods combined with the current understanding of the physical processes, we are unable to find support for the hypothesis that the century-scale record of short-lived tropical cyclones in the Atlantic contains a detectable real climate signal...Moreover, based on these results and those of Vecchi and Knutson [2008] it is unlikely that a homogeneous record of Atlantic tropical storm counts would contain a statistically significant positive trend since the late 1800s. Our results provide a context for interpreting studies exploring trend behavior in the North Atlantic tropical storm activity starting prior to the 1940s. In particular, the conclusions of certain studies reporting large secular increases in North Atlantic tropical storm activity in which shorties are included [e.g., Holland and Webster, 2007; Mann et al., 2007] could be affected by what we interpret as likely spurious nonphysical trends unless an alternative physical explanation can be uncovered for the pronounced increase in shorties starting from the middle of the 20th century. Further, statistical models of tropical storm activity built using century‐scale records that include shorties [e.g., Mann et al., 2007; Sabbatelli and Mann, 2007; Mann et al., 2009] likely include an element reflecting the spurious shorties in the record." [Gabriele Villarini, Gabriel Vecchi, Thomas Knutson, James Smith 2011: Journal of Geophysical Research]
Read here and here. Why would a German corporation (one that was recently raided by criminal investigators) publicly spread falsehoods about the bogus hockey stick science that has been so discredited? The very simple answer: CARBON P-R-O-F-I-T-S.
Deutsche Bank, like another German corporation, will go to any lengths to assure their profits from government subsidized green energy and CO2 emissions trading, including fabricating lies about the fully discredited 'hockey stick' science.
Much time has been spent investigating Mann's 'hockey stick', and a marvelous book has been written about its bogosity and the hackClimategate scientists behind it. Two separate investigations by U.S. authorities eventually discredited this science to the point where the IPCC was forced to omit it from its 2007 report.
As a reminder, the infamous 'hockey stick' was an attempt by Climategate scientists to literally fabricate a false temperature record that would show modern temperatures as being "unprecedented," even when compared to the Medieval Warming Period. Their clownish version of "science" included doing the following to accomplish this objective for the IPCC and its reports:
1. Utilized a discredited statistical technique that selected tree ring records that exhibited a sharp 20th century increase (the hockey stick "blade") - plus excluding those tree ring records that had a lack of 20th century warming
2. Included tree species that exhibited a sharp 20th century increase, which all tree ring experts knew were not a response to higher temperatures but to other factors (mainly to the increase of CO2 fertilization)
3. Utilized a bogus statistical technique that over-weighted tree-ring records that exhibited a sharp 20th century increase, by at least 390 times
4. The rapid 20th century "blade" temperature increase totally disappears when the above three points are properly corrected
5. Michael Mann, and authors of subsequent hockey stick look-alike studies, withheld the key r2 statistical validation measurement of their temperature reconstructions for a critical reason - the extremely low r2 of their studies statistically proved their proxy temperature reconstructions were worthless (statistically insignificant)
6. Michael Mann, and authors of subsequent hockey stick look-alike studies, withheld the key data, algorithms and software used in their proxy reconstructions to eliminate the possibility that other scientists would ever challenge their findings
7. Michael Mann and other paleo-climate scientists conspired to misrepresent/hide other proxy temperature reconstructions that did not exhibit a sharp 20th century increase - commonly referred to as "Mike's trick" and the "hide the decline" tactic.
An example of this last point can be seen in the graphs below, which clearly represent an attempt to brazenly mislead the public about the true nature of modern and Medieval temperatures. (click on images to enlarge)
Of course, Deutsche Bank has a history of embracing crank policies that enrich their coffers - as do other wealthy investors whoshare the same history. Is Deutsche Bank again inserting itself into politics at the expense of truth and freedoms? Read carefully the top two links and it becomes readily apparent the falsehoods and misinformation that Deutsche Bank is attempting to disseminate about discredited global warming science.
Unfortunately for DB, there is a wealth of peer-reviewed studies over the last several years that makes a shambles of the IPCC's catastrophic AGW-hypothesis, which btw, the public no longerbelieves, despite the continuing Aryan corporate propaganda done in the name of greed.
Read here and here. As is well known by now, the IPCC, the MSM and Hollywood wildly (and foolishly) celebrated the "Hockey Stick" caricature of past temperatures when it was first introduced, which portrayed the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age as non-existent. Subsequent expert analysis by McIntyre and McKitrick found the hockey stick portrayal of past temperatures to be bogus and without scientific merit.
Recently, paleo-climate experts from around the world confirmed that the hockey stick caricature was dead by holding a major Medieval Warming Period (MWP) symposium in Lisbon, Portugal titled "The Medieval Warm Period - Where and when was it warm?". [Archived home web page here.]
Obviously, holding a MWP conference means there is no MWP "consensus" yet, and the IPCC Climategate-style of science is definitely not "settled." Additional confirmation of the MWP existence (pouring salt into Michael Mann's wound) is the symposium's prominent use of a graph from a peer-reviewed study that depicts MWP temperatures matching or exceeding modern warming temperatures. The symposium graph is an ensemble of paleo proxy reconstructions [Jansen et al., 2007]; and, by focusing solely on the ensemble's temperature ranges of the proxies, as depicted in the 'C3' chart below, the Jansen et al. research clearly is more supportive of, and similar to, the McIntyre & McKitrick results instead of the infamous hockey stick results. (click on image to enlarge)
This range of ensemble temperatures is also very similar to the results of multiple other peer-reviewed studies in the paleo-climate science field.
Read here. (Part #1 here.) Every time the Climategate and Hockey-Stick fiascoes start to fade, there pops-up Michael Mann to throw more fuel on the smoldering fire that surrounds him and his work. The man exhibits both the idiocy and cluelessness of a moth seeking the flame (self-immolation?).
His most recent effort at fire-spreading was an opinion piece in the Washington Post, the MSM's print version of The View, which only the shallow mindset of a liberal/Democrat could embrace. Despite his protestations, the entire controversy that has engulfed Mann, his science, and his associates could easily be ended by his simply following honored scientific tradition and transparency by releasing all his data, notes, correspondence and methodologies. This is the standard operating procedure for all science and scientists, including the best and brightest, like say, for example, Albert Einstien. If it's good for Albert, why does Mann hide and protest from doing the same?
Of course, Michael Mann refuses to do the same as Einstein, and the vast majority of past and present scientists for a very important reason. This non-acceptable, non-professional behavior most likely means that Mann fears being exposed as a serial liar about his climate science, which most now fully realize:
"And above all, tell them to be open about their data and their work. Why is it so hard for you to understand and practice this most basic of scientific tenets, total transparency and openness? You got hauled before Congress, not because of your scientific views, but because you tried to con people with your bogus math and bad proxies. And when we didn’t buy it, when we asked how you got your results, you refused to explain your methods, claiming it was “intimidation” to even ask, so we should just take it on faith that you were right."
....."My friend, the problem is not blatant abuse from politicians. The problem is your blatant abuse of the scientific method. If you and other climate scientists stopped trying to scare us with your doomsday fantasies, if you and other climate scientists were honest and open and forthright about what we do understand and what we don’t understand, if you and other climate scientists fully disclosed your data and your methods, if you and other climate scientists stopped trying to subvert the IPCC into serving as your propaganda mouthpiece, we could have a rational discussion."
"But you are like a junkie who jumps up and down and screams “Police abuse” every time the cops question him. Asking you scientific questions is not abuse, Dr. Mann, no matter how many times you try to claim it is. And your investigations are the just rewards of your own anti-scientific and unethical actions. As my momma used to say, “Scorch around, and you’ll get burnt.”
Read here (also read the comments for further information). It would seem that an Ohio State global warming advocate scientist, in association with researchers at Michael Mann's Penn State climate group, conducted a study of previous studies on Arctic sea ice. This Ohio State study makes the very vague claim that sea ice loss "appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years,”.
The researchers comments about their study suggests that science and statistical techniques they utilized may be of 'Mannian' nature, which have proven to be black magic, at best.
"When we look carefully at various chemical and biological components of the sediment, and how the sediment is distributed — then, with certain skills and luck, we can reconstruct the conditions at the time the sediment was deposited.”....."They searched for patterns in the proxy data that fit together like pieces of a puzzle."
Any science that is based on "certain" skills and some "luck", while only seeking data that "fit together like pieces of a puzzle" and thus rejecting data that does not conform to the IPCC global warming hypothesis, sounds an awful lot like the discredited hockey-stick style of science.
The Greenland ice cores provide the best evidence of Arctic cooling and warming, which would be an excellent indicator of likely past sea ice conditions. It would appear the Ohio State researchers in choosing their "puzzle pieces" rejected the best data available, the non-conforming ice core data. (click on images to enlarge)
Per the Greenland ice cores, current Arctic temperatures are well within the range of past warming events. In fact, current Arctic warming has not reached the levels of past historical and ancient warming. These images and other historical temperature charts can be found here. Other climate history postings. Modern temperature charts.
Read here. A UK climate scientist specifically stated certain assertions about the infamous, Michael Mann "hockey stick" during UK Parliamentary Committee hearings. Later, Steve McIntyre posed this simple question to this UK climate "scientist" regarding her assertions, via this email:
"In your testimony to the Parliamentary Committee the other day, you stated that the controversy around Mann’s original methods had been “fully addressed in the peer reviewed literature” and those issues are now “largely resolved”...."Perhaps you can provide me with references for this particular statement."
Now here is her response:
"Dear Dr. McIntyre,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Parliamentary Committee enquiry. The enquiry focused on the instrumental record and the robustness of the warming signal in the 20th century. As far as I’m concerned, the instrumental record is robust, as is shown on the Met Office website where the release of data and code is documented. I’m also aware that the IPCC AR4 WG1 Report had a special section devoted to the controversy around the Mann results. Of course the proxy reconstructions have greater uncertainty than the instrumental record particularly as one goes back in time. We accept that and as the AR4 discussed do our best to quantify it."
As seems the standard operating procedure in the scientific community, a climate alarmist scientist makes a statement, claim, or assertion that is then challenged; she/he is unable to respond forthrightly because the original assertion was a blatant falsehood. Instead of policing its own, her/his science peers will slap her/him on the back, providing accolades to how clever she/he was in avoiding an honest and factual answer. And yet, the science community bemoans the fact that they are losing credibility worldwide - simply amazing.
Read here. In their concerted effort to prove current temperatures are warmer than Medieval temperatures, IPCC paleo-climate scientists scoured tree-ring research to identify tree populations (even single trees) that exhibited a sharp uptick in growth during the 2nd half of the 20th century. If they found a tree-ring study that exhibited a hockey-stick blade, they would include it in their published research as an indication that the trees were responding to unprecedented warming.
But was this really the case? Although some species of trees respond with faster growth from higher temperatures, there are other more important factors that contribute to all trees' growth. The most important factor is availability of atmospheric CO2 - vegetation responds to higher levels of CO2 with accelerated growth. More often than not, it is CO2 levels that primarily create a hockey-stick "blade" effect, not temperatures.
The chart below is research from a study of Greek fir trees, which clearly shows the post-1980 accelerated growth of tree-rings versus earlier periods, as compared to concurrent levels of CO2, temperatures and precipitation. Without doubt, the research reveals that CO2 levels are driving growth. Interesting update on trees and temperatures here.
"....there was a "strong acceleration of growth over the second half of the 20th century," and he notes that "the sustained increase in growth since 1990 in particular is unprecedented over the full length of the data set." He also correctly notes that these positive growth trends "bear no relationship to regional temperature or precipitation variations and therefore are unlikely to be climatically induced....About the only rational explanation for the late 20th-century growth acceleration seen in the ring-width data, therefore, is Koutavas' suggestion that "the enhanced growth reflects a fertilization effect due to rising CO2 in the global atmosphere." We agree. Although the correlation between the increasing trends of both atmospheric CO2 content and ring-width growth over this period does not prove causation, such is certainly a logical conclusion when (1) no other environmental parameter can explain the growth enhancement and (2) the results of hundreds of experiments have shown that tree growth is indeed enhanced in CO2-enriched air."
Read here. The "prestigious" medical journal, Lancet, has published bogus studies before but their latest admission that the 'vaccines cause autism' study they published (over a decade ago) was not worthy is a real eye-opener. Think about it - how many children have died from this idiotic science because of the fear it instilled in parents about getting their children vaccinated.
Since a major journal has finally taken the correct step to denounce bogus science they published, is it not the perfect time for journals such as Nature, Science and the New Scientist to do a similar and needed housekeeping regarding bogus science associated with the politically correct global warming agenda? Would it really be that hard for the journals to finally recognize (what everyone else knows) the sham that the original "hockey stick" represents and all of its associated progeny? Is it time for the major science journals to reconsider how they conduct the climate science peer-reviewed process so that major data cherry-picking, data manipulation and statistical fraud are recognized and challenged well before these studies get in print?
Obviously, the science journals represent a huge part of the bogus science problem. The "peer-reviewed" moniker has become a joke for the layperson, which certainly is not a good attribute to achieve. But journals are only part of the the problem. Unfortunately, scientists are becoming ever more notorious for publicizing issues and future events as calamitous, sure thing, predicted outcomes that makes it difficult for the journals, let alone the MSM, to ignore. Often the scientists' public relations effort of promoting fear and catastrophe is enough to get the journals interested instead of conducting their efforts in the needed role as skeptics.
Here are some examples of older/newer fears and catastrophes predicted by scientists that should have been exposed as bogus or way too extreme from day one:
1 Population growth and famine (Malthus) 1798 2 Timber famine economic threat 1865 3 Uncontrolled reproduction and degeneration (Eugenics) 1883 4 Lead in petrol and brain and organ damage 1928 5 Soil erosion agricultural production threat 1934 6 Asbestos and lung disease 1939 7 Fluoride in drinking water health effects 1945 8 DDT and cancer 1962 9 Population growth and famine (Ehrlich) 1968 10 Global cooling; through to 1975 1970 11 Supersonic airliners, the ozone hole, and skin cancer, etc. 1970 12 Environmental tobacco smoke health effects 1971 13 Population growth and famine (Meadows) 1972 14 Industrial production and acid rain 1974 15 Organophosphate pesticide poisoning 1976 16 Electrical wiring and cancer, etc. 1979 17 CFCs, the ozone hole, and skin cancer, etc. 1985 18 Listeria in cheese 1985 19 Radon in homes and lung cancer 1985 20 Salmonella in eggs 1988 21 Environmental toxins and breast cancer 1990 22 Mad cow disease (BSE) 1996 23 Dioxin in Belgian poultry 1999 24 Mercury in fish effect on nervous system development 2004 25 Mercury in childhood inoculations and autism 2005 26 Cell phone towers and cancer, etc. 2008
"None of the 26 alarming forecasts that we examined was accurate. Based on analyses to date, 19 of the forecasts were categorically wrong (the direction of the effect was opposite to the alarming forecast), and the remaining 7 of the forecast effects were wrong in degree (no effect or only minor effects actually occurred)."
Read here. From the northern forests of Sweden, a tree-ring study that has not been discredited by use of the infamous and fraudulent Climategate and hockey-stick methodologies, used by IPCC associated scientists:
"The new data show generally higher temperature estimates than previous reconstructions based on Torneträsk tree-ring data. The late-twentieth century, however, is not exceptionally warm in the new record: On decadal-to-centennial timescales, periods around ad 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were equally warm, or warmer. The 200-year long warm period centered on ad 1000 was significantly warmer than the late-twentieth century and is supported by other local and regional paleoclimate data. The new tree-ring evidence from Torneträsk suggests that this “Medieval Warm Period” in northern Fennoscandia was much warmer than previously recognized."
We did this posting a while back about the "hockey stick" fraudster but this is soooo much better and reflects the latest about Climategate. Enjoy and appreciate the talent that put this together.
Read here, here, here, here, and here. Over the last week, AGW climate science has again been rocked by bogus data and dubious scientific techniques that have raised serious questions of fraud or huge incompetence. The paleo-climate studies in question were all peer-reviewed, which raises serious questions about the entire peer-review process. The collection of links above indicate a serious peer-review problem that exists at the majority of publications that publish climate science studies. Based on the fraudulent studies over the last decade, it would be reasonable to conclude that one can't put too much faith in AGW-oriented studies that have been "peer-reviewed."
[For a brief summary of this important news story go here, or visit here to follow additional information links of importance.]
The most important story in global warming science (possibly in all of science) this past week has been the discovery that tree ring research used to produce the well publicized IPCC "hockey sticks" is totally bogus. The end result of this news.......
Read here,here, here, here, here, here, here, here,here, and here forbackground information on the latest developments of this climate science scandal. Based on available information, are we witnessing a massive scientific fraud endeavor that has UN backing? If you do not have......
Read here. Back in 2005, science thought they were rid of this vampire that was draining the credibility from the climate scientific body. So far this year though, the discredited 'hockey stick' methodologies have been revived in a string of studies including, Antarctica, hurricanes and most recently, Arctic temperature reconstructions. Until the peer-reviewed journals make a decision to turn from tabloid advocate science, the studies based on fraudulent techniques will still live.
Read here, here, and here. These simulated temperature studies using the discredited techniques of the 'hockey stick' author cannot stand up to scrutiny or validation, other than by MSM "journalists."
Read here, here, and, here. A scientist who conjured up one of the most debunked pieces of paleo-climate science (the "hockey stick") in the last 100 years, has now applied his unique brand of data techniques and statistical methodologies to hurricanes. This scientist, btw, has no expertise or credibility regarding hurricanes or hurricane history. In contrast, a team of scientists associated with NOAA's hurricane center just released a major study that makes a mockery of Mann's study in hurricane ignorance. (click to enlarge) x
Much time has been spent investigating Mann's 'hockey stick', and a marvelous book has been written about its bogosity and the tangled web ofClimategate scientists behind it. Two separate investigations by U.S. authorities eventually discredited this science to the point where the IPCC was forced to omit it from its 2007 report.
As a reminder, the infamous 'hockey stick' was an attempt by Climategate scientists to replace a well established, consensus temperature record with a new one that would show modern temperatures as being "unprecedented," even when compared to the Medieval Warming Period. (Note: Image source here. Notice how the above hockey stick graph depicts pre-modern temperatures as being of insignificant variation, with both the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age being nothing more than blips in temperatures.)
This clownish version of "science" included doing the following to accomplish this objective for the IPCC and its reports:
1. Utilized a discredited statistical technique that selected tree ring records that exhibited a sharp 20th century increase (the hockey stick "blade") - plus excluding those tree ring records that had a lack of 20th century warming
2. Included tree species that exhibited a sharp 20th century increase, which all tree ring experts knew were not a response to higher temperatures but to other factors (mainly to the increase of CO2 fertilization)
3. Utilized a bogus statistical technique that over-weighted tree-ring records that exhibited a sharp 20th century increase, by at least 390 times
4. The rapid 20th century "blade" temperature increase mostly disappears when the above three points are properly corrected
5. Michael Mann, and authors of subsequent hockey stick look-alike studies, withheld the key r2 statistical validation measurement of their temperature reconstructions for a critical reason - the extremely low r2 of their studies statistically proved their proxy temperature reconstructions were worthless (statistically insignificant)
6. Michael Mann, and authors of subsequent hockey stick look-alike studies, withheld the key data, algorithms and software used in their proxy reconstructions to eliminate the possibility that other scientists would ever challenge their findings
7. Michael Mann and other paleo-climate scientists appear to misrepresent/hide other proxy temperature reconstructions that did not exhibit a sharp 20th century increase - commonly referred to as "Mike's trick" and the "hide the decline" tactic.
Point #7 can be seen in the below graphs (click on images to enlarge).
