Tuesday, July 21st 2009, 10:47 AM EDT
Attached is Marcel Crok's article on the Mann affair.
Assume that a company would like to attract investments for some big project and would handle calls for additional in-depth information by potential investors the same way as Mann did, how would you qualify this behaviour? And what would happen with those who deliberately frustrated due diligence, resulting in huge losses for the investors concerned?
Hans H.J. Labohm
Updated below with comments from Norm Kalmanovitch and Jim Peden
Comments from Norm Kalmanovitch
The Mann hockey stick is scientifically fraudulent on several levels.
First of all the material that makes up tree rings is composed of carbon and hydrogen. The carbon comes from CO2 and the hydrogen comes from water. Both of these are extracted by the process of photosynthesis which is controlled by light and not temperature.
The best that a proxy using tree rings could do would be to show some historical record of either precipitation or atmospheric CO2 content. It is not possible to use tree rings as a meaningful proxy for global temperature because a few degrees up or down will not affect tree growth as much as changes in precipitation or CO2.
Corals are not effected by atmospheric temperature because they live in oceans and it is the oceans that warm the atmosphere not the other way around. The oceans are warmed by the sun or from geothermal heat transfer and neither of these are controlled by atmospheric temperature.
The Greenland ice sheet retreated enough during the Medieval Warm period to allow settlements and advanced during the Little Ice age covering over these settlements which are now emerging from under the ice. The Hockey stick does not depict the global temperature changes from either of these events and is therefore fraudulent because honest peer review would have questioned why well documented events such as the LIA and the MWP were not evident on the proxy.
The climate models have a fatal error in that they attribute 0.6°C of warming directly to the 100ppmv increase in CO2 without subtracting off the half a degree C of natural warming since the Little Ice Age. This would reduce the effect of CO2 by a factor of six and there would not be enough warming shown to create the climate crisis depicted in the Kyoto Protocol. It is not a coincidence that the MBH98 proxy emerged as peer reviewed science the year after Kyoto was signed.
The final fraud from a science perspective was shown when there was refusal to provide the data used in the proxy for examination. When the data was acquired it was clear that the statistics were manipulated to give the desired results. This should have been picked out by the peer review, but since this was not even questioned one has to assume that the peer reviewers were co conspiritors.
There are hundreds of millions of people starving with countless numbers dying because of biofuel initiatives of the Kyoto Protocol. The IPCC adopted the hockey stick proxy displaying it throughout the 2001TAR, and as a result of this report countries around the world ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2002 and initiated biofuel initiatives that had food crops competing with fuel crops raising the price of basic food staples beyond the means of the poor causing this global food crisis.
All science aside this alone brings the Hockey Stick Graph to a fraud level in the legal sense worthy of a charge of crime against humanity.
Ironically the hockey stick graph contains irrefutable evidence of the whole global warming fraud itself.
On close inspection the hockey stick graph clearly shows the reversal to cooling that took place from about 1942 to 1975.
The previous rapid warming from about 1910 to 1942 occurred with emissions growth of just half a gigatonne of CO2 over the 42 years. The cooling from 1942 to 1975 occurred with a rapid increase in emissions of over 11gigtonnes of CO2 over the 33years.
A rapid increase in CO2 emissions concurrent with 33 years of global cooling clearly falsefies the entire AGW premise of the Kyoto Protocol.
I have yet to find a single honest thing about the Mann Hockey Stick
Comments from Jim Peden
I think initially it was simply an example of massive mathematical incompetence, simply wrong. However, his continual insistence on it now brings it clearly into the arena of deliberate fraud. In the long run, Michael Mann will be ultimately recorded in history as the single most bumbling incompetent pseudo-scientist of the late 20th century, and the one whose incompetence did the most damage to the world's economy. Even Adolph Hitler didn't do as much long term damage to Europe, but Mann's effect will indeed be long term, perhaps even permanent.