No amount of moaning, whinging or self-promotion will overcome that.
When they were "on message" they were shown on the chart and when they became "off message￡ they were not shown. Simple as that.
@Gringo: "There's a method (aka 'trick' in colloquial scientific terms) to avoid that artificial decline."
No, the decline was not artificial, it was data. What was artificial was the handling of the data:
"Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were.
-Dr. Tim Osborn, CRU, Email Dec. 20, 2006"
Instrumental data is too contaminated to provide an accurate depiction of global temperatures. Past temperature readings have always been suspect. 0.1C is huge when describing temperature changes and the anomalies have consistently shown a variability of 0.3C to 0.5C from month to month. It seems more recent readings rarely show a variability of more than 0.3C, which simply means we are "micro-measuring" temperatures more accurately. If the Earth's atmosphere "actually" varies by 0.3C from month to month, then global temperature measurements measured through anomalies is a useless endeavor anyways.
Mann has been shown time and again that he is a "Climate Crook" when it comes to showing temperature "hockey sticks". His credibility is nil.
A 0.87C temperature increase over 350 years of industrialization is a microscopic blip on the screen if they are going to correctly depict temperature data over a 10,000 year, 100,000 year, or even a 1,000,000 year period of Earth's existence. Temperature data over the 1000 year scale ("Dingo" shows) has never been confirmed as actual. It's a futile attempt at guessing.
<
...which sounds very damaging indeed until one finds out what the 'trick' is all about and what 'hide the decline' actually refers to. The decline refers to a known anomaly (that is, known in the world of professional dendrochronologists or those who study tree rings) in certain tree ring data starting around the 1960's which show a decline in temperatures when we know for a fact (ie, instrumental temperature records) that temperatures actually increased. That problem is known as the 'divergence problem'. There's a method (aka 'trick' in colloquial scientific terms) to avoid that artificial decline.
<
Not with the selection of the graph by the WMO, no.
<
Of course he did. he was the lead-author of the study.
<
Again, not with the WMO picking his graph from his peer-reviewed study.
<
Again, he made the graph as part of his co-authored peer-reviewed paper published in the March 1999 edition of Geophysical Research Letters titled "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millenium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and limitations". Since 1999, not only have the conclusions of that paper not been rejected scientifically, it has been reinforced with the more than 2 dozen peer-reviewed papers using a wide variety of temperature proxies (some very different from tree-rings) which all confirm the original hocky-stick.
<
The reviews (there have been several by now) all looked at allegations which arose from the CRU hack that he committed fraud and negligence in his work. None of the reviews and investigations found any of these allegations to be true.
<
It really is much simpler than that: you have no clue what you are talking about.
There's a whole "hockey league" now which confirms Mann et al's. original findings. But the denialsphere, lead by powerful fossil fuels funded astro-turf organizations, keep repeating this long debunked 'controversy'.
Edit @ Ottawa Mike:
<
You are cherry-picking (again). You've picked my word "artificial" out of my answer and managed to find the same word in 2006 email and immediately assume it must be something sinister. May I remind you that the original paper from which the hockey-stick graph was taken was peer-reviewed and published in 1998 and that the WMO choose to publish it in 2001? And now you've managed to find a 2006 email which also uses the term 'artificial' in what is a rather technical email from which much if not all context is missing. That's respectively 8 and 5 years after Mann supposedly "hid the decline".
The Tree Ring Divergence Problem is well know (see link) and the data it produces is not valid.
Edit @ Mike:
<<
So you plainly reject the graph I provided but you are not skeptical enough to Google the issue yourself to see if you can find a graph without the instrumental record blocking your view? How convenient! Here's another graph (from D'Arrigo et al., 2006) showing different temperature reconstructions:
http://wottsupwiththatblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/dariggo.jpg
They're experts at playing both sides, like global warming causes both more and fewer hurricanes, more and less snow, blah, blah, blah......
I've used Mike's Nature Trick ...to hide the decline.
On the other hand, Michael Mann submitted to the court that the graph had nothing to do with him.
On the other hand, he listed this work on his CV.
On the other hand, Michael Mann wrote in his book that he had nothing to do with it.
On the other hand, Michael Mann listed a review of this graph as an exoneration of his work in his court filing.
On the other hand, Mann wrote in his book that this review was not looking at his work.
Is Mann lying to the court, or to the readers of his book, or both?
They're experts at playing both sides, like global warming causes both more and fewer hurricanes, more and less snow, blah, blah, blah......
I've used Mike's Nature Trick ...to hide the decline.
On the other hand, Michael Mann submitted to the court that the graph had nothing to do with him.
On the other hand, he listed this work on his CV.
On the other hand, Michael Mann wrote in his book that he had nothing to do with it.
On the other hand, Michael Mann listed a review of this graph as an exoneration of his work in his court filing.
On the other hand, Mann wrote in his book that this review was not looking at his work.
Is Mann lying to the court, or to the readers of his book, or both?
