Please note that the smoothed curve terminates around 1973, not 1980. Clearly, therefore, McIntyre’s reconstruction of Mann’s “third step” is incorrect. You will note, of course, that no matter how carefully we examine McIntyre’s code, it will not make the smoothed curve MBH 98 terminate in 1980.

I was so amazed I could only marvel in awe at his brilliance, saying:

that’s a dashed line. You are saying a gap in a dashed line means the series terminated earlier than I say.

The “trick” is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data.

“Mike’s Nature trick” referred to the technique of plotting recent instrumental temperature data along with historical reconstructed data.

I don’t think the minor differences are enough to require comment. Normally, I’d do it anyway, but I with the responses I’m getting, posting anything on the site at all is unappealing. I mean, moderation issues aside, just look at this comment by Tom Curtis. A small excerpt:

Clearly McIntyre has not even got the reconstruction of Mann’s smoothing method correct. His supposition that he can deduce from his flawed reconstruction of Mann’s smoothing method the nature of the “Nature trick” is absurd. Specifically, McIntyre gives no evidence that the trick relates to the smoothing function as opposed to appending of the full instrumental record as claimed by Mann.

4) Assuming Jones was referring to his graph for the WMO report, he did not do anything like what Mann did in his Nature article (MBH 98). Consequently the name of “Mike’s Nature trick” is a complete misnomer. Fake climate-auditors, however, insist on using it, and in trying to suggest that Mann did something similar. Clearly the purpose is not to criticize Jones’ techniques, which stand or fall on their own merits. Rather it is an attempt to try and tarnish as many reputations as possible on no substantive basis.

Just for fun you might add a clarifying comment on the old thread explaining this.

I find, however, that your focus on such trivial inconsequentialities rather than the campaign of abuse and misinformation about climate scientists speaks volumes about your priorities.

Apparently, in dana1981′s mind, issues like what Mike’s Nature trick actually is are “trivial inconsequentialities.” I’m not sure how to reconcile that with the fact the article spends several paragraphs discussing exactly that. I mean, something like half the post is spent on defending Mann against accusations of fraud. Surely examining those accusations is meaningful.

I point out dana1981 made things up about the argument he is attempting to rebut. He says that matter is a trivial inconsequentiality (and smears me for it).

Brandon Shollenberger, I draw your attention to the comments policy which states:

” Some comments, while strictly on topic, may relate to issues discussed in more detail in some other thread. Extended discussion of those points should be carried out in the more appropriate thread, with link backs to reference the discussion as needed. Moderator’s directions to move discussion to a more appropriate thread should always be followed.”

It is very evident, that, for example, this thread would be far more appropriate to discussing the specific meaning of “Mike’s Nature trick”. I find, however, that your focus on such trivial inconsequentialities rather than the campaign of abuse and misinformation about climate scientists speaks volumes about your priorities. Regardless, if you want to discuss “Mike’s Nature trick”, take it to where it is the main point of the discussion.

Look at the reason dana1981 says my comment was deleted. Now look at my comment. Does anyone here feel my comment constitutes an “extended discussion” of any point? It was six sentences long!

In any event, I re-posted the comment on the thread dana1981 directed me to. I then posted a new comment on the newer thread with a link to it, saying this:

In following the instructions given in the moderator’s response to my #1, I’ve posted a comment here which discusses a factual error in that appears in this (and that) post. Interested readers should follow the link.

I don’t expect this comment to last very long, but I’m dying to know what excuse dana1981 comes up with for deleting it. I mean, if a single comment with just six sentences can be deleted for being an “extended discussion,” who knows what other craziness will happen?

Your description of “Mike’s Nature trick” is false. The trick is not merely “plotting recent instrumental temperature data along with historical reconstructed data.” If it were, there’d be no problem.

The trick actually consists of splicing instrumental data onto the reconstructed series (starting at 1980), smoothing the resulting series, then truncating the series at the point the instrumental data had been appended. That is nothing like what you describe.

For more information on the subject of “tricks,” I highly recommend readers look at this post.

I can’t imagine how anything in that comment would violate their comments policy, so it should be interesting to see if the moderators allow it to stay.

“Mike’s Nature trick” referred to the technique of plotting recent instrumental temperature data along with historical reconstructed data.

Michael Mann himself links to this article on his Facebook page. Either he didn’t bother to read the article, or he knowingly promoted false claims about his work. I suppose that shouldn’t be surprising, nor should Skeptical Science’s false description (which they’ve promoted before).

It just goes to show, if people never have to answer real questions, they can say anything they want.