This is crap of the worst kind–it was written explicitly for political purposes; there is no science there at all
I kid. He said that about the Soon and Baliunas paper, but he also published a scientific paper of his own criticizing it. His first argument in it says:
it is essential to assess proxy data for actual sensitivity to past temperature variability…. The existence of possible underlying dynamical relationships between temperature and hydrological variability should not be confused with the patently invalid assumption that hydrological influences can literally be equated with temperature influences in assessing past climate
That’s a lot of words to say it is essential not to mix up temperature and precipitation proxies. In other words, when we look at the data file for a temperature reconstruction, we shouldn’t see precipitation proxies listed like:
Southeast U.S-N. Carolina Dendro ring widths precip 36N 80W 1005 Stahle et al 1988 Southeast U.S-S. Carolina Dendro ring widths precip 34N 81W 1005 " Southeast U.S-Georgia Dendro ring widths precip 33N 83W 1005 "
And we absolutely, positively, should not see instrumental precipitation records like:
Station Precipitation " precipitation 12.5N 82.5E 1813 " " " " 17.5N 72.5E 1817 " " " " 37.5N 77.5W 1809 "
Only papers which are “crap of the worst kind” would say those can “literally be equated with temperature” data. In other words, Mann’s original hockey stick is “crap of the worst kind.” After all, anyone familiar with this series will remember that’s where those entries were taken from.
Mann’s second argument in his paper says:
It is essential to distinguish… between regional temperature anomalies and anomalies in hemispheric mean temperature, which must represent an average of temperature estimates over a sufficiently large number of distinct regions
This makes sense. We shouldn’t conflate regional information with hemispheric information. Data from one area should not be taken to represent temperatures for an entire hemisphere. That’s why nobody should ever say:
one such indicator PC #1 of the ITRDB data is found to be essential
For the results of their temperature reconstruction. After all, if one proxy (indicator) is essential for results, there’s no distinguishing “regional temperature anomalies and anomalies in hemispheric mean temperature.” And only someone who is “crap of the worst kind” would fail to do that. “Crap of the worst kind” like Michael Mann, discussing his original hockey stick.
But okay. Even if Michael Mann is completely hypocritical, having done exactly what he condemns Soon and Baliunas for doing, that’s okay. Science progresses. People change their minds. It’s not like Mann would promote his work which does this while criticizing Soon and Baliunas for doing it:
Wait, what? Does that figure really say Mann et al, 1999? As in, the paper which contained Mann’s original hockey stick? The hockey stick which used precipitation series as temperature series and used proxies from one region as representing temperatures for an entire hemisphere? The hockey stick which did exactly what he condemns Soon and Baliunas for doing?