Ambler’s rebuttal to Mann in the Wall Street Journal

Guest post by Harold Ambler

The reasons that climatologist Michael Mann is as successful as he is are multiple:

1. He told the United Nations something that it was dying to hear (he offered certainty when all else saw uncertainty)
2. He has brought serious money to the universities that house him (and run cover for him)
3. He is an extremely talented propagandist

I discuss this in a letter just published by The Wall Street Journal.

Although Michael Mann has the ear of the media in the United States and the United Kingdom, at a minimum, he complains of sailing into the wind of special-interest disinformation. Alas, this is its own potent form of disinformation.

Letter follows:

My Oily Millions

In Anne Jolis’s review of “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” (“The Climate Kamikaze,” Weekend Books, March 16), Miss Jolis notes that “In his book, [Michael] Mann dubs the unauthorized release of his emails a ‘crime’ and claims that the ensuing ‘witch hunt’ constituted ‘the most malicious’ of ‘attack after vitriolic attack against us’ by the ‘corporate-funded denial machine.’ “

The reviewer summarizes Mr. Mann’s incessant claim of big-oil bullying perfectly. This indeed is, as the expression goes, how Mr. Mann rolls. And it’s true not just about Mr. Mann and his emails, but about nearly every instance of anyone daring to question the version of climate science promulgated by Mr. Mann.

This is all a bit hard to take. I myself am a skeptical blogger and author, yet I am in no way funded by Big Oil. In fact, my three-and-a-half years of toiling on the subject of climate change has yielded approximately $4,000 worth of income. I’m not proud of this fact as a father, husband or man, but it does undercut the constant conspiracy theories about funding behind global-warming skepticism. Meanwhile, as I’ve noted elsewhere, mainstream climate scientists themselves have received grants totalling more than $1 billion from Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP and other large energy companies.

Mr. Mann’s book largely sticks to the familiar conclusions of climate science. Readers might be interested to learn that the current interglacial period, the Holocene, is the coolest of the last five. The one before ours, the Eemian, which ran between approximately 130,000 and 115,000 years ago, likely saw temperature averages of 2° Celsius warmer than today, and sea levels about 15 feet higher. Climatologically, if humans could time-travel to the most ideal time to live on Earth, we would be unlikely to find a better moment than right now. The Holocene, including and especially our own moment within it, is a beautiful climactic nest.

As for those who would convince the public that the sky is falling, one has to ask: Who benefits from such frightening claims?

- Harold Ambler

============================================================

(Please let it serve as the occasion when you choose to buy and enjoy my book, available for Kindle and in paperback at Amazon.)

Buy the book here:

About these ads
This entry was posted in Michael E. Mann and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

63 Responses to Ambler’s rebuttal to Mann in the Wall Street Journal

  1. cui bono says:

    Well said, sir!

  2. Tom G(ologist) says:

    Part way through your book now – thanks for it. The Kindle version is a little askew, as some of the figures appear no-where near the text which accompanies them, and one is left with some puzzlement as to what the graphic might be intended to convey – until one reads a few more e-pages further and then gets the “aha” moment. I use a kindle Fire so the pages are about normal page size (no little Nook screen which could account for the wonkiness of the layout). All that being said only for your information, however, the book itself is a great addition to my arsenal.

  3. David Harrington says:

    I bought your book Harold and can highly recommend it. Keep up the good work.

  4. Who benefits indeed. And the shrillness of the defence, and the skulduggery ensuing from its methods, reinforce Mr. Ambler’s point(s).

  5. Henry chance says:

    Great letter. How benefits from manns agenda? Perfect question

  6. copner says:

    1. Congratulations on getting your letter published in the WSJ

    2. Good luck about selling more copies of your book.

    3. I hope you realize that getting a climate skeptic letter published in the WSJ – who previously declined to publish a climate alarmist letter organized by Dr Gleick and signed by 255 scientists, can upset Dr Gleick. A lot. When a Heartland director managed it (or rather, 16 people including Heartland’s director, Harrison Schmitt did), Gleick tweeted about 8 times to complain, wrote 2 articles complaining, 2 more facebook posts complaining, and a signed a counter-letter to the WSJ as well. He is also began phishing Heartland the very same day the letter was published. So if I was you, I’d be on my guard against any suspicious looking emails!

    4. Just kidding about the last sentence of item 3 Every thing else in item 3 is however true

  7. Doug Proctor says:

    As Ambler said: “the Eemian, which ran between approximately 130,000 and 115,000 years ago, likely saw temperature averages of 2° Celsius warmer than today, and sea levels about 15 feet higher.”

    Why is today’s temperature rise able to create such drastic melting when the previous one couldn’t? Why did not the MWP or the Roman or the Minoan warmth cause noticeable and damaging sea-level rises?

    Apparently pre-Mann Joules are worth 1/3 a present Mann-Joule. Another aspect of how all history is irrelevant as today is Special. Science as well as scientists.

  8. richard verney says:

    @Regarding the penultimate paragraph.

    It is obvious that if it were not for our skill at adapting our environment, the climate today is far too cold for us as a species, and we would inhabit only small areas of the globe.

    We do not wear clothes because of modesty, but because it is too cold to live without clothes. Man as an animal but for the skill of adaption could only live in the tropical rain forests and other tropoical regions.

    Generally, we want and would thrive in a warmer globe.

    The idea that it is beneficial to live in a climate equivalent to that emerging at the end of the LIA is madness..

  9. Steve O says:

    Who benefits indeed.

    Those who question the motives of scientists funded by “the fossil fuel industry” are quick to call foul based on conflict of interest. For those same people, the same conflict of interest doesn’t seem to apply to the UN, a political body of questionable mores, as the UN seeks hundreds of billions of dollars in wealth transfers to play with.

    Now, for me, that doesn’t say anything negative about the scientists who are working with such public funding, but it does say something about the perspectives of those who only see a risk of bias on only one side of the debate.

  10. KnR says:

    ‘He is an extremely talented propagandist’

    Its that really true , given he makes fool of myself whenever is exposed to public review , which may explain why its very rarely done, and given that he normal comes across has a bit of nasty big head and that’s in friendly situation with his ‘followers. I am not sure this idea is true, but I do think these may ,ironically, be good reasons to keep him in place and in the public eye. So a ‘talented propagandist’ but not for his own side ?

  11. markstoval says:

    I am shocked. Shocked! … that big oil is not sending you a big fat check in the mail each month. Darn, who knew about that?

    Good letter; good points; well said. Thanks.

  12. R. Shearer says:

    What about Brad Pitt’s review?

  13. Dante D. Leone says:

    He’s not an extremely talanted propagandist. He’s just a propagandist and not a very good one, but a self employed tool that the alarmist movement are overly happy to use and abuse.

    Take a look at the most visible and verbal of the lot, who range from employed PR and journalist tools to self-important bloggers like Romm to scientists like Erlich, Hansen and Mann, but notice how few they are compared to the supposed amount of alarmists.

    The thing that made propagandists good in old europe was that they kept up with the current times (in everything from technology, behavior and hype) and they used it to their advantage and used force where it didn’t work.

    Mann, like most of the self made officers of the alarmist movement, seem to be stuck on the 1930’s version of everything communication. So the only ones they’re reaching are mostly a small bunch of the closet version of themselves and everyone who wants, and can, profit of them and their deluded behavior (of course, they don’t seem to mind though being well funded by the very evil entity they say fund their oposition.)

  14. Alexander K says:

    Excellent letter, Mr Ambler. Your book is on my ‘purchase soon’ list.

  15. RockyRoad says:

    Hey, if Mann had to share his grant money with “denialists, skeptics, and other Gia-haters”, he’d have much less of it to go earth-whoring around.

    I hope he finally meets his match with a big law suit that requires an excruciating discovery process–then we might finally have a penitent Mann, although he’ll probably be screaming all the way to the “Big House”.

  16. Joachim Seifert says:

    To Doug Proctor: To evaluate the course of the Eemian , you need to take the values
    from Greenland drilling, not from the Antarctis, where 1 year of snow only yields 2 cm
    of ice and therefore is too little for detailed avaluation…..
    The Eemian was not continously warm, there were 5 cycles of 2,200 years each and
    enormous temp swings from +2 “C above todays Holocene and spikes like an
    astronomical sin wave went down 5’C. This 5 spikes each endured a couple
    hundert years each only and all what melted more or less was quickly converted back
    to ice in between the spikes…..

    Before you ask questions with the intent of being right of logical on something
    check in detail next time before airing unfounded assumptions…unless you want to
    confuse innocent readers…..
    JS

  17. Scottish Sceptic says:

    Mann deserves the ridicule he gets … because … well he’s not a serious scientist.

    It is easy to get hot under the collar with mann because what he says is outrageous … but he only says it to get PR … and that kind of carp stopped working ages ago.

  18. Bob Tisdale says:

    Harold: I came to the conclusion last year that the reason we poor skeptical bloggers don’t get a slice of that oil money is…the oil companies have been told by the AGW crowd that they’re already funding us, and they’ve come to believe it. So why reach into the till to give us more?

    But that’s not the case, Oil Companies. You aren’t funding us. I would love a chunk of cash for my ENSO- and sea surface temperature-related research. Harold, how about you? Anthony?

  19. Steve E says:

    Dante D. Leone says:
    March 21, 2012 at 4:27 pm
    “He’s just a propagandist and not a very good one, but a self employed tool…

    You’re absolutely right Dante! Michael Mann is indeed a tool, however, I wouldn’t call him self-employed based on the grants he’s received! ;-)

  20. u.k.(us) says:

    copner says:
    March 21, 2012 at 3:46 pm
    ============
    You got something to say ?
    Say It. Or shut up.
    Children are easily exposed, cus they know not.

  21. Harold Ambler says:

    @Joachim Seifert: So the warmth that raised sea levels 15 feet higher than today was so intermittent that “all what melted more or less was quickly converted back to ice in between the spikes.”

    Amazing how the sea rose, then, yeah? That’s some fancy liquid solid ice water, there, eh?

  22. Socratease says:

    The Big Oil funding is a red herring anyway. Funding may be a motive for making scientifically bogus claims, but it is not proof. A scientific theory that describes observed behavior in nature, and that makes predictions that are both provable and reproducible is a valid theory regardless of who is funding the person who came up with it. Likewise, if a corporation with a financial stake in the outcome finances a scientist that disproves a theory, the incorrectness of that theory is unaffected by the funding source. We ought to care less about arguing that we’re not being paid for by Big Oil than arguing that the entire premise of the accusation is without merit. It’s just lazy science, which the CAGW crowd excels at, and they should be called to account.

  23. James Sexton says:

    Bob Tisdale says:
    March 21, 2012 at 5:00 pm

    Harold: I came to the conclusion last year that the reason we poor skeptical bloggers don’t get a slice of that oil money is…the oil companies have been told by the AGW crowd that they’re already funding us, and they’ve come to believe it. So why reach into the till to give us more?

    But that’s not the case, Oil Companies. You aren’t funding us. I would love a chunk of cash for my ENSO- and sea surface temperature-related research. Harold, how about you? Anthony?
    ============================================================
    lol, because the oil companies aren’t threatened by this madness. In fact, it helps them. Cap and trade the oil companies, and then they’ve eliminated all future competitors in the oil industry.
    The only fossil fuel industry adversely effected by this idiocy is the coal industry. And, their attack on the coal industry was in part, funded by the natural gas industry.

    Maybe we should go there for some money. They don’t have as much as oil or gas, but, they are the ones with something to lose.

  24. William McClenney says:

    I wholeheartedly agree with all but one point, that the Holocene is the coolest of the last five interglacials. Maybe. If you do not consider the possible brief excursions in MIS-7.1 and 7.5, which some consider to have been briefly a couple of meters higher than present, or about in the same range as the Holocene Climate Optimum, while others claim many meters below what has been achieved in the Holocene.

  25. Sam Grove says:

    Two things occur to me about climate alarmists:
    1 They lack self awareness
    2 They form a mutual congratulation circle and have no need for actual merit.

  26. Gail Combs says:

    Steve O says:
    March 21, 2012 at 4:01 pm

    Who benefits indeed.

    Those who question the motives of scientists funded by “the fossil fuel industry” are quick to call foul based on conflict of interest. For those same people, the same conflict of interest doesn’t seem to apply to the UN, a political body of questionable mores, as the UN seeks hundreds of billions of dollars in wealth transfers to play with….
    ____________________
    ERRRrrrr, Steve,

    It is Warmist Scientists who are receiving $1 billion on top of government grants not skeptics. Skeptics have their papers rejected or get booted out of their jobs.

    CRU (of East Anglia) Funding
    British Petroleum (Oil, LNG)
    Central Electricity Generating Board
    Eastern Electricity
    KFA Germany (Nuclear)
    Irish Electricity Supply Board (LNG, Nuclear)
    National Power
    Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (Nuclear)
    Shell (Oil, LNG)
    Sultanate of Oman (LNG)
    UK Nirex Ltd. (Nuclear)
    Source: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
    ————
    Exxon: – how about $100 million for Stanford’s Global Climate and Energy Project, and $600 million for Biofuels research.

    In 2005, Pachauri helped set up set up GloriOil, a Texas firm specialising in technology which allows the last remaining reserves to be extracted from oilfields otherwise at the end of their useful life.

    Lord Oxburgh is a long-standing public advocate of the need to address climate change issues. He served as the Non-Executive Chairman of Shell Transport and Trading

    Maurice Strong
    Strong started in the oil business in the 1950s working for the Rockefellers in Saudia Arabia. He was president of a major holding company — the Power Corporation of Canada. in 1975, he was invited by Canada to run the semi-national Petro-Canada. He did another deal with Saudi arms deal, Adnan Khashoggi acquiring AZL, a conglomerate owning feed lots, land, gas and oil interests, and engineering firms. Strong was Vice President of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), until 1981. He is a Senior Adviser to the World Bank and Trustee of the Rockefeller foundation.
    http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html
    http://www.sovereignty.net/p/sd/strong.html

    There are also at least 10 Climategate e-mails from the first release showing CRU seeks funds big oil and big business cash. Unfortunately they now seem to be dead links.

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=171&filename=962818260.txt
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=156&filename=947541692.txt
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=332&filename=1056478635.txt
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=270&filename=1019513684.txt
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1041&filename=1254832684.txt
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=204&filename=973374325.txt
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=185&filename=968691929.txt
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=159&filename=951431850.txt
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=362&filename=1065125462.txt

  27. Gail Combs says:

    ‘He is an extremely talented propagandist’

    Excuse me but BULL!

    The only thing Mann has going for him is a lot of powerful backers with money hoping to make even more money while setting up a world government designed to funnel a never ending stream of money their way.

    If the guy did not have the bought and paid for Mass Media, lots of $$$$, and power in his corner he couldn’t argue his way out of a paper bag.

    I refuse to call him Dr. because he shames the title.

  28. Paul Bahlin says:

    @Doug

    Mann Joules?

    Am I the only one that spit tea all over my laptop when I read about Mann-Joules? That one is priceless!

  29. All things considered, I would prefer the Miocene.

  30. RoHa says:

    Well, obviously Ambler can’t help, but could someone please, please, tell me how to get some of those millions Exxon, Shell, and BP are handing out to us sceptics?

  31. big oil would just love to capture coal’s share of the energy market.
    ergo, big oil pays to demonise coal.
    big oil would be very pleased with current American restrictions on coal production.
    is big oil winning it’s war against coal in America ? you’re ‘darn tootin’ it is !

  32. Robert in Calgary says:

    Harold, it would be nice to get your book on the Kobo.

  33. gregole says:

    Harold,

    Excellent letter – I am glad that you are willing to spend your valuable time educating people on this topic. I must point out that back in 2009 the WSJ articles on Climategate 1.0 got me started on this climate stuff. What a wake up call; so you are addressing a good audience.

    Your book is excellent and I highly recommend it – see my review on Amazon. Everybody buy a copy, read it and hand it out to your friends. An evenhanded account of the climate debate. A must read.

  34. Thumper says:

    The book is solid and an easy read. I bought two, one to give to a warmist. Thanks Harold.

  35. Alex Heyworth says:

    Mann is, like most of his kind, simply a useful idiot. The agenda was set before he came onto the scene, at the very latest when the IPCC was set up.

    Climate change is just the excuse. The ultimate aim is world government. It may not happen for two or three hundred years, but those behind this movement are very, very patient.

  36. Ron Sinclair says:

    Re Mr. Mann and his tree slices.
    I just finished reading a book written in 1929 by a Norwegian Professor of Archaeology from the University of Oslo, His book was on the 800 – 900 time period of emigration of Norse peasants from Norway to the Shetland Islands, the Orkney Islands and Caithness in the north tip of Scotland. He pointed out that the two islands were treeless but that the folks knew from their Norway experience that peat could be dug and burned as fuel, and there was lots of peat bogs available. He then mentioned that it was common to find buried in the the peat large tree roots and parts of logs. His observation in 1929 was that obviously at some time in the pre 800 days it had been considerably warmer in the Shetlands and trees had grown quite well.
    Mr Mann would likely say it was all lies but isn’t it interesting where evidence of a warmer past pops up?

  37. J.H. says:

    For those that say that Mann is not an accomplished propagandist…. I beg to differ. You are talking about the guy who has built around him a cadre that has convinced the Western democracies to abandon their economies….. Makes him pretty damn accomplished in my book. And dangerous.

    Those with the ruthlessness to look you boldly in the face and lie for the benefit of gaining power and privilege…. are not to be underestimated.

  38. Bill Tuttle says:

    Scottish Sceptic says:
    March 21, 2012 at 4:44 pm
    …what he says is outrageous … but he only says it to get PR … and that kind of carp stopped working ages ago.

    It still works on the target audience — children and those adults ruled by their emotions…

  39. David Ross says:

    Harold wrote:
    Q: “As for those who would convince the public that the sky is falling, one has to ask: Who benefits from such frightening claims?”

    A: Munich Re

    Harold/ if you want an idea for a new book on a part of the climate debate that has not received much attention. Munich Re is the alarmists’ Exxon. Unlike Exxon there is evidence of long-term and ongoing support and coordination (with Greenpeace for example).

    Munich Re is the insurance companies’ insurer. Not only is alarmism in their interest, they are starting selling insurance to companies afraid they will be sued/prosecuted for past emissions.

  40. P.F. says:

    Don’t forget why MBH97/98 came to be — to diminish the importance of the MWP. Following scathing criticism of the IPCC First Assessment Report, the East Anglia emails revealed (in 2009) that the inner circle of climate alarmists in the mid-90s recognized that the MWP was “a problem” for their cause. Briffa (in that circle) worked with Mann on a batch of Bristlecone Pine rings and, as they say, the rest is history. Mann’s work is not pure, clean, original science, but a deliberate concoction to give weight to an agenda that predated his work by more than a decade.

  41. jerry says:

    Hmmm. Everytime I scroll down the page in safari I get magically routed to some “sign the green petition” website.

    You must have pissed somebody off, Anthony.

  42. Leslie says:

    In the book, Harry asks “How did we get to a point where a chat about climate change make a conversation about abortion among people from wildly divergent points of view seem like a walk in the park?”. By coincidence, I happen to see on PBS the film “Journey of the Universe” which contrives a strange and creepy intermingling of religion and science. To me this clearly answers the above question. The climate movement is just another religion, nothing more.

  43. LazyTeenager says:

    The one before ours, the Eemian, which ran between approximately 130,000 and 115,000 years ago, likely saw temperature averages of 2° Celsius warmer than today, and sea levels about 15 feet higher.
    ————
    So Mann explained this in his book and so you claim he is trying to terrify us for money?

    Or maybe this is expressed really badly?

    Ok let’s ask a couple of questions.
    1. How reliable is the figure of 2 celcius? After all you guys have tried real hard to discredit the prehistoric temperature record. It can’t be reliable when it suits you and unreliable when it does not suit you.

    2. What would it be like if conditions today became the same as the Eemian? Would the American way of life survive?

    3. What happens when it goes above 2C? Will the American way of life survive that unchanged.

    4. In the past many of you have insisted that temperature-mediated negative feedbacks prevent changes in temperature.? So how cone the Eemian is 2C higher?

  44. Geoff Sherrington says:

    Gail Combs says: March 21, 2012 at 6:07 pm Missing emails?

    A set of CG stored early in the piece returned only one search result –
    To: Nguyen Huu Ninh (cered@hn.vnn.vn)
    Subject: NOAA funding
    Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:17:15 +0000

    Ninh
    NOAA want to give us more money for the El Nino work with IGCN.
    How much do we have left from the last budget? I reckon most has been spent but we need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn’t make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven’t spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious.
    Politically this money may have to go through Simon’s institute but there overhead rate is high so maybe not!
    Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit
    School of Environmental Sciences
    University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ
    ……………………………….
    Gail, are you including documents, encoded documents & attachments as well as straight emails?

  45. PaddikJ says:

    3. He is an extremely talented propagandist.”

    To his weak-minded choir, I suppose; to me he’s a crashing bore. Those tired, tedious talking points – “Industry-funded,” yada-yada.

    He doesn’t need the enviromentalist echo-chamber. He has his own. It’s cavernous, it’s extremely reverberant, and it’s between his ears.

  46. Julian Braggins says:

    Leslie says:
    March 21, 2012 at 10:43 pm

    In the book, Harry asks “How did we get to a point where a chat about climate change make a conversation about abortion among people from wildly divergent points of view seem like a walk in the park?”
    ———————————-
    Mmmm, know the feeling, at a gathering of rather Green acquaintances the question of sea levels and Flannery’s talk of a 20ft rise by 2100 came up, my statement that “he doesn’t know what he is talking about” cleared the room, and the house in about 30 seconds! The hostess forgave me, as I am her father.
    Mod, sorry about the premature post :o

  47. GHowe says:

    Dr.? Ambler-

    Thank you for all your excellent writings. Just remember, “money doesn’t make the man”. Tho it can build a nice house or buy toys. mann-Joules is the best one so far this week i’ve seen.

  48. orson2 says:

    Harold Ambler’s “Don’t Sell Your Coat: Surprising Truths About Climate Science.” is THE best introduction to the climate science and the AGW delusion.

    Geared for the interested general reader, he swiftly and lucidly walks one though the sources of his reasoned discontent with climate change orthodoxy, from a conventional Believer to a skeptic. His treatment is more historical and meteorological than topical, early on, although later chapters fill us in recent years’ contentious developments in things like climategate and the rise of the natural, solar driven cosmoclimatology option.

    Even though I read WUWT almost daily, I’ve learned telling details, previously missed – points that improve my occasional verbal briefs and prepared presentations before, say, movement Skeptic groups. The choice of illustrations is thoughtful and better than any textbook; concise captions convey the building chapter-by-chapter case for skepticism because so many key points of science get overlooked even in our favorite online science blogs.

    If you know of science geeks, then make Bob Carter’s book your gift of choice. But for any interested general readers, Ambler’s “Don’t Sell Your Coat” is the best introductory, up-to-date, climate science book, hands down! Thank you, Anthony, for backing his book and giving him space to remind your readers not to miss out.

    Snap them up, folks!

  49. orson2 says:

    “Tom G(ologist)” [above] says the Kindle version of “Don’t Sell Your Coat” has some graphics issues.

    A protege of mine – with a newly minted master’s in mass comm and journalism – recently self-published his first novel at Amazon.com last, and even without graphs or illustration, the printed book is considerably more satisfying to the eye than the ebook – from the fonts to kerning to layout.

    Ebooks are still in early generational form, in terms of satisfying user-friendly information consumption needs and competing with the hardcopy art of publishing. I say get Harold Ambler’s book in paperback for REAL enjoyment!

  50. Galane says:

    It’s been said umptybajillion times that Earth is in the “Goldilocks Zone”, neither too hot like Venus nor too cold like Mars, around the Sun.

    It’s more like Earth is orbiting right near the outer edge of the zone which results in temperatures that for most of the year are tolerable to most forms of life on this planet. The closer to the poles, the less life there is.

    If Earth’s orbit was closer to the Sun, there never would have been ice ages, there would be little or no polar ice caps. There’s evidence of periods in Earth’s past, even when the land masses were quite close to their present positions, where there were little or no polar ice caps.

    A little “above normal” warming won’t hurt a bit. It would just make more of the land easier to live on and more places capable of growing more food.

    The CAGW crowd is blithely ignoring all the evidence that’s been found around the world of submerged human habitation on what is now the underwater continental shelves. There’s also those submerged island caves where human made artifacts have been found long distances from the entrances, places that could only have been reached without SCUBA equipment if the caves were not flooded. (Some have theorized a sudden warming caused flooding of the continental shelves, leading to the big flood legends in many different cultures and religions.)

    The only way for any of that to exist is if within human history Earth was a lot colder and a lot more water was tied up in ice.

    How much cooler, for how long, would it take to get to such a condition?

  51. eyesonu says:

    Mann-Joules?

    Are his family Joules being castrated? Let’s hope so.

  52. copner says:

    @u.k.(us)

    WTF?

  53. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Gail Combs on March 21, 2012 at 6:07 pm:

    There are also at least 10 Climategate e-mails from the first release showing CRU seeks funds big oil and big business cash. Unfortunately they now seem to be dead links.

    “East Anglia emails” went down some time ago. I found the same on FOIA2011, with the raw files by number found here (use 10 digits as needed in “raw file” box, add leading zero, ex. 0962818260.txt). Here’s the links with a searchable line if you have to find them in the future. If there’s a second FOIA2011 link, that’s because it showed up twice on the site search and by the numbering I think that’s the 2011 release.

    BTW, to make it official, do not use the dot-nu links unless you have to, as they are raw and un-redacted, if you must use them as a source then make the redactions after copying, as We Are The Good Guys.

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5470
    http://di2.nu/foia/0962818260.txt
    “Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday.”

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5455
    http://di2.nu/foia/0947541692.txt
    “I have talked with Tim O’Riordan and others here today and Tim has a wealth of contacts he is prepared to help with.”

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5631
    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=57
    http://di2.nu/foia/1056478635.txt
    “NOAA want to give us more money for the El Nino work with IGCN.”

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5569
    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=610
    http://di2.nu/foia/1019513684.txt
    “I can’t quite see what all the fuss is about Watson – why should he be re-nominated anyway?”

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=6340
    http://di2.nu/foia/1254832684.txt
    “Getting a bit fed up with these baseless allegations.”

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5503
    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4767
    http://di2.nu/foia/0973374325.txt
    “Any idea who at Cambridge has been benefitting from this BP money?”

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5484
    http://di2.nu/foia/0968691929.txt
    “Notes from the meeting with Shell International attached.”

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5458
    http://di2.nu/foia/0951431850.txt
    “The Esso (Exxon-Mobil) situation is still promising, but they’re having to
    get clearance from HQ in the USA…”

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5661
    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=3771
    http://di2.nu/foia/1065125462.txt
    “Unfortunately Phil Jones is travelling and will probably be unable to offer a separate reply.”

    Honesty Time: I saw this list when Googling as given by Jimbo. I’ve tried to make sure I found the same emails by the numbering. BUT they don’t all show the seeking of Big Oil and corporation cash. The last one is Mikey Mann telling a journalist CO2 Science is funded by “ExxonMobile”. The fourth, 1019513684.txt, complains that Exxon pressured President Bush to get Pachauri in as IPCC head. You should review all nine, see how relevant they really are.

    Besides, the currying of big oil and corporation money by CRU/Hadley/Tyndall is easy enough to find. I just searched for “shell” at FOIA2011 and found:

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=686

    In case Mark MS cannot accept an invite (he would also be an excellent dinner speaker) you could consider Phil Watts, who is actually Mark’s replacement as Chairman of the CMD of Royal Dutch/Shell Group, (and a Yorkshire Geophysicist) but rather for his other role as chairman of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development ( a coalition of 160 International companies from >30 countries and 20 sectors and a global network of 35 national and regional business councils) , which he took on in November 2001, succeeding Charles Holliday, DUPONT Chair and CEO.

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=752

    The report back etc will be to Shell International in London and not Shell Solar in Holland or South Africa. This is a critical point as there are numerous sensitivities here. To over-simplify somewhat – Shell International are interested in generic conclusions regarding the viability of CDM (and we should have some very useful information for them). Shell Solar do not want anyone ‘interfering’ with their set-up in South Africa (so we have to be a little circumspect in regard to the specifics of that situation). That’s in strictest confidence!

    Etc. Note there’ll be a lot of “false hits” from Shell email addresses that are redacted. Also try searching at the dot-nu site. That lead me to find:

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5482
    http://di2.nu/foia/0968367517.txt

    I have attached the final version of the RP2 outline proposal on the interaction between the flexible mechanisms and the WTO trade rules.
    Please jettison the previous draft.
    As noted earlier, Neil and I see this project as delivering multiple benefits to the Tyndall Centre on the basis of a limited, ‘value-added’ investment, not least in terms of tying Shell International to the Centre.

    Etc. Etc. And etc. ad nauseum. And that’s just from one Big Oil company, and not all of them for it. Pick a company name, go hunting, it’s a target rich environment.

    And they say WE are the ones getting Big Oil money? Is that a backhanded ploy where they’re whipping up sentiment to scare off those companies from funding ANY skeptical research? After all, imagine the SHEER HORROR if big companies would cut back on the (C)AGW-pusher funding to give some “equal time” to skeptics. Think of the children!™

  54. KNR says:

    The claims of ‘Big Oil funding ‘ are actual not a strong point of ‘the cause ‘ as its proponents think, because in reality most people know those accused of this aren’t getting any ‘Big Oil funding ‘ at all. So in their eyes it makes no sense and looks like what it is, a lie.
    People don’t like to be taken for fools and one of ‘the Teams’ weakness is they have a very low opinion of the general population, on top of a very high opinion of themselves, so they tend to keep doing this and when caught out trying to BS their way out of it further enforcing the problem.

  55. kim2ooo says:

    Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
    :) I started a new blog [ more like a scrapbook ] Please send BIG OIL monies.
    As I wanna be rich before I get out o school.

  56. Thank you! Your book confirmed all my prejudices. I didn’t have to think at all!

  57. David Ball says:

    kim2ooo says:
    March 22, 2012 at 4:02 am
    ” Money can’t buy happiness, ……. but at least you can park your yacht next to it” – David Lee Roth

    Normally I wouldn’t quote a vacuous rock star, but that is kinda funny.

  58. David Ball says:

    Mann claims that when he entered climate science he did not expect it to be so controversial. Assuming the role of victim (as P. Jones did after the first climategate) is a common tactic to garner sympathy. The game was fully afoot when Mann came on the scene, and it was VERY controversial. Therefore, his claim cannot be true.
    When my father started his doctoral thesis it could be said to be true because back then talking about the weather was something you did when there was no other common ground to discuss. No one had even heard of global warming. When viewed on a larger timescale, it reveals that Mann is not being honest. About many things.

    Once the general public starts to see the deception, all the wheels will come off the bus. The general public as of now does not fully appreciate what is at stake.

    Those on fixed incomes (the majority of the population, as I include the working poor) are not going to like paying huge energy bills. Obama has made a giant mistake not addressing realistic energy policies. Green agenda is not based in reality.

  59. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Michael Vaughmit says:
    March 22, 2012 at 5:56 am

    Wow, drive-by snark against Ambler’s book instead of the post,
    while using a facebook account that was either always fake or quickly canceled.

    Your bravery is noted.

    Oh look, facebook found that name! Have to be signed in to see it, but when you are…
    http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1560526643
    Michael Vaughmit
    Worked at Fake Company
    Studied at Fakenham College
    Employers Fake Company

    etc

    Michael Mann, is that really you? Are you upset about Ambler’s book selling better?

    Never mind. The moderators shall hopefully now take note of this fake name used by this enormously brave individual, and give it appropriate treatment whenever it shows up here again.

  60. Reed Coray says:

    RockyRoad says: March 21, 2012 at 4:38 pm
    “…then we might finally have a penitent Mann…”

    “Penitent Mann” tops even “Jumbo Shrimp”, “Liquid Air”, and “Climate Science” as the best oxymoron ever.

  61. Brian H says:

    KnR says:
    March 21, 2012 at 4:18 pm

    ‘He is an extremely talented propagandist’

    Its that really true , given he makes fool of myself

    Wot? Are you his alter ego?

  62. Brian H says:

    copner says:
    March 22, 2012 at 2:22 am

    @u.k.(us)

    WTF?

    ukus totally misunderstood your post. Should have spent all that time spent type-ranting reading instead.

  63. Well said, Harold.
    I just ordered your book.

Comments are closed.