Mann at Orange County Water Conference – emotional presentation, polar bears threatened, still thinks snows of Kilimanjaro are receding due to ‘climate change’

Readers may recall: The question put to Dr. Mann at Disneyland today where WUWT regular Roger Sowell was one of the rare skeptics that got to ask Dr. Mann a question.

The video is now online of the event.

Sowell’s question starts at around 59:35 minutes, Mann’s answer ends about 1:03:10

UPDATE:

Dr. Mann’s slide presentation is available at this link. Note the polar bear on the ice floe.

http://www.ocwatersummit.com/   backup link: MichaelMann_OCWS  (PDF 24mb)

I find it fascinating that Mann is still pushing the now long debunked claims about the Snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro. Even Mann’s buddies Lonnie Thompson and Phil Jones privately admit the issue is local deforestation/evapotranspiration and not “climate change”. It is mind blowing he’s still pushing this.

Note point 3 in this image in his last slide:

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

68 Responses to Mann at Orange County Water Conference – emotional presentation, polar bears threatened, still thinks snows of Kilimanjaro are receding due to ‘climate change’

  1. Ville says:

    Mann gave a one line response that took 3 minutes to speak. He stupefyed the audience. His talk is impossible to understand.

  2. Olavi says:

    Small point in question as wrong, and Mann turned whole thing UPSIDE DOWN.

  3. JPY says:

    I think it’s hilarious that you are highlighting (as some sort of triumph?) the ridiculously ignorant question posed by Sowell. It pretty clearly underlines that the issues here aren’t about accuracy and science, but rather about attacks on people.

    [A bit like your post you mean? . . kbmod]

  4. Gail Combs says:

    GOOD

    Glad to see the information is getting out.

  5. g.c. says:

    TerryS says:
    June 26, 2012 at 2:01 am

    Summary:
    Greenland ice core data does not agree with climate models that have CO2 as a main forcing. Therefore Greenland ice core data needs to be adjusted.
    ________________________________
    Beat me to it.

    Real world evidence does not agree with Climate Model supporting CO2 as control knob so real world data has to be “Adjusted.” HMMMmmm Haven’t we heard this somewhere before? Perhaps in a ice hockey stadium?

  6. James Sexton says:

    It would be nice to get a transcript. I do give Mann credit. That was quite a dance. Like a boxer pinned to the ropes, the aggressor left an opening out, and the deft moved away.

    This should be instructive. Get the ducks in order first. Lesson learned.

  7. g.c. says:

    OOPs sorry, Mods Wrong thread. I have not been able to get Word Press to let me comment on “We don’t believe the ice cores can be interpreted purely as a signal of temperature” so was trying a different e-mail and my initials Gail Combs (g.c.)

  8. ponysboy says:

    An irresponsible question by Sowell who didn’t do his homework or got some bad information on which to base his question. Mann answered it clearly. I don’t know if it was honestly, but it came across as a positive for Mann. Irresponsible public goofs like Sowell’s doesn’t help the search for truth to be taken seriously.

  9. mfo says:

    Quick and rough transcript courtesy of a friendly typist:

    Roger Sowell:

    In your famous paper that you co-authored with Dr Briffa and Dr Hughes in 1998, indeed you showed one result from that today with the Hockey Stick graph, you showed a warming since 1960.

    However you chose to not use tree core data after 1960 and instead to splice in the instrumental temperature record. In effect to hide the decline of the trees after 1960.…

    How do you respond to the charge that the tree ring data was cherry picked to show a desired result and that Mr Steve McIntyre has falsified your work by showing that the premise of a hockey stick falls apart when all the data is used?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++

    Dr Mann:

    Okay there are a number of factually incorrect things that you’ve said there, one of which is that I co-authored a paper with Keith Briffa. I think you’re referring to the paper that we published in Nature in 1998, myself, Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes. Keith Briffa was not a co-author of that paper and in fact it’s an important point because you’ve actually conflated two entirely unrelated studies.

    The study you’re actually referring to is a study by Keith Briffa and colleagues that I was not part of, and the original paper that they published in 1998, also in Nature, was about the decline you’re talking about.

    It was hardly hidden. The paper that they published in 1998 was specifically about a problem known as the divergence problem where in the particular type of tree ring data that they used in their study, which we did not use in our study, by the way, that particular data exhibit this enigmatic decline in the response to temperatures after 1960.

    And so their original paper was actually about how that particular type of data can not be used to depict temperature trends in recent centuries, because of the enigmatic change in the response of trees.

    Now scientists have been studying for more than a decade now why it might be that those particular data, late wood density, maximum late wood density, from high latitude trees they were using, why that happens, why there is a decline in the response of temperature.

    And there are various factors that scientists think might be responsible, including pollution, other limiting conditions that are now taking control of tree growth that are unrelated to temperature.

    So unfortunately you conflated two completely unrelated things in a way that led to, you know, a claim, sort of an allegation about our work, that simply has no basis in reality.

    It’s part of why I wrote The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, to try to clear the record with regard to many of the specious attacks and criticisms that have been made against me and my colleagues over the years in an effort to try to discredit our work.

    Typically in an effort to try to discredit the entire work of the world’s climate scientists that establishes the reality of human caused climate change.

    Because some people do feel threatened by that conclusion and rather than, unfortunately, rather than engaging in the good faith debate that can be had about what to do about the problem.

    That’s part of why we’re here today. What can we do about the problem? We can have a good faith debate about that. There’s a worthy debate to be had, about that, and there are valid opinions on all sides.

    But there isn’t a worthy debate to be had any more about the reality of human caused climate change.

  10. cd_uk says:

    No wonder they gave Sowell a question. Talk about setting up your opponents strawman. This couldn’t have been sweeter for Mann.

  11. Typically in an effort to try to discredit the entire work of the world’s climate scientists that establishes the reality of human caused climate change.

    Because some people do feel threatened by that conclusion and rather than, unfortunately, rather than engaging in the good faith debate that can be had about what to do about the problem.

    Note the morph from AGW is real, to its a problem without any justification.

  12. Wagathon says:

    Real scientists do not pretend to know in fifty years what the global climate of the world will be. Nevertheless, the legitimization of a secular, socialist state bureaucracy demands just that from government-funded scientists.

    http://evilincandescentbulb.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/climatists-exposed-naked-reality-and-know-the-unknown/

  13. Alan the Brit says:

    Still think it was rather appropriate that such a talk should have been given at Disneyland, you know, the place where fiction & fantasy reign supreme, & wierd & wonderful things happen to you in the land of make believe! Priceless :-))

  14. Jeremy says:

    Uh, Sowell blew it :(

    That question was conflating two different issues and papers, and was poorly stated.

  15. theduke says:

    Give Mann credit. He’s deft on his feet. He uses an inaccuracy in the question by Sowell to knock him down a notch, and then gives a plausible response– it’s bull—– but it’s plausible.

    Then he plugs his book.

    Unconvincing, but clever.

  16. Roger Sowell says:

    Dr. Mann’s slide presentation is available at this link. Note the polar bear on the ice floe.

    http://www.ocwatersummit.com/

  17. Peter says:

    [snip . . OT . . you could be mistaken for a troll but I am sure that isn't your intention. . . kbmod]

  18. Philhippos says:

    There’s normal drivel and then there’s Mann made drivel.

  19. Keith Battye says:

    I had no idea Amsterdam, Venice and New Orleans were threatened by a volcano. Boy , you live and learn.

  20. Hyperthermania says:

    Roger – did you have to submit your question in advance ? ie did they know what you were going to ask before giving you the opportunity to ask it ?

  21. Bill Tuttle says:

    Keith Battye says:
    June 26, 2012 at 8:41 am
    I had no idea Amsterdam, Venice and New Orleans were threatened by a volcano. Boy , you live and learn.

    And 133,000 square miles of coral are going to — what, dissolve? Go for a walk?

  22. Pointman says:

    Notice that their propaganda doesn’t change, it doesn’t evolve in response to changed conditions. It’s a weakness.

    Pointman

  23. Robin says:

    That slide is a perfect example of the level of being each other’s booster club that goes on in these best practices pushes by statists or Research Grant Grovellers who don’t want to admit that’s what is going on.

    Hansen cites Mann. Mann calls Hansen “reknowned”. Neither one’s research or theories or facts change but it seemingly gets bolstered anyway just through references.

    Reminds me of a National Governors Association report I read last year that’s recommendations were based on an erroneous assertion that had a footnote. Making it seem valid. You go to the back where the footnotes are and the link is to a previous NGA report.

    Nothing backing it up at all but wishful thinking to obtain grant money to then influence public policy. And we all go regulating along at great expense.

  24. Roger Sowell says:

    @ hyperthermania on June 26, 2012 at 8:45 am

    “Roger – did you have to submit your question in advance ? ie did they know what you were going to ask before giving you the opportunity to ask it ?”

    No.

  25. HankHenry says:

    A DIVERGENCE PROBLEM USED TO HIDE A DECLINE
    Kudos to Roger Sowell for taking the debate to Mann. Lesson learned is that Michael Mann knows his subject and is able and articulate in defending his thesis. It looks to me that Mann did admit that the “divergence problem” only “might” be understood.
    Quote:
    “And there are various factors that scientists think might be responsible [for the divergence], including pollution. Other limiting conditions that are now taking control of tree growth that are unrelated to temperature.”

    This seems to be an admission that data that did not fit the thesis was disregarded with uncertain and poor justification. In fact, it’s out and out bias against data that doesn’t confirm the hypothesis. It seems to me that when one undertakes this kind of speculation about what has caused a divergence in data, if you are going to be fair-minded you must open the arena to the possibility of a multitude of factors controlling tree ring patterns: water, disease, pollution, fertility, cloud cover, weather incidents, species differences, vagaries of the influence of past seasons on future seasons, and on and on. In other words, Mann himself is arguing that tree rings aren’t that good a proxy for past temperature.
    In Mann’s own words … there are other limiting conditions that can take control of tree growth unrelated to temperature. This is just my question. Just how good a proxy are tree rings for past termperatures?

  26. steveta_uk says:

    It could be the elephants and giraffes that a disappearing, and Mann isn’t referring to the snows at all!

  27. DR says:

    WOW! Those reading Steve McIntyre’s blog and following the hockey stick drama since 2005 know Mann’s response is complete psychobabble.

  28. cochranepolarbearawarenessweek says:

    [SNIP: This thread is about Michael Mann and his appearance at Disneyland, not poloar bears and it is certainly not a venue for to advertise your Polar Bear Awareness Week. You can submit this to our Tips and Notes page or wait for an appropriate thread about polar bears. You might also want to learn a little more about polar bears. -REP

  29. more soylent green! says:

    NOTE TO MODS

    I can’t submit a comment on the ‘We don’t believe the ice cores can be interpreted purely as a signal of temperature’ post.

    Fill in the form, click Post Comment, nothing happens.

  30. davidmhoffer says:

    Was Roger Sowell’s question poorly worded? It was.

    Now if anyone thinks that a carefully worded, to the specific point, with no room for misinterpretation or obfuscation, would have resulted in anything else from Dr Mann, they are mistaken. There have been cases where the question got the specific issue correct, the specific paper, and the response comes back along the line of some obscure reference in some obscure footnote that supposedly explains everything. By the time one actually can get the paper, find the obscure reference in the obscrure footnote, which leads to a quote in another paper, equally obscure, that isn’t even about that specific issue (but does mention the issue, except it refers to another paper still)…. ooops, it is days later, the room is empty, and Mann has gone his merry way without a scratch upon him.

  31. Mark Nutley says:

    The lost city of Pompeii? Have we lost it again then? He can’t even get that right, sheesh

  32. amoorhouse says:

    Pompeii is lost? C’mon guys! Own up! Where have you hidden it? You guys are such kidders. You haven’t hidden it under 100 feet of Gauloise ends again have you? Sheesh.

  33. Although the question, as Mann put it, “conflated two completely unrelated things”, it did force him to admit some things in public:

    Referring to Briffa’s paper (published in Nature in 1998) “…where in the particular type of tree ring data that they used in their study, which we did not use in our study…”

    Easily checkable and can be proven true or false. Look at each, and see if the same data appears in both.

    Second, was this: “…And so their original paper was actually about how that particular type of data can not be used to depict temperature trends in recent centuries, because of the enigmatic change in the response of trees…”

    Remember, it was EXACTLY this conclusion his MBH98 paper used – that you CAN depict temperature trends in recent centuries using tree data.

    If follow-up questions were allowed, ask how, if these trees cannot accurately respond to RECENT trends, how can they be certain they’re accurately responding to PAST trends? Why did this uncertainty only start with data after 1960 (“…particular data exhibit this enigmatic decline in the response to temperatures after 1960…”)?

    And third: “…And there are various factors that scientists think might be responsible, including pollution, other limiting conditions that are now taking control of tree growth that are unrelated to temperature…”

    Once again, how can they be certain that PAST conditions didn’t “control” tree growth?

    Next round of questions lining up. Where’s the next stop on his “Magical Mystery Tour”?

  34. RHS says:

    Al Gore’s Warming – Proof that not every solution has a problem…

  35. Joe Myers says:

    Wait, wasn’t Pompeii buried under ash? Shouldn’t he really be referring to Atlantis?

  36. DirkH says:

    Mann evaded the question very skillfully. Probably he has to do that a lot since 1998.

  37. Anthony Watts says:

    Try flushing your browser cache and enabling cookies

  38. John A says:

    Nevertheless, the legitimization of a secular, socialist state bureaucracy demands just that from government-funded scientists.

    You’ve had a secular state for more than 230 years. I’m pretty sure that its been ratified as legitimate a long time ago.

  39. gbaikie says:

    Mann seems to be depending upon Hansen’s projection that were presented to congress,
    I would like to see new graph showing the comparison to latest temperature. And not on such small graph. And reminder of the A,B, and C scenarios as Hansen explained them when he presented them.
    I don’t where Mann is getting the idea human emission has been reduced to the levels Hansen advocated them to be.

  40. Follow the Money says:

    He stupefyed the audience.
    He’s no James Hansen. Which is what the PR boys on the energy/wall street payroll are looking for. James Hansen was the “face” of the global warming movement, and acted in the role very well. But he committed the deep, damaging sin of attesting that cap and trade was a scam, not really intended to reduce CO2 emissions. And he did so loudly and brashly. This had the immediate effect of exiling him from any big pr face-time productions, and now he is basically limited to speaking up at 350.org type ultra-crank groups.

  41. Oakwood says:

    Sowell blew it. Victory to Mann on this one. That’s the nature of debate. You must get you facts right.

  42. rogerknights says:

    Anthony says:
    I find it fascinating that Mann is still pushing the now long debunked claims about the Snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro.

    And the golden toad.

  43. Bob the Swiss says:

    I just listen from 59 min to 1h04.

    The question is excellent and the answer of Mann is typical of what we call in french ‘la langue de bois’. He just does not answer to the question and at the end you even don’t know what was your question.

    This guy is a politician !!!

  44. Gunga Din says:

    Mann said, “But there isn’t a worthy debate to be had any more about the reality of human caused climate change.”
    ======================================================
    Maybe I missed something. Could one of the Mann defenders (or anyone else) please tell when Mann ever had a debate about “human caused climate change” back when there was a need for one and who it was with?
    Was it back when he still called it “global warming” instead of “climate change”?

  45. Gunga Din says:

    Mann said, “But there isn’t a worthy debate to be had any more about the reality of human caused climate change.”
    What is it that Adam Savage says on MythBusters? “I reject your reality and substitute my own.” Did he get that from Mann?

  46. RockyRoad says:

    John A says:
    June 26, 2012 at 10:18 am

    Nevertheless, the legitimization of a secular, socialist state bureaucracy demands just that from government-funded scientists.

    You’ve had a secular state for more than 230 years. I’m pretty sure that its been ratified as legitimate a long time ago.

    The operative word here is “socialist”–consequently, there is little or no similarity between the two political systems your statements describe.

  47. RockyRoad says:

    (I’m glad there are other subtopics on this thread to discuss–the main topic is worth reading about, I suppose, *yawn*, but (except for this small blurb) unworthy of written comment.)

    How’s that for a Big Mann Skewer?

  48. Michael Mann is a very smooth talker – if nothing else and there you go – lone scientists who are skeptics (even if there are many thousands of them) do not count.

    The tragedy is, as far as I can see, is that “surface warming” by GHGs is as impossible as it is to mix two pots of liquids of different temperatures say one of 16 °C and one of 8 °C and then expect to end up with one large pot of liquid that is warmer than 16 °C.

  49. mfo says:

    Mann responded to the question like a politician. I doubt it would have mattered what Sowell asked, Mann would not have given a clear answer. Mann considers that human influence on the climate is no longer worthy of debate. Any evidence that falsifies his scientific results he characterises as attacks meant to discredit his work. He considers his results immune from the scientific method.

    He knew what Sowell was asking, because he said, “I think you’re referring to the paper that we published in Nature in 1998, myself, Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes.”

    But in the next breath he decided to focus on Briffa’s paper by saying: “The study you’re actually referring to is a study by Keith Briffa and colleagues that I was not part of…..”

    Mann knew that the question was about his MBH98 paper and hockey stick graph as Sowell had asked him why he chose “to not use tree core data after 1960 and instead to splice in the instrumental temperature record. In effect to hide the decline of the trees after 1960.…” But he decided to ignore this and pretend that the question was about Briffa’s paper.

    Mann claimed that Briffa’s paper was about the ‘divergence problem’ whereby he states that data which didn’t fit the rising temperature scenario must have been affected by pollution or some unknown enigmatic limiting factors. But this was simply a red herring to divert attention from the valid criticisms of his MBH98 paper as highlighted by Stephen McIntyre and Ross Mckitrick in their paper:

    “CORRECTIONS TO THE MANN et. al. (1998)
    PROXY DATA BASE AND NORTHERN HEMISPHERIC
    AVERAGE TEMPERATURE SERIES
    The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998,
    “MBH98” hereafter) for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains
    collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data,
    geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other
    quality control defects.”
    http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre-mckitrick.pdf

    Mann concludes by plugging his book and claiming that there is no debate about human caused climate change, because he wants the debate to move away from science and into politics.

    Sowell asked a perfectly good question:
    “How do you respond to the charge that the tree ring data was cherry picked to show a desired result and that Mr Steve McIntyre has falsified your work by showing that the premise of a hockey stick falls apart when all the data is used?”

    There was no conflation. Sowell knew exactly what he was asking and so did Mann. Except that Mann used a well known debating trick by ignoring the fact that the question related to his paper and responding to a ‘straw man’ question about Briffa’s paper.

    Mann has morphed into an activist politican and like a politician answered the question he wanted to answer, regardless of whether or not he was addressing the precise point of the actual question.

  50. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    I would like to take Mike the Mangler to Death Valley in winter and let him experience how fast temp drops and how cold it gets after sunset . Here he will learn that water vapor in the only true greehouse gas.

  51. Nigel from New Zealand says:

    Pompeii used to be a port now it is well inland and well above sea level, is this the fate Mann sees for Venice, New Orleans and Amsterdam?

  52. David L says:

    Maybe he means in bullet point 3 that there will still be snow, just the giraffes and elephants will be gone!

  53. David Ball says:

    Those criticizing Roger Sowell need to STFU. It is very likely that those same people would NOT have the guts to do what he did. He did it for all of us and I challenge those critics to try it themselves and see how they fare. I will be watching and waiting.

    Good job and my appreciation to you for your efforts Mr. Sowell. Thank you.

  54. TomT says:

    I don’t think that Mann is smooth talker or great a thinking on feet or anything like that, in fact he comes across as being very uncomfortable on the stage, but the question was totality blown, especially since it was written out.

  55. RoyFOMR says:

    Dr Mann is fighting for his life; why shouldn’t we be surprised?
    Yes, he will be less than delighted, with the treatment he will receive in the future but, for the moment, he still believes that “doubling down” will keep him afloat.
    I doubt that it will for much longer but he’s a survivor and will maintain a positive, albeit diminishing, buoyancy!

  56. Roger Sowell says:

    My thanks and appreciation to those with positive comments on the question I posed:

    David Ball, mfo, Bob the Swiss, HankHenry. I hope I did not inadvertently overlook anyone.

    There are some critics among the commenters, too.

    The question, as Anthony posted in an earlier thread on Mann at Disneyland, was the result of a collaborative effort. I did read it off of a piece of paper. As Mann correctly pointed out, I did state Briffa when I should have stated Bradley as one of the coauthors. However, that was a minor mistake.

    There are several very interesting things to be learned from this question and Mann’s answer. First, it is important to note the venue, the purpose, and the time constraints.

    This was not a debate. Live debates in modern days are fairly uncommon. Scientific debates, or promoting an issue while downplaying others, are generally carried out in the published, peer-reviewed literature.

    This was also not a command performance, a Congressional hearing, with subpoenaed witnesses providing sworn testimony under penalty of perjury. In such a hearing, elected officials may ask question after question, delving into what they see as important aspects of an issue.

    It was also not a presentation to a hearing board of a government agency, such as the US Environmental Protection Agency.

    It was also not a board of inquiry into alleged scientific misconduct.

    Finally, it was not a trial in a court of law, with a judge, jury, witnesses, expert witnesses, tangible evidence, and skilled attorneys for each side.

    This was none of those venues. This was a one-hour (more or less) audio and still-slides presentation during a half-day meeting, open to the public. A few questions were taken, and a short answer was made to each. Time was short. There was no requirement to tell the truth, and no penalty for being less than truthful. There was no means for a questioner to ask follow-up questions. There was no means for an attorney (in this case, the questioner, me) to object, on the grounds that the witness’ answer was non-responsive. Non-responsive means the witness did not answer the question that was posed to him.

    Yet, we can learn a few things from Mann’s answer.

    We note that, as one commenter indicated above, Dr. Mann turned a one-sentence answer into a 3-minute ramble. Clearly, Mann wanted to address the issue, or a least part of the issue. It could be that he really would like to have a live, face-to-face debate. It may rankle him that “the debate is over.”

    Mann also used his time to focus on an admitted error in the factual pre-statement, Briffa rather than Bradley. The pre-statement was offered before the question, in order to establish a bit of context for the question. Also as someone above noted, this is a debate tactic where one debater attempts to avoid an unpleasant point and focus on a trivial matter. Politicians also do this.

    Why would Mann do this? Why would he, having a perfect opportunity, avoid saying why he believes he is right and Steve McIntyre is wrong? There could be a number of reasons. Just speculating, but Mann probably was elated when his Hockey Stick graph was chosen for a prominent position in the IPCC report. Mann undoubtedly has followed all the hoopla after that, too. He is surely aware of the debunking efforts, and must be keenly aware that the Hockey Stick graph no longer has a prominent position in the IPCC reports. Perhaps that stung, maybe more than a little. Perhaps that is why Mann felt compelled to write a book on the entire matter, and place his version of things in public.

    It could also be that Mann was keenly aware that this presentation was being video recorded and would be placed on the internet where, potentially, 6 billion pairs of eyes and ears could see and hear it.

    It is evident that Mann did not want to address the actual question posed to him, that his data for the hockey stick graph was cherry-picked to provide a pre-determined outcome. It seems to me that this is the question that should be posed to him at every opportunity. I suspect he really does want to answer that question.

    Finally, as to asking a question to a panelist in a public venue such as this OC Water Summit, I felt comfortable with that. But then, as an attorney, I do this sort of thing routinely. As for reading the question off a piece of paper, attorneys do that, too. It is good practice to write out one’s questions, especially long or complicated questions.

    In a civil or criminal trial at court, I would not pose a question in this manner. It is far too open-ended and gives the witness far too much latitude. This was not a court of law, as noted above.

    For this venue, the question was fine, and the answer was very instructive.

    Perhaps others have a different view on the significance of Mann’s response and non-response.

  57. Pamela Gray says:

    The significance of Mann’s response is in his sincere and very evident belief in catastrophic AGW. His answer and presentation bestows on him the mark of a “Hansen”-ian follower. The only thing he didn’t bring to the show were the tall “The End Is Near” signs so ubiquitous on campus years ago.

    In all things, belief trumps data. This is seems more true now than in snake-oil days and has invaded universities like a terminal cancer. Data is an inconveniance in this era.

  58. Neo says:

    If Mann still thinks snows of Kilimanjaro are receding due to ‘climate change’, then the fact that the snows are returning to Kilimanjaro shows that things must be getting better.

  59. Bill Tuttle says:

    “With each passing year of inaction, stabilizing Earth’s climate becomes increasingly difficult.”

    The question that would have popped into my head right there would have been, “Since we’ve evidently progressed from ‘humanly impossible’ to merely ‘increasingly difficult’ without doing anything, doesn’t it stand to reason that continuing to do nothing will eventually stabilize Earth’s climate?”

  60. Gary Pearse says:

    Mann didn’t get the memo on the Snow Job of Kilimanjaro. I climbed it in 1990. The third and last camp was up in the ice and snow and we spent a cold night, rising about 2 am, and with parkas on, laboured up the last few hundred metres. I’m sure its just as cold as ever whether the snow waxes or wanes – certainly, if warming has only been 0.7C in a century. No moisture up there could fall as anything other than snow. I also was on a diamond drilling project (a lithium pegmatite deposit) in the James Bay region of Quebec the first week of December in 2005 where it was -35C virtually day and night. I’m sure the polar bears were snuggled up tight.

  61. Gunga Din says:

    I honestly am surprised at what he has on that last slide. I would have expected sciecobable from him, not gorobable.

  62. Jimbo says:

    Dr. Michael Mann’s debate evasion at the Orange County water summit. Better luck next time Dr. Patrick Michaels. Now I know why they say the debate is over.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/06/27/michael-manns-hissy-fit-shows-why-global-warming-alarmists-fear-debate/

  63. Tony Mach says:

    Dr. Mann: “… work of the world’s climate scientists that establishes the reality of human caused climate change.”

    No Dr. Mann, the reality is the reality – science does not “establish” reality. What science can do is approximate reality with theories. The closer the approximation to reality (with all currently known facts), the better the theory. Only once a theory can explain all known facts with an reasonable approximation, can we consider that theory to be a reasonable approximation of reality – so no “hide the decline” and no cherry-picking 2000 years of paleo-climate reconstructions.

  64. Dr. Mann is the poster boy for the scientist grazing in the trough of public grant money, using his proceeds to read tea leaves and tree rings, rather than doing the important research in astrophysics wherein lies the true answer to climate change on the Sun and Earth. The disgusting thing about his conduct is he will continue to do this lying for years to come, and will never be called to account along with all these other CO2 snake oil climate salesmen like Gore, Hansen, Schmidt, Jones, et al. Thirty years from now, when we are freezing our testicles off at the nadir of the Grand Solar Minimum, charlatans like Mann will be a distant, unprosecutable memory.

  65. G.S. Williams says:

    Mann is still pushing his hockey-stick, therefore one could be forgiven for asking the question is he lying, thus committing fraud?

  66. garymount says:

    It is appropriate that in the polar bear slide, the movie The Island is mentioned. You see, in the movie, the people that live in the apocalyptic world and confined to a sealed indoor environment are actually being lied to and are murdered when their organs are required for their hosts of which they are cloned from. As for Soylent Green, we are only 10 years away from when this movie takes place. Maybe we will be generating our electricity by stationary bicycle by then ;-)

Comments are closed.