Chris Horner sends us another Michael Mann Email from the NOAA FOIA release. One should remember this statement from Dr. Mann before continuing:
Mann: ‘I always thought it was somewhat misplaced to make it a central icon of the climate change debate’
Hmmm. “Somewhat misplaced”, “pretty cool” and the stuff of prideful circulation, it’s all good but, well, which time were you telling the truth about icons?
The picture he was disapproving of/”thought it was pretty cool” as the IPCC icon…well, that is, apparently depending on to whom he is speaking, or what his needs of the moment are…was this, as you’ll see from the link he circulates with such pride and joy:
Now read the email:
Mann circulated an email to his coauthors for MBH98 (Bradley and Hughes) to tell them about it:
I thought you might be interested in this, from today’s BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid 1130000/1130501.stm
Not to slight Sir John(!), but its actually the chart in the background I’m referring to 🙂
cheers,
mike
Hughes sent a humorous reply to Mann:
Highly cool! – pity about the ugly old guy in front!
Cheers, Malcolm
Mann replied with this:
Hey, that’s Sir John you’re talking about! And a fellow brit, no less! I thought it was pretty cool too. I’d like to know what he was saying about the chart!
Here is the original as a PDF: Mann thinks HS as IPCC icon pretty cool
Not earthshaking by any means, but it is funny. The earthshaking stuff will come out in the upcoming discovery for Mann -vs- NRO.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So does this mean the climate didn’t change before man’s appearance?
Interesting logic–or lack thereof.
Epic fail by Sir John Houghton. He’s as accurate in his assessment as the chart behind him.
Note the fresh flowers in the immediate foreground which were probably grown in a CO2 enhanced greenhouse.
Huckster
Is it possible that one of the outcomes of the NRO suit is that whatever docs Mann provides during discovery are forever kept from public release as part of some settlement he and NRO agree to? And those privy to the contents likewise forbidden to discuss?
Sir John, Like AlGore, Robert Kennedy Jr., etc are sure that they will be part of the ruling elite in the new UN led global government, by virtue of their wealth. And they won’t sacrifice a thing.
EAT THE RICH that use AGW as a means to their progressive ends.
I have no desire to incite rebellion or dissent among the populace, but when one sees this sort of arrogant dictatorial clap trap, the Big Guvment buearucrats dishing out ever more regulations, restrictions, & the like, & the self-promotion & self-enrichment born of corruption, one has to ask, as does EU Referendum regularly, “And the reason why we don’t rise up & slaughter them all is…….?”
Mann can’t win however the case proceeds. He’ll be put under extreme pressure from his peers not to continue because of what might surface, and by that same token if he goes ahead his peers will leave him out to dry. When thieves fall out…
I think Sir John was mis-quoted. I think his original statement was “Temperature rise due to Mann.” He was actually a whistle-blower. sarc/
The earth-shattering stuff from discovery …. hmmmm.
What about Ball’s ‘suit? Dragging on and costing money is a tried-and-true technique of making your enemies drop out from fatigue (NIWA has been doing this very well, same with Penn State), but will it work on a small basis? What is holding up resolution of Mike and Tim?
” RockyRoad says:
August 24, 2012 at 8:35 am
So does this mean the climate didn’t change before man’s appearance?”
not quite . . . it didn’t change before Mann’s appearance
RockyRoad says:
August 24, 2012 at 8:35 am
“So does this mean the climate didn’t change before man’s appearance?
Interesting logic–or lack thereof.
Epic fail by Sir John Houghton. He’s as accurate in his assessment as the chart behind him.”
Your comment reminded me of the very interesting paper by : WILLIAM F. RUDDIMAN,Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
“THE ANTHROPOGENIC GREENHOUSE ERA BEGAN THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO”.
The paper claims that the anomalous CO2 increases of recent times actually began about 8000 years ago with “civilization” and farming, not 150 years ago with industrialization. It further hypothesizes that drops in CO2 in paleoclimate data can be correlated to declines in human populations caused by plagues, famine, etc. Though the thrust of the paper is typical warmist doctrine, one could come to a very different conclusion if the hypothesis is correct. That being that the only way to stop the acceleration of CO2 increases and thereby AGW would be to eliminate major portions of the human population. Not a very uplifting scenario.
Who is financing Mann’s legal jihad?
In http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/24/hilarious-mann-email-ipcc-icon-pretty-cool/#comment-1064223, RockyRoad asks with respect to Sir John Houghton’s statement “Human effect on climate ‘beyond doubt'”:
and uses this question to claim an “epic fail” of logic on Sir John Houghton’s side.
To answer this question:
No, it doesn’t mean this. Sir John Houghton’s statement does not logically imply such an assertion. The fact that climate had already changed before humans’ appearance, due to natural factors, does not refute empirically or logically that human activities have become a climate changing factor in addition to natural factors now. There is no contradiction there.
Pointing to natural climate change before humans’ appearance to “refute” human influence on climate is one of the logical fallacies commonly applied. It’s a straw man argument. The fail of logic here is on your side.
Mann: ‘I always thought it was somewhat misplaced to make it a central icon of the climate change debate’
ALWAYS????
Ty says:
August 24, 2012 at 8:48 am
Is it possible that one of the outcomes of the NRO suit is that whatever docs Mann provides during discovery are forever kept from public release as part of some settlement he and NRO agree to? And those privy to the contents likewise forbidden to discuss?
___________________________________
News Media agreeing to be muzzled??? You have to be kidding.
Monsanto did it to US and Canadian Farmers but that was because Monsanto had deep pockets and the farmers were facing bankruptcy. link but that is not the case here.
Re: RockyRoad
> So does this mean the climate didn’t change before man’s appearance?
So does this mean the past climate didn’t change
beforeafterman’sMann’s appearance?There, fixed it for you.
@RobRoy
“Sir John, Like AlGore, Robert Kennedy Jr., etc are sure that they will be part of the ruling elite….”
How do you think he got to be a ‘Sir’ in the first place? I’ll give you a clue – it wasn’t for displaying bravery in battle, or any of the traditional ways of showing your mettle.
And now he’s threatening to sue the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Mann vs. mankind?
Alan the Brit says:
August 24, 2012 at 9:02 am
“And the reason why we don’t rise up & slaughter them all is…….?”
Alan the Brit…aka Guido Fawkes? 😉
Perlwitz, posting here as usual in the middle of his taxpayer-funded work day, writes:
“Pointing to natural climate change before humans’ appearance to ‘refute’ human influence on climate is one of the logical fallacies commonly applied.”
It is clear that Mr Perlwitz has no understanding of the null hypothesis, or he would see his error. His chief attribute seems to be performing as a sycophant for James Hansen. I wouldn’t have a problem with that – to each his own – but he’s doing it at the taxpayers’ expense.
Of course Perlwitz will deny it. But look at the time stamp. And he does it constantly.
im G says:
August 24, 2012 at 9:42 am
….
Your comment reminded me of the very interesting paper by : WILLIAM F. RUDDIMAN,Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
“THE ANTHROPOGENIC GREENHOUSE ERA BEGAN THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO”.
The paper claims that the anomalous CO2 increases of recent times actually began about 8000 years ago with “civilization” and farming, not 150 years ago with industrialization….
___________________________________
OH I really love it when they really step in it like that.
Look at the temperature data from the ice cores.
These are two graphs of five interglacials from Vostok: graph 1 and this one has the CO2 added: graph 2
This graph is for 140,000 yrs from Vostok, that is the Holocene plus the Eemain – graph
And an even Closer look at Greenland for 10,000 years note the 8,000 year mark is where the violent swings stopped. Greenland graph and vostok graph
So the evidence from the ice cores plus Dr. William Ruddiman’s paper shows mankind is STABLIZING THE CLIMATE
Stop the Presses, this should be front page news!
Mankind SAVES the Environment
Think we can get the Graniad, Huff & Puff and the NY times to print the story?
Jan P Perlwitz says:
August 24, 2012 at 9:54 am
Though there is much data to support human impact upon CO2 levels there is no convincing evidence that climate change is caused by same. There is your logical disconnect. Too many other variables are involved to make this connection, the models are showing themselves to lack predictive capability, CO2 is still rising while temperatures have not for 10-12 years, historical data on CO2 shows that it follows temperature, does not lead it, model data on temperatures has been buggered by “believers” to show increase where there is none, heat island phenomina adulterate the data, etc, etc. And in the end, warming is good, cold is bad for the human population and CO2 makes green things grow, so we actually need to burn more coal.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
August 24, 2012 at 9:54 am
Absolutely! Land use changes through farming, slash & burn, and all that sort of stuff are underepresented by the CAGW folks’ analyses. It all helps to show that there’s more to understanding CO2’s effect than lab based measurements away from large scale convective processes. Until global temps start looking more like the CO2 curve from Mauna Loa, than the noisy, air, ocean, and solar oscillations that dominate reality, I’d worry more about the upcoming glaciation than what will happen if we don’t get CO2 back down to 350 ppm.
Smokey whines:
The taxpayer doesn’t have any saying about my workday schedule, and you are not entitled to tell me at what times I must work, and when I’m allowed to do something else. But I’m happy that you are a taxpayer. LOL
Besides that, Smokey doesn’t have anything substantial to offer to refute the content of my previous comment. As usual. Thus, he resorts again, – surprise, surprise! – to an ad personam attack. How pathetic.
Perlwitz/Smokey
Both of you – put a sock in it. There’s now an enforced comment time out 24 hours for both of you.
I’ll be sending a query to NASA directly.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
August 24, 2012 at 9:54 am
….To answer this question:
No, it doesn’t mean this. Sir John Houghton’s statement does not logically imply such an assertion. The fact that climate had already changed before humans’ appearance, due to natural factors, does not refute empirically or logically that human activities have become a climate changing factor in addition to natural factors now. There is no contradiction there.
Pointing to natural climate change before humans’ appearance to “refute” human influence on climate is one of the logical fallacies commonly applied. It’s a straw man argument. The fail of logic here is on your side.
_______________________________
So taking it that you are correct and human activity has impacted the climate you STILL come out with the data showing mankind has stabilized the climate for the last 600 years Graph 1