Tuesday Twitter titter

Note to Dr. Michael Mann: sarcasm only works when your don’t become the butt of the joke. Seen on Mann’s Twitter feed today with ALL CAPS for loud effect.

As the old joke goes…”now he are one”.

Even more hilarious, the peanut gallery of his Twitter feed seems to think that somehow predicting storm tracks and forecasting hurricane storm surge (as has been done long before these guys ever came on scene) is somehow something Senator James Inhofe is against and because NHC got it right, that Inhofe gets a “poke in the eye”.

It’s like some alien world of self delusion over there.

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

76 Responses to Tuesday Twitter titter

  1. joated says:

    Listen to all those who are saying Sandy proves climate change iks me no end. It’s almost like they don’t understand the difference between weather and climate either. Now to try and equate the tracking of a single storm in the here and now to plotting climate decades and even centuries into the future…. The mind boggles.

  2. D Caldwell says:

    Arguing with the strawman.

  3. It only shows how incredibly biased he is. He has forgotten the art of skepticism.

  4. I would have liked to have known about this hurricane last year. Where were the METEOROLOGICAL MAGIC WIZARDS then?

    WELL? I DEMAND AN ANSWER. MY BASEMENT IS FULL OF WATER!!

  5. PM says:

    This is becoming online bullying – stick to attacking bad science.

  6. Pull My Finger says:

    Doesn’t Mann routinely dismiss “Meteorologists” and mere “Weathermen” as not sholarly enough to understand his groundbreaking work? Nate Silver? So I guess pollsters are good enough at climate science to warrant Not Quite a Nobel Winner Mann a retweet?

  7. DickF says:

    Unbelievable. Do these guys actually understand ANYTHING? (It doesn’t look like they do, but that doesn’t seem to stop them from offering their opinions anyway.)

    Nate Silver is still projecting an Obama win in the presidential election. If this is a representative example of how poorly informed and superficial his knowledge actually is, we’ll probably be saying hello to President-elect Romney on the morning of November 7.

  8. Russ R. says:

    Weather prediction works because meteorologists rely on the assumption that in the future, systems will behave the same as as observed in the past.

    Climate scientists (at least those of the alarmist variety) rely on the assumption that in the future, systems will behave in ways never observed in the past. (Tipping points, runaway warming, etc.)

  9. dp says:

    This blog is becoming the worlds most widely read climate tabloid. These endless ad hom posts agains Mann, Gore, and others, and Willis’ I told you so post are not science or entertainment. I hope it blows over because this is one of my favorite reading spots.

    Flame suit is on, fire when ready, Gridley.

  10. DirkH says:

    Michael Mann shows he has no grasp on the definition of chaos and what it entails; and why there’s a difference between weather models and climate models.

  11. Policy Guy says:

    So a self proclaimed psuedo Nobel Laureate is poking fun at Meteorologists for accurately predicting the location and extent of the storm, including storm surge levels?? If meteorlogocal models are funny when they work, what are climate models that can’t even accurately backcast much less forecast temperatures. The joke appears to be on the good doctor.

  12. Michael Bentley says:

    Hummm,

    Michael Mann must think he’s a shooting star! Too bad he shot himself in the foot…

    Mike

  13. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:

    Along the margins of this topic is SciAm’s leap onto the bandwagon, quoting Hansen and Trenberth.

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/10/30/did-climate-change-cause-hurricane-sandy/

    Blecch…..are they really that exploitive? ‘Fraid so.

  14. Telling case in point:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray

    The pioneer of modern hurricane forecasting is an arch-skeptic of AGW, let alone CAGW, & certainly of the effect of increase in CO2 molecules per 10,000 dry air molecules from three to four. Apparently the Mann-made global warming peanut gallery is as ignorant of earth science history as of scientific theory & practice.

  15. D Böehm says:

    dp,

    If Mann would man up and engage in a series of debates, arguing his position in a neutral venue, with a mutually agreed moderator and rules, he would escape most of the attacks. Instead, like all climate alarmists he hides out and issues tweets and facebook comments calling all those who disagree with him “the rabble”.

    He deserves what he gets.

  16. philjourdan says:

    Actually, Dave Toleris called it almost exactly on the money. It came ashore a little north of his forecast.

    But then I have seen his magic eight ball. ;-)

  17. More posts on why sandy was not fueled by AGW would be better than this nonsense Anthony.

    Even the Mayor, or Governor or someone of NYC just tweeted that climate is changing, we need scientific debate to counter such stuff, not ad homs.

  18. beesaman says:

    Seems like Non-Laureate Mann can dish it out but not take it, how like a Warmist…

  19. ed mister jones says:

    Nate Silver is a Bad Joke.

  20. Gibby says:

    dp, I agree… however, things should hopefully be back to normal political levels after next Tuesday.

  21. Paul Coppin says:

    dp, I can’t believe that some readers of WUWT don’t get that Science is Politics. Read Anthony’s tagline sometime… The study of Nature, anyone can do. The profession of the study of Nature is all politics, all the time….

    Re, the post, Andrew Weaver is one of the other clowns in the horse costume – he and Michael change ends from time to time.

  22. dfbaskwill says:

    The bad thing is, he is getting paid by PSU while he’s tweeting inanities. I tweet at work sometimes, but I sure as heck don’t get paid for it. Bastard.

  23. Peter Miller says:

    You are all missing the point, what Mann is saying is that he is in awe of people who use maths and science.

  24. fulldroolcup says:

    Uh oh: I caught only a snippet, but I believe I heard NY Gov. Cuomo say that “we” will have to learn how to deal with this kind of weather pattern from now on. So they’re already starting to blame AGW for Sandy.

  25. Tony Mach says:

    What climate consensus follower made me realize:
    As the NY West Side Highway was under water, finally Jim Hansen’s prediction turned out to be right!

    Because that’s what Jim Hansen meant when he said: ““The West Side Highway will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds.” He never predicted this to be a permanent occurrence! He just needed one bigger storm to be proven right!

    We have done a major injustice to poor Jim. Let’s give the man a Nobel in physics, and one for peace while we are at it.

  26. John Greenfraud says:

    He ran out of characters, what he meant to say was; “THEY MUST BE MAGIC WIZARDS TOO”
    After all, he did magically turn a certificate of participation into a Nobel prize. It takes a special kind of person to do that!

  27. cui bono says:

    Aren’t you a ‘metorologist’ Anthony? Maybe it’s unwitting praise…

    Someone should tweet ‘Predictions: Metorologists +1, Climate scientists still 0′.

  28. John Mathon says:

    “point the finger says I thought Mann and other climate modelers thought meteoroligists were ignorant of math and science?” Since more than half of meteorologists question AGW alarmism from polls I’ve seen this is why the “team” of 75 believers (from the 97% survey) didn’t bother to include meteorologists in the survey results? So, apparently meteoroligists can use math and science enough to do things like predict paths of storms half as big as the US but those same meteoroligists are not sophisticated enough to understand the power of the models the team of 75 produces that need 30-40 years to be validated and have been shown in study after study to be unable to predict anything.

    Meteoroligists know that storms like this have happened in history, that extreme events are happening all over the world all the time and always have. Any cursory look at history of weather shows extreme droughts, extreme floods, tropical storms, throughout history so simply having one does not show that climate warming is producing them. In order to show this is related to CO2 we need the following lines of research to produce positive results:

    1) that co2 is the cause for what percentage of the current warming? 0-100%

    2) that one of the side effects of this co2 is increased storm activity

    3) that this storm was in any way related to those “effects”

    As far as I have read we don’t know the answer to 1. My guess is maybe 30%. For 2 everything I’ve read suggests that there is no side effect measureable from co2 on storm activity. We have the same number and intensity of storms we’ve always had. If anything a recent nature published article said that precipitation variability went DOWN with higher temps. Therefore this storm may have been WORSE without global warming. 3) similar to 2)

  29. YFNWG says:

    No model was seeing Sandy ten days out. The Euro and Canadian models were among the first to see it captured and hitting the US. The NOAA GFS and extended NAM were clueless on the capture until five days out. This ain’t a “vindication” of computer models, just a test to see who has the better physics.

  30. Mike Ozanne says:

    “Doesn’t Mann routinely dismiss “Meteorologists” and mere “Weathermen” as not sholarly enough to understand his groundbreaking work? Nate Silver? So I guess pollsters are good enough at climate science to warrant Not Quite a Nobel Winner Mann a retweet?”

    To be fair at least Mr Silver shows his working…..

  31. Don B says:

    NY Governor Cuomo is as smart as Mann:

    Global warming: “Anyone who thinks that there is not a dramatic change in weather patterns is denying reality,” Mr. Cuomo said. “We have a new reality, and old infrastructures and old systems.”

  32. Skeptic says:

    I see Andrew Weaver has sent a positive/supportive response to Mikey the Magnificent. Weaver, like Mikey, is also claiming to be a Nobel Laureate (see Donna Laframboise and Hilary Ostrov).
    Weaver is also involved with Mikey in a legal action against Tim Ball. What a slimy pair.

  33. Paul Westhaver says:

    Message to Piltdown Mann, and his science = religiosity zombie hoard…..

    You may well be amazed that meteorologists use math and models to help predict weather events. We Anthropogenic Global Warming skeptics and real science advocates are not amazed at all.

    It is you who have misused science and made politics out of your academic funding scams.

    We are on to you and your surrogate clown priests. You are fooling nobody by “projecting” you own failings on everyone else.

    “projection” ….

    Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feeling

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

    We are not amazed Mr. Mann. That is the point. Yet you are.

  34. MarkW says:

    I don’t know if predicting tomorrow’s weather is harder than predicting next centuries climate or not. I do know that there is very little correlation between the two.
    With the first, initial conditions are critical. If you don’t know those, you can’t predict squat. From that point forward you use the basic laws of physics to try and determine how individual blocks of air will move around and whether they will heat or cool.

    In climatology, initial conditions are pretty close to meaningless. Nor do you give a flying flip about what individual blocks of air may be doing at any given point in space and time. You are concerned with how macro scale events interact with each other.

    In predicting weather, you don’t care if increased rainfall will change the flora in a given area. Since any such changes will not occur in the next 5 to 7 days anyway. However, such knowledge is vital for predicting climate changes. If you don’t know how the 5 spheres will react to any changes, and how the spheres interact, than you don’t know anything. (atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, cryosphere, biosphere)

  35. MarkW says:

    philjourdan says:
    October 30, 2012 at 11:02 am

    But then I have seen his magic eight ball. ;-)
    —-

    TMI

  36. mrmethane says:

    Nice to see BC’s newest Green Party hack, Andrew Weaver, raising his head above the parapet. Wonder if this will help sell a few more copies of his book. Also wondering if another “climategate” release is pending. Thanksgiving could be dangerous for these turkeys.

  37. Matt G says:

    Meteorologists have a far better understanding of the climate then some of these charlatan climate scientists. With the latter not even understanding how weather mechanisms behave or weather history. Therefore how can we expect them to decide what is weather or climate, never mind distinguishing any change in it.

  38. TomRude says:

    Weaver claimed in one of his affidevit against that he was Nobel prize winner… not even Peace Prize… I have a copy of it… This guy has as much credibility than Mann.

  39. Gary Pearse says:

    Yes Math and Science were used to successfully predict the trajectory of Sandy, but what has that to do with what you do?

  40. Andrew30 says:

    Hurricane Hazel was larger, stronger, longer lasting, more destructive, killed more people, followed more or less the same path (to this point in time), happed at the same time of year (almost to the day), also confronted a large cold front near the Canada US border and happened in 1954.

    It was almost 60 years ago that the same thing happened.

    Almost exactly the same storm pattern, 60 years ago, look it up.

  41. higley7 says:

    Short-term models with a limited number of real world factors, sure. They work.

    Climate models that take short cuts, use metaphors, make unfounded assumptions, and leave out dozens of real world factors, NOPE! “Don’t work!

    You can put a rifle round through a nickel-sized target with some practice. Now aim at 45 degrees and tell me what it will hit, but tell be the day before.

  42. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    Sometimes I too feel a slight twinge of guilt for having so much fun at Mike Mann’s expense; that is until does something like this, and then I feel OK again.

    What delicious irony that he’s hiding behind the skirts of hurricane forecasting meteorologists like Dr. William Gray, who has this opinion of climastologists and their influence on the AMS:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/on-the-hijacking-of-the-american-meteorological-society-ams/

  43. Terry says:

    Now would be a good time to release the key for the FOIA file to begin Climate III..

  44. Matt G says:

    higley7 says:
    October 30, 2012 at 12:20 pm

    The main point you have missed why weather models work for short periods are because they can be verified every week. Testing many times allows a product using maths and science that can be reliable. On the other hand changing a climate model every 30 or more years could take thousands of years to represent one that is decent.

  45. Pointman says:

    Michael is our asset, best left in place to convert the middle ground to our viewpoint. With one tweet, he disrespects every meteorologist going, except the few who already suffered from low self-esteem. He’s actually priceless. I’ll bet the AMS is feeling a bit silly after that tweet.

    Go Mickey, go …

    Pointman

  46. Pointman says:

    Anthony, assuming you’re still a member of the AMS, is it worth you asking them for a comment on how climate scientologists like Mann view them, in the light of his tweet?

    or mebbe they’d be too afraid to say anything, in case he sued them …

    Pointman

  47. Mark Besse says:

    If you make enough predictions, you can always point to the one you get right.

    The average of the models had the storm farther north and slower moving. The earlier left turn and then speedy movement onshore greatly reduced the damage caused by Sandy.

  48. Gunga Din says:

    Policy Guy says:
    October 30, 2012 at 10:53 am
    So a self proclaimed psuedo Nobel Laureate is poking fun at Meteorologists for accurately predicting the location and extent of the storm, including storm surge levels?? If meteorlogocal models are funny when they work, what are climate models that can’t even accurately backcast much less forecast temperatures. The joke appears to be on the good doctor.
    ======================================================================
    Perhaps Josh will do a cartoon of Mann with his head in the noose he’s made of his Nobel Lariot?

  49. PaulH says:

    “Metorologist”? You’d think a Nobel Prize winner would know how to mix in a spell-checker every now and then.
    /snark

  50. David L. Hagen says:

    Katrina and Sandy harmed because greens ignored what engineers predicted with math and science.

    See: Reconciling hydrology with engineering, Demetris Koutsoyiannis

    Predictability with climate models is a modern “wonder”!

    the best-fitting model outputs have a negative coefficient of efficiency and a correlation coefficient near zero. The results for AR4 are no better than those for TAR. In some, the annual mean temperature of the USA is overestimated by about 4–5 deg C and the annual precipitation by about 300–400 mm.

    Anagnostopoulos, G. G. , Koutsoyiannis, D. , Christofides, A. , Efstratiadis, A. and Mamassis, N.(2010)
    ‘A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data’, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55: 7, 1094 — 1110 DOI: 10.1080/02626667.2010.513518

    Credibility of climate predictions revisited, G. G. Anagnostopoulos, D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Efstratiadis, A. Christofides, and N. Mamassis (2009)

    • On the climatic scale, the model whose results for temperature are closest to reality (PCM 20C3M) has an efficiency of 0.05, virtually equivalent to an elementary prediction based on the historical mean; its predictive capacity against other indicators (e.g. maximum and minimum monthly temperature) is worse.
    • The predictive capacity of GCMs against the areal precipitation is even poorer (overestimation by about 100 to 300 mm). All efficiency values at all time scales are strongly negative, while correlations vary from negative to slightly positive.
    • Contrary to the common practice of climate modellers and IPCC, here comparisons are made in terms of actual values and not departures from means (“anomalies”). The enormous differences from reality (up to 6°C in minimum temperature and 300 mm in annual precipitation) would have been concealed if departures from mean had been taken.
    20. Conclusions
    Could models, which consistently err by several degrees in the 20th century, be trusted for their future predictions of decadal trends that are much lower than this error?

  51. E.M.Smith says:

    I like the attempted slam at Romney for not wanting to pretend he’s King Kanute… (or Cnut ).

    Maybe someone ought to give them a bit of history lesson…

  52. I also saw five models that showed the storm turning right and heading out to sea. Of course, if you have many that also show it coming straight at 50 million people, you go with the bad news scenario, but still: claiming the models “got it right” is cherry-picking again.

  53. Merovign says:

    Weather is only not climate when it’s good weather.

    Or when it doesn’t get grants for CAGW research.

  54. As far as Michael Mann is concerned, let us take a lesson from Napoleon. “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”

  55. Matthew W says:

    Can former Nobel Prize winning Mr. Mann tell us as to which model predicted/forecast this storm…….
    And the date when it was predicted/forecast by that same model?

  56. a dood says:

    Mann’s tweet is a total non-sequitur. Did any model predict the storm? There’s a big difference between tracking something that exists and predicting something that doesn’t yet exist. I don’t get who he’s trying to put down with his weird ‘zinger.’

  57. Billy says:

    Does a “Metorologist” study metronomes?

  58. Rob Crawford says:

    I think the third response quoted is a subtle dig at Obama.

  59. Zbb says:

    Disprove these people with science, not attacks. Showing folks Hurricane Hazel, The Snow Hurricane of 1804, the Great Gale of October 1878 would be much more effective than demonizing Mann. We are at this blog for a reason, we know what Mann is. Also GFS did have Sandy 8 days before the event for several runs. There was a time when the NOGAPS, GFS, EURO, and CMC all had Sandy in Northeast. It was for that reason I began to warn clients, friends, and family of the growing threat. As is typical the GFS lost the storm for a few days, but overall the model performed well, espcially in the 0-96 hour range. Its no EURO but that’s on the American government.

    Of course the Atlantic is in it’s warm phase and Pacific is in its cool phase. Its like the 1950’s all over again. Irene and Sandy were likely two of a cluster of east coast Hurricanes over the next 10-15 years. Not hype, just science. Please ask climate modelers to explain what caused Hurricane Hazel to be so destructive while not under the influence of greenhouse gases.

  60. mfo says:

    When Mann uses a word it means just what he chooses it to mean – neither more nor less, just like Humpty-Dumpty. Being an expert on pleonasm and wizards who are magic, Mann likes to make predictions about the future.

  61. Anthony Watts writes:
    It’s like some alien world of self delusion over there.
    Welcome to the human race, Mr. Watts!

  62. wayne says:

    METEOR-OLOGIST, MM: “Since I can’t spell, I aren’t”
    MET-OR[al]OLOGIST, the MET Office confirms he is one too.

  63. Am I mistaken in my memories (I don’t think I am) or didn’t they say the same sort of stuff after Katrina? I seem to remember some graph trying to argue that every year after Katrina was steadily going to get worse and worse and that by the time we hit 2014ish Florida, Louisiana, et al were going to be little more than distant memories.

    – MJM

  64. Day by Day says:

    @ dp who says: This blog is becoming the worlds most widely read climate tabloid.

    and Zbb who says: Disprove these people with science, not attacks. Showing folks Hurricane Hazel, The Snow Hurricane of 1804, the Great Gale of October 1878 would be much more effective than demonizing Mann. We are at this blog for a reason, we know what Mann is.

    Well, Zbb–there are new people to this blog all the time and they may not know what Mann is. In addition, besides the scientifically based comments and instruction I get here–I LIKE the humor and jabs and pokes–“if you can’t laugh you…” kind of thing. I don’t want them to go away.

    @ cui bono : Aren’t you a ‘metorologist’ Anthony? Maybe it’s unwitting praise…
    Someone should tweet ‘Predictions: Metorologists +1, Climate scientists still 0′.
    Funny! thanks!

    Peter Miller says: You are all missing the point, what Mann is saying is that he is in awe of people who use maths and science. Yes, thanks Peter–I was thinking we might be reading it wrong too–his intent I mean. I was confused about it–

    But finally I really want some feedback. I don’t live there now, but I used to live in Virginia in Charles City County. I remember Isabella and Bertha–and lots of ice storms. We were unindated often–people lost houses, cars, property–lives. We got flooded–had to go to public schools for proptection. I remember not being able to leave the house without a chain saw to cut through the downed trees and coming on a man in a pickup who was dead–tree came down on him. Boardwalks were torn up regularly and we lost beaches and had to put back sand and yatchs and boats were routinely smashed up and left on 1st street…We lost electricty for two or three WEEKS–not the few days they are talking about with Sandy–Sandy wasn’t even a huricane when it hit NY–

    Now I KNOW the loss of life is horrible and the damage from flooding horrendous–but am I remembering wrong? Is Sandy really that much worse then horrible storms in the past?–not just Hazel as Andrew30 says. and michaeljmcfadden says: Am I mistaken in my memories (I don’t think I am) or didn’t they say the same sort of stuff after Katrina?

    Am I mistaken in my memories or is this more terrible than anything in the past? Not being there, I of course can only go by the media reports–and Cristy says it is so horrible–has he lived there all his life? Or did NJ not get as many storms as Charles City County in the past? This question is very genuine on my part…

  65. D Böehm says:

    Day by Day says:

    “Am I mistaken in my memories or is this more terrible than anything in the past?”

    It’s weather. Not ‘climate’. And it’s only big news because it hit where so many people live.

    Even with better reporting and records, extreme weather events are geting more rare:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/extreme_wx_deaths.png

  66. David L. Hagen says:

    Judith Curry summarizes:

    the forecasts made by my company CFAN (see this post describing our forecast methods).

    We began watching the potential for disturbance in the Caribbean on 10/12, and on 10/16 we forecast a 40% of forming a TC and on 10/19 we predicted a high probability of formation. On 10/23, the NHC named Sandy as a tropical storm. CFAN’s forecast on 10/23 predicted a high probability of Sandy becoming a hurricane, with a 30% probability of landfall on the U.S. northeast coast. On 10/24, we predicted 50% probability of a landfall on the northeast U.S. coast on 10/29 or 10/30, with the most likely location between Delaware and New Jersey. On 10/24 we also forecast a horizontal size of 1250 km and a large storm surge. . . .
    the impact of warming on hurricane intensity seems theoretically robust, but impossible to sort out an AGW signal from the natural variability. . . .
    arguably in terms of Atlantic hurricanes, the warming is resulting in fewer U.S. landfalls.

    CFAN predicted 4 days before NHC,. Predicted US landfall 5-6 days before NJ landfall!

  67. wobble says:

    So, Michael Mann thinks that those of us that demand the use of real math and science think that meteorologists don’t use it?

  68. Frank K. says:

    joated says:
    October 30, 2012 at 10:28 am

    “Listen to all those who are saying Sandy proves climate change iks me no end. It’s almost like they don’t understand the difference between weather and climate either. Now to try and equate the tracking of a single storm in the here and now to plotting climate decades and even centuries into the future…. The mind boggles.”

    joated – this response from the climate “science” community is sadly all too predictable. Just remember that ANY bad weather event from now on is “caused” by climate. Does NOT matter time of year, temperatures up or down, rain or drought, too much wind or not enough wind, too much ice of not enough ice. It is ALL due to global warming and CO2, and we humans have the power to “stop” it. They are seriously deluded, of course, but it is all in the selfish cause of their own funding and fame. Get used to it – until we pull the government money out of the CAGW machine, we will be treated to these ridiculous pronouncements.

  69. pkatt says:

    Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, what was his point? Im tired of weather events with snappy names and worst ever headlines. Maybe if they would not cry wolf so often more people would believe them when the danger is real.

  70. zefal says:

    Hurricanes and peanut butter didn’t exist until man started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

  71. Dr Burns says:

    “Romney won’t do anything to stop the rising seas”
    … unlike king Canute who had his throne placed by the shore and vainly attempted to command the waves to recede until he almost drowned.

  72. DirkH says:

    MarkW says:
    October 30, 2012 at 11:48 am
    “In climatology, initial conditions are pretty close to meaningless. Nor do you give a flying flip about what individual blocks of air may be doing at any given point in space and time. You are concerned with how macro scale events interact with each other.”

    The initial conditions are not meaningless. The climate modelers want you to believe that but they have no theoretical basis to say that. In weather and in climate models you simulate the same thing, you are only interested in different timescales.

    Saying that somehow, magically, the short term chaos of weather does not affect the long term (or low frequency) development assumes that there are two frequency domains that are shielded from each other and don’t interact.

    This is such a preposterous assumption that the climate scientists can do only one thing about it: Not mention it.

  73. Ryan says:

    Eh? Is this Mann-moron claiming they predicted the path of Storm Sandy 30 years ago???? I thought they only “predicted” Sandy a few days ago – after it had actually formed! They then went ahead and predicted that it would join with another storm front and become a “Frankenstorm” of huge proportions and strengthened winds. Well it didn’t – the winds actually dropped. Hasn’t stopped them continuing to call it “Frankenstorm” however. They did get the path of the storm roughly correct – in contrast to the many storms that ended up in hurricane alerts for storms that didn’t even make landfall (but then the sheer size of the storm helped). I don’t buy this “accurate prediction” BS. They only thing they can predict with any real certainty is when high tide will be.

  74. One of the strong elements they’re using to buttress their arguments on the net are the pics and videos showing “end of the world” type flooding. See

    http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/on-the-flooding-of-the-wtc-memorial-site-after-the-horrible-events-of-911-we-said-never-again-but-this-is-what-would-happen/#comments

    for examples. A good counter to that would be for WUWT folks to dig up similar pics from past ordinary events if you can find them. My *guess* is that the WTC site may look almost like that during some ordinary heavy downpours in the area. And there may be similar video footage of the Jersey shore et al from ten or twenty years ago. Again, my *guess* is that we may be getting shown microcosmic imaging that has been shown to similar effect many times before, many years in the past. *IF* that’s true and you can find that imaging, it will provide a powerful counter-argument to the AGW folks portraying Frankenstorm as a unique occurrence due to AGW.

    The trick in countering a powerful enemy with a propaganda stranglehold on the mainstream news/public outlets because of their money or position is to make every little arrow that you can get in count for the most it can. And exposing the lies of the enemy is one of the most powerful arrows in your quiver. Look what brought Nixon down: not Watergate, but his LIES about Watergate. Think what might bring Obama down: not Benghazi as such, but his LIES (if they are shown to be that) about what he knew and when. Unfortunately in Nixon’s case the lies were kept undercover until after the election. Obama may not be so lucky if he’s been caught with his pants down: I don’t think Rosemary Woods is still working the transcription machines at the White House!

    – MJM

  75. James Schrumpf says:

    Dr Burns says:
    October 31, 2012 at 2:06 am

    “Romney won’t do anything to stop the rising seas”
    … unlike king Canute who had his throne placed by the shore and vainly attempted to command the waves to recede until he almost drowned.

    That’s not quite right. Canute had his throne placed there to show his noblemen “how empty and worthless is the power of kings.” As the tide washed over his feet he removed his crown and hung it on a cruicifix, never to wear it again, “to the honour of God the almighty King”.

    Many people, though, make the mistake of thinking the story illustrates his vanity, when it does quite the opposite.

Comments are closed.