Geological Society of America goes wild for meteorological Mann

Gosh, a breakout session on hurricane Sandy with Michael Mann, and they label it “breaking news”. From the Geological Society of America website:

BREAKING NEWS: GSA Session to Address Hurricane Sandy

GSA Annual Meeting Technical Sessions: Rapid Sea-Level Rise and Its Impacts: Past, Present, and Future I and II

Boulder, Colorado, USA – In response to the devastation caused last week by Hurricane Sandy, organizers of the Geological Society of America Annual Meeting technical sessions on rapid sea-level rise and its impacts have created a break-out discussion panel consisting of geoscience experts. The idea is to relate early findings and discuss how the changes caused by Hurricane Sandy to the U.S. East Coast tie into the scientific papers already scheduled for presentation.

Session organizers George T. Stone of Milwaukee Area Technical College, Michael E. Mann of The Pennsylvania State University, Stanley R. Riggs of East Carolina University, and Andrew M. Buddington of Spokane Community College recognized early the need to discuss the effects of Hurricane Sandy. The newly revised discussion panel will follow morning talks in room 219AB of the Charlotte Convention Center on Monday, 5 November.

Five GSA Divisions (GSA Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology; Environmental and Engineering Geology; Geology and Society; Hydrogeology; Sedimentary Geology) and GSA’s International Section have teamed up with the Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists and the National Association of Geoscience Teachers to bring a multidisciplinary perspective to the problem.

Other talks in this two-part session (morning and afternoon) include “Pulses of rapid sea level rise: Their effect on past, present and future coastal environments and sequences”; Anthropogenic sea-level rise: ethical transgressions; and “Sea-level change during the last 2000 years in southern Connecticut.”

Breakout Panel Discussion: Hurricane Sandy and its Impacts
When: Monday, 5 Nov., 11:30 to noon
Where: Charlotte Convention Center, Room 219AB
Session 14: T121. Rapid Sea-Level Rise and Its Impacts: Past, Present, and Future I: https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2012AM/webprogram/Session30943.html

Contacts:
George T. Stone, e-mail: stone@matc.edu
Michael E. Mann, cell: 814-777-3136; e-mail: mann@psu.edu

Maybe they can discuss the recent admission by NASA JPL that the satellite sea level data is missing a good baseline reference and is likely corrupted by spurious noise:

Finally: JPL intends to get a GRASP on accurate sea level and ice measurements

New proposal from NASA JPL admits to “spurious” errors in current satellite based sea level and ice altimetry, calls for new space platform to fix the problem.

Likely though, it will be a doom and gloom breakout session with sea level accelerating and all that.

About these ads

79 thoughts on “Geological Society of America goes wild for meteorological Mann

  1. “Geological Society of America goes wild”

    It sounds like a college annual ball reunion…………..it is a college hop reunion!

  2. Er, what ‘rapid sea level rise’? Did it increase by a tenth of a millimetre per year or something?

  3. How do these supposedly scientific organisations get away with such blatant untruth and stupidity?

    Even taking the flawed and pumped up satellite altimetry data, 3mm per year equals one foot per century. That is not “rapid” in any sense of the word.

    This is insignificant in relation to nearly 13ft of swell and the height of autumn full-moon high tides.

    I presume Mann will be wearing his false Nobel Prize medallion around his neck to give himself added authority while speaking.

  4. Sounds like the conference on ‘Abrupt Climate Change’ organized by Nick Drake in Michael Crichton’s novel….. Crichton was not exaggerating one bit, was he?

  5. “Rapid Sea-Level Rise and Its Impacts” yeah right – I wonder how long before they talk about modelled sea level rise since those nasty observations are all wrong now. Thank goodness great nobel laureates will be at the session to make sure they are of the highest integrity!

  6. Climate alarmism appears to be controlled by just a handful of individuals. All roads appear to lead to Pennsylvania.

  7. The opinions of government funded geo-scientists are usually of no consequence, as these people have to toe the official alarmist line or there are immediate and very obvious employment consequences.

    Can you imagine one of these individuals daring to utter the unspeakable truth of: “Yes, AGW does exist, but it is a minor phenomenon and no threat whatsoever to mankind. No, CAGW does not exist; that’s just a few guys’ overactive imagination.”

    This would result in an immediate severance cheque. After all, nothing must be allowed to derail the Global Warming Industry’s gravy train.

  8. A break out session of 30 minutes? They’ll hardly poured their coffee before the session ends. Unless it’s just our Mikey telling them what to say.

  9. Pity Mark Steyn won’t be there.

    The guy has no shame. After being given a clip over the ear by the IPCC and the Nobel people about his false claims, and humiliated by the ad in the newspaper on his own campus, he just carries on as if nothing happened.

    Mike “Honey Badger” Mann …

  10. “Session to Address Hurricane Sandy” …
    “technical sessions on rapid sea-level rise and its impacts” …
    “Anthropogenic sea-level rise: ethical transgressions” …

    Talking sense about “climate change” is a bit like talking to yourself, except you keep getting crazy, nonsensical answers.

  11. Global Warming Disproof
    Treating the Earth’s surface as a black body and populating it’s atmosphere with a mixture of GHGs and non-GHGs we have three sources of outgoing radiation. Integrating over a sufficient time period to eliminate the effects of seasons and day and night and integrating over the Earth’s surface spatially to eliminate variations with latitude we find that at mean temperature equilibrium the incoming radiation from the sun equals the outgoing radiation from our three Earthly sources of radiation.
    We now remove the GHGs from the atmosphere and, if we like, replace them with an equivalent amount of non-GHGs. In order to restore radiative equilibrium (i.e. radiation from the Earth = radiation incoming from the sun) then the outgoing radiation from the black body Earth plus the now non-GHG atmosphere must increase to compensate for the removal of the GHGs.
    Q 1) How do we get more radiation out of a black body?
    Q 2) How do we get more radiation out of non-GHGs?
    A1) Radiation from a black body can only be increased by increasing its temperature.
    A 2) Non-GHGs are thermally radiating gasses. We can only get more radiation out of non-GHGs by increasing their temperature.
    Q 3) How do GHGs affect mean global temperature?
    A3) For the reader to answer.
    If GHGs are better radiators than non-GHGs then the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming is thus falsified. QED.

  12. This makes an interesting counterpoint to the insurance industry position on Sandy in the previous post.

  13. Jobs Jobs Jobs. It is necessary to invent a reason to spend “others people money” in Geological Society of America. The is nothing better than a Social Construction like Global Warming-Rising Waters etc….

  14. Geologists bringing out the big ethical transgression guns of sea level rise. Shouldn’t they be more concerned about the ethical transgression of raping and pillaging the Pachamama with their drills every day? /sarc

  15. The TRF-related uncertainty is currently 0.45mm/year and the new satellite will reduce it even further. Even currently the uncertainty almost an order of magnitude smaller than the sea-level rise signal! Please stop parroting that all sea-level measurements from satellites are currently completely wrong as if you were uninformed but stout denialists!

  16. Maybe they are confusing rapid sea level rises and tides, well they do seem to have problems understanding natural cycles! Oddly I’m not actually being sarcastic, much….

  17. The godless religion is thus boosted by the “profits” of doom! Give me more money!

    David Schofield says:
    November 5, 2012 at 1:33 am
    “Pulses of rapid sea level rise” Tides?

    :-) Yes the sea rises rapidly twice a day down at Exmouth docks, sadly, it falls twice a day just as rapidly though!

    The BBC are still peddling non-science in it’s Sunday night nature programme “Indian Ocean”, historically fascinating, scientifically crap! Shame really, the death throws of a once great British institution now nothing more than a laughing stock, only they keep the blinkers in place so can’t see it! Interestingly on yet another BBC nature programe yesterday afternoon/evening on Tasmania, the ugly spectre of DDT raised its head when talking about the near extinction of a native hawk due to egg-shell thinning 30 years ago. However, no mention was made of any of the dozens of other bird species on the island having had similar problems, curious how DDT seems to only affect birds of prey!

  18. Perhaps by “rapid sea level rise” they actually do mean from storm surges. There were two sea level-based talks listed: “rapid sea level rise” and “anthropogenic sea level rise,” so maybe they’re distinguishing between the two.

    While my degree is in geology, I’m not a working geologist and so am not a member of any professional organizations. Still, this is embarrassing, since geologists in general take the long view of climate change and aren’t fooled by short-term fluctuations and chance correlations. To me, it looks like this is a case of some small-college profs (well, except for East Carolina) hitching their wagon to the star of Michael Mann. Perhaps they haven’t been following the news.

  19. Drat, I meant to make it clear that I was distinguishing between “rapid sea level rise” from storm surges and AGW sea level rise. I did not do a good job of that.

  20. Is this a shameless attempt to claim relevance?

    Surely it would be more appropriate to let things calm down before making this focus of interest-meetings; people have died.

  21. Eco geek says
    A 2) Non-GHGs are thermally radiating gasses. We can only get more radiation out of non-GHGs by increasing their temperature.
    ——–
    Non-GHGS are NOT thermally radiating gases. They neither absorb nor emit IR radiation.

  22. ConfusedPhoton says:
    November 5, 2012 at 1:35 am
    “Rapid Sea-Level Rise and Its Impacts” yeah right – I wonder how long before they talk about modelled sea level rise since those nasty observations are all wrong now. Thank goodness great nobel laureates will be at the session to make sure they are of the highest integrity!
    ——————
    I hope our other proud and honorable nobel laureate, Al Gore will be there and he can bring Dr. Peter Gleick. I can believe in CAGW as long as they have some fine upstanding Americans to establish and maintain the organization’s standard of honesty, integrity and ethics. Maybe Phil Jones will show up to help protect the historical sea level data. I’ve read he has some experience in safeguarding data.
    /sarc/off

    I don’t care who, what, when, where, why or how the experts measure sea level. I will never in a million years believe they can prove sea level changed by 1mm.
    They set the historical average by measuring changes in hundreds of meters then tremble in fear when somehow their numbers show sea level has risen how much? Paahh-leeeese.
    Oh,I might add. if it has risen 1mm or 10mm or 1000mm, I don’t give a rip. IMHO, sea level changes. How do they not know there are sea shells on Mt Everest.

  23. this most
    excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave
    o’erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted
    with golden fire, why, it appears no other thing to
    me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours.
    What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason!
    how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how
    express and admirable! in action how like an angel!
    in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the
    world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me,
    what is this quintessence of dust? man delights not
    me: no,…

  24. “Pulses of rapid sea level rise”?

    Let’s see if I can guess: The pulses are gravitational; they occur on a cycle of 28 days; they seem to be made up of mini-pulses that happen four times a day.

  25. I hope some of the sensible US geologists will be at this meeting? Just to make sure the alarmists don’t get away with scientific murder………

  26. Once you accept the underlying assumption of rapid slr you can create any number of scary scenarios.
    This is not really different from science fiction- once you assume faster than light, or an alien invasion, or psi abilities or etc. you can tell any number of entertaining stories that hold together pretty well. As long as you don’t question the underlying assumption.

  27. That is very bizarre. Most of the geology sites I roam and discuss in, there is a near universal disbelief/disregard in CAGW. Too much rock history to get overwhelmed by assumed religious bleating and ranting. They’re real geological hazards aplenty that we’re not ready for without taking someone’s assumptions and beliefs without direct proof.

    I’d equate the CAGW believing geologist numbers roughly equal to the geologists who believe in the healing power of crystals… If you can’t state/prove something with hard science, not polemic rants, then you haven’t proved anything. To get to the core, the geologists who do, er insist, on healing minerals always have a substantial financial stake on the silly folks who buy things on superstitious belief.

    Still, the old cranky individualistic geologists are the most likely characters to spend a lot of time insulting each other and often have to be put in time out by list moderators. Loud noisy boisterous curmudgeons who delight in shock value… Science still rules. Opinions may diverge on any particular theoretical strata paragenesis.

    If this society meeting is quiet and accepting, they’re not really practising geologists, they might be desk bound administrators who thought their geology credits merit something, but don’t get out much to study rock strata in situ.. And they likely have some financial stake in the whole AGW fright fest.

    I hope the reality is that the audience is full of angry truculent practising geologists who haven’t bought into four CO2 molecules per ten thousand whomping up a hurricane/extra-tropical nor’easter for the delight of CAGW funding dependents and democrats.

  28. Gary Pearse says:
    November 5, 2012 at 6:08 am

    > Sober geologists?

    I don’t know about sober, but I can confidently predict that there will be beer served later in the day.

    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/15943/

    Of course, someone will have to explain that in this case “rapid sea level rise” is taking somewhat less than 10,000 years (or a few million if you want to avoid the noise of the recent ice ages).

  29. Come to think of it, reporting “breaking news” to a geologist will likely get them thinking about earthquakes, not meteorologists. Or Nobel prize non-winners.

  30. “When Mother Nature decided in 1980 to change gears from cooler to warmer, a new global warming religion was born, replete with its own church (the UN), a papacy, (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and a global warming priesthood masquerading as climate scientists. Selfish humans in rich, polluting countries were blamed for the warming and had to pay for past trespasses by providing material compensation to poor nations as penance. Cutting greenhouse gas emissions became the new holy grail. With a warm wind at their backs, these fundamentalists collected hundreds of billions of dollars from naive governments that adopted their faith on behalf of billions of people. No crusader was ever so effective.

    The message was stark. If the non-believers didn’t convert immediately, our children and grandchildren would face a hell on earth. The priesthood excommunicated and humiliated sceptics and deniers. Alternative views were not tolerated and, where possible, were suppressed. Did someone mention the dark ages?”

  31. This really isn’t that complicated. There is abundant sea level data to examine. Sandy hit during a full moon at high tide. We need to invoke some crazy dependence on CO2 ppm levels to explain this? What is wrong with these people? As a scientist, it’s really frustrating to listen to the AGW crowd. It’s even more frustrating to listen to lay-people that couldn’t even sketch a CO2 molecule be so certain about all of this as well.

  32. Corruption is becoming easier to see and the groups involved.

    Mass media, science publications like Nature, science societies, academic science departments, government science departments, politial agencies, and the list goes on.

    Bringing corruption to all.

    And some in the past have said godliness is of little value or importance. Do away with prayer and devotion to the Most High. We are not continuously in His Presence. He is nowhere to be found.

    Those snared by naturalism have brought forth fruit, and it is not good. For all to see.

  33. Hmmmmm…. Mann’s cellphone number should probably be redacted. Not that I have any interest in wasting my time dialing those digits…

  34. PaulH says:
    November 5, 2012 at 7:26 am

    > Hmmmmm…. Mann’s cellphone number should probably be redacted. Not that I have any interest in wasting my time dialing those digits…

    Calling it at 1135 might have amusement value. :-) He gives enough talks I suspect he’ll have it off then.

  35. Wow, it is truly disheartening to realize that so many of my fellow geologists have been drinking the alarmist kool-aid, and drinking deeply I might ad.

  36. LT: you say that non greenhouse gasses are non thermally radiating. Interesting.
    So these gasses cannot be warmed? And if warmed, maintain that temperature forever, or until they come into direct contact to allow conduction to remove their heat? And if heated to several million degrees, will not glow at all?

    So a planet, composed only of one of these gasses, must be the exact opposite of a black body … never absorbed any radiation, and never emits any, no matter what its temperature.

    Personally, I think you may have been just a bit too lazy in your Physics classes.

  37. “Pulses of rapid sea level rise: Their effect on past, present and future coastal environments and sequences”;
    There was a “Meltwater Pulse Event” 14,600 years ago, back when we had ice sheets 3km thick. In 500 years oceans rose some 9 meters. We don’t have those today though, fortunately. The remaining ice is fairly stable, unfortunately for the Alarmists.

  38. P. Solar says: “I presume Mann will be wearing his false Nobel Prize medallion around his neck to give himself added authority while speaking.”

    It’s a tattoo!

  39. Atheists and climate alarmists: the crashing bores of the 21st century

    Christian apologists and climate alarmists: singing from the same hymnsheet.

  40. I would hope geologists would be familiar with the fact that the east coast is subsiding at a rate nearly identical to tide gagues trends. In other words, rather than sea level rising, the continent margin is SINKING.

    here is the gps data showing subsiding:

    http://www.earth.northwestern.edu/people/seth/Texts/gpsgia.pdf

    here is the tide gaugues for NY:

    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750

    It amazes me how easily many of these climate claims can be falsified with simple observations with just a minute of detective work.

  41. John A says:
    November 5, 2012 at 8:47 am

    Atheists and climate alarmists: the crashing bores of the 21st century

    Christian apologists and climate alarmists: singing from the same hymnsheet.
    ###

    Post again when you actually know something about what you are trying to condemn. As it is you sound like a brain washed fool. Atheists have been using exactly the same techniques as the AGW team. Distortions, lies and twisted logic.

  42. This Much Ado About Nothing on sea level increases intrigued me, so I referenced:

    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/msltrendstable.htm

    This NOAA table gives the increase in sea level in mms/year for 130 places around the USA – the average is 1.67mm/year, or around one half of the University of Colorado’s figure of 3.2mm/year.

    As might be expected, Alaska’s sea level is falling due to isostatic rebound with the biggest decline being Kodiak Island at -10.42mm/year. The greatest increase in sea level was 9.65mm/year at Eugene Island in Louisiana, presumably a reflection of ground water depletion or the Earth’s crust slowly buckling under the weight of new Mississippi sediments.

    The east coast sea level is rising at around twice the rate of the east coast, which probably is a reflection of groundwater depletion.

    So a non-scientific average increase in sea level for the USA of 0.167 metres, or 6.6 inches, per century.

    Yup, that’s really serious and clearly needs a huge amount of grant funding to research further.

  43. P. Solar says:
    November 5, 2012 at 1:24 am

    I presume Mann will be wearing his false Nobel Prize medallion around his neck to give himself added authority while speaking.

    Will he look like Mr. T? Should we start calling him Mann-a-T (manatee)? Oh the huge Mann-a-T!

  44. Geologists take note: Michael Mann has posted his C.V. Study it, and prepare for a surprise. It shows that he undertook no coursework in Geology until after he had been awarded a Master’s in physics in 1991 at Stanford. He then received a Master’s degree from Stanford in Geology two years later! And three years after that he defended his PhD dissertation on ….tree rings? Yes, tree rings! He was awarded a PhD in Geology at Stanford for his work on tree rings! And so Michael Mann now comes to the Geological Society of America to repair any deficiencies in your understanding concerning Geology, not tree rings.

  45. How embarrasing for the organization. I hope the real member scientists reject this nonsense and take their organization back. Why is it that left wing nut jobs always seem to worm their way into leadership positions with reputable organizations?

  46. Michael Painter says:
    November 5, 2012 at 9:41 am

    OMG! A ‘fake’ geologist as well as a fake Nobel Laureate! Gee, I wish was in America and part of your Geol Soc. – I’d like to query his geological credentials/knowledge!

  47. David Spurgeon says: @ November 5, 2012 at 6:51 am

    …..Did someone mention the dark ages?
    __________________________________
    Yes!

    Agenda 21 sounds a lot like a return to feudalism where an individual’s ability to travel is removed. (That is why CO2 has been declared “evil”) Once individuals can no longer ‘escape’ they become a captive labor market otherwise known as serfs. ( a person in a condition of servitude, required to render services to a lord, commonly attached to the lord’s land and transferred with it from one owner to another )

    The other half of the equation of preventing population movement is the concept of a foodshed. ” In this project, the general definition of a foodshed is a geographic area that supplies a population center with food.” Without cheap fuel you are not going to be importing food so the number of people a foodshed can supply is important to the central planners. Once that number is calculated you can then prevent people from moving into the area or having children without permission “for the common good” of course.

    Am I crazy?
    Here is what Post Carbon Oregon has to say.

    Sustainable communities require planning
    February 12th, 2007

    In the United States, 80% of the population lives in cities. Their buildings, transportation and urban infrastructure account for 80% of U.S. energy consumption, and 70% of that amount is determined by how and where Americans design their neighborhoods. Low-density development in the U.S. consumes 85% more energy, 70 times more water, 50 times more lumber and 40 times more land than higher-density development of the same square footage. Urban areas are also responsible for 75% of the GHG emissions. Building a sustainable community requires community planning and the creation of public policy.

    There is then a link to a foodshed gathering on the sidebar.
    On the opposite coast in Westchester NY you have

    Sustainability and Smart Growth

    Sustainable communities strive to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. The Sustainability and Smart Growth Initiative aims to stengthen and preserve the quality of life of Westchester’s residents while planning for the needs of their children and grandchildren.

    The Foundation supports programs in four areas: Energy Efficiency, Transportation Reform, Protection and Preservation of Natural Resources, and Sustainable Food Shed. These grants are supported through the Henry P. Kraft Family Memorial Fund….

    Westchester Community Foundation | A Division of The New York Community Trust

    Then there is ” ICLEI Global”, Local governments for Sustainability. (ICLEI stands for the ‘International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives’) Under programs is listed Agenda 21 and other United Nations goals.

    …International Goals and Agreements

    Our programs and projects advocate participatory, long-term, strategic planning processes that address local sustainability while protecting global common goods. This approach links local action and solutions to the global challenges we are facing, and therefore also links local action to global goals and targets such as:
    the Rio Conventions:
    The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change,
    The UN Convention on Biological Diversity,
    The UN Convention to Combat Desertification
    Agenda 21
    the Habitat Agenda
    the Millennium Development Goals
    the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation

    (Note: All the above listed global goals and targets have links that I did not bother to add.)

    The only difference I see is the replacement of the aristocracy with the mega-corporations.

  48. Did you know human beings cover 1.27*10^-7 of the planet if they are all standing up, or about 250 square miles. So if they all stood together you could wipe them all out with a few H bombs! That will cure all the worlds problems in one go.

  49. “Session organizers George T. Stone of Milwaukee Area Technical College, Michael E. Mann of The Pennsylvania State University, Stanley R. Riggs of East Carolina University, and Andrew M. Buddington of Spokane Community College recognized early the need to discuss the effects of Hurricane Sandy.”
    This would appear to dovetail nicely with the Alarmists’ credo: “Never allow a good weather disaster go to waste”.

  50. S Basinger said on November 5, 2012 at 1:27 am:
    Heh, they posted Mike Mann’s cell #.

    Of course I will not recommend spam calling or texting his cell, and especially not using things like Verizon’s online text message sender to abuse him anonymously, as that’s trying to be hurtful.

    Whereas if you sent his number to well-meaning organizations like WWF and Greenpeace indicating Mann is very willing to support efforts to fight climate change, or to companies that want to assist him in combatting global warming by installing solar panels on his house at attractive low finance rates, that would be trying to be helpful.

  51. eco-geek – Your argument (Global Warming Disproof) is surely the wrong way round when you say outgoing radiation “must increase to compensate for the removal of the GHGs”. GHGs reduce the rate of outgoing radiation, so the effect of removing the GHGs is to increase outgoing radiation. It doesn’t have to happen ‘in order to compensate’, it happens ‘as a result of’.

    So, when GHGs are removed, outgoing radiation increases thus temperature reduces until balance is reached.

    The issue is not whether GHGs warm the planet, it is whether they warm by as much as is claimed. Given that nearly 2/3 of the claimed warming comes from “positive feedbacks” for which there is no evidence and, in the case of clouds at least, no known mechanism, it is clear that the GH effect has been severely exaggerated.

  52. Alan the Brit says:
    November 5, 2012 at 4:34 am


    The BBC are still peddling non-science in it’s Sunday night nature programme “Indian Ocean”, historically fascinating, scientifically crap! Shame really, the death throws of a once great British institution now nothing more than a laughing stock, only they keep the blinkers in place so can’t see it! Interestingly on yet another BBC nature programe yesterday afternoon/evening on Tasmania, the ugly spectre of DDT raised its head when talking about the near extinction of a native hawk due to egg-shell thinning 30 years ago. However, no mention was made of any of the dozens of other bird species on the island having had similar problems, curious how DDT seems to only affect birds of prey!

    I guess that they did not mention the 2 million people who die of malaria each year. Apparently, a species of bird is more important that those people whose lives could have been saved if DDT usage wasn´t banned by the greenies.

  53. TBEAR said “Atheists and climate alarmists: the crashing bores of the 21st century.”

    As an ‘atheist’ (one who has no belief IN the existence of a god) and one who has no belief in any philosophy of atheism, I do not like being lumped in with ‘climate alarmists’ nor with ‘bores’. If you have a problem with some individual, say so, but none of that bigotry about atheists.

  54. Michael Painter says:
    November 5, 2012 at 9:41 am

    Does Mann’s CV mention degrees from Stanford because Mann got his degrees from Yale.

  55. Lazy teenager,

    All matter that has a temperature above absolute zero, radiates IR. non ghg gases most certainly do radiate IR, they just don’t absorb IR and heat up.

  56. Bob Tisdale says:
    November 5, 2012 at 8:31 am
    P. Solar says: “I presume Mann will be wearing his false Nobel Prize medallion around his neck to give himself added authority while speaking.”

    It’s a tattoo!
    —————————-

    It’s going to be very difficult to remove that “L” from his forehead !

Comments are closed.