Mike Mann’s global warming = tobacco claims on Al Jazeera

You just have to laugh. Mike, Dana, and some other guy named Rick Piltz, get face-time on Al Jazeera and the best they can do is cite “false balance” and “tobacco disinformation campaigns” to bolster their weak 97% argument? Of course, no skeptics were present, since even a 3% appearance time would be a “false balance” by their reckoning. Mann of course is famous for not debating skeptics, and running away when faced with the prospect of sharing TV time with a skeptic.

Mike and Dana, don’t you find it a bit hypocritical that you use an instrument of “big oil” (Al Jazeera is founded and funded by the government of Qatar, which owns the state controlled Qatar Petroleum with earnings of $51.6 billion in 2011) to push your ideas?

Video follows.

Some quotes from the broadcast

There is a false balance of media coverage where two or three percent of skeptics get close to 50 percent of the media coverage because the media feels that they have to show a balance where they are showing both sides of the issue. But in the process they are giving that two or three percent 50 percent of the coverage and actually creating a false balance and false perception that there is a big divide among climate experts about the cause of global warming. – Dana Nuccitelli

and…

“The disinformation campaign can only survive for so long. We saw, as in the case of tobacco, there was a similar disinformation campaign decades ago to obscure the science and the scientific link between the use of tobacco products and lung cancer. But eventually the truth of what the science had to say became accepted. There are some positive signs that we are moving in that direction; the rest of the world is moving increasingly towards renewable energy …. We are lagging behind but we are slowly making progress ourselves.” -Michael Mann

The premise of their 97% claim, when you inspect the data from their project, doesn’t even hold up, and thus they are perpetrating lies of omission in addition to these tired propagandized talking points.

About these ads

61 thoughts on “Mike Mann’s global warming = tobacco claims on Al Jazeera

  1. “… they are perpetrating lies of omission in addition to these tired propagandized talking points.”

    We should be surprised by this because…

    “I am shocked, shocked that” there is obfuscation occurring in the climate science community, just as I am shocked that there is interest in a carbon tax among politicians. NOT

  2. “We are lagging behind but we are slowly making progress ourselves.” -Michael Mann

    It’s the drugs talking again.

  3. Many AGW alarmists seem obsessed with smoking and tobacco. Did many of them recently quit smoking? Or do they still smoke?

    In any case the logic of their efforts as applied to the AGW issue would be along the lines of:

    “Some of the people who disagree with us today were on the unpopular side of other issues in the past, therefore all of the people who disagree with us today must be wrong”

    I’m not sure to what logical fallacy that corresponds.

  4. There are probably a billion gullible people in the world ready to lap up Dana’s equating of CAGW with AGW-97, but it questionable how influential they are. Barack Obama, for example, tweetied the meme, but he hasn’t put forth any substantive legislation for review by the people’s representatives because he knows he will lose. In my estimation Dana’s free publicity in the 97% of the media that is utterly ignorant will change nothing.

  5. There IS a connection between global warming and tobacco, namely the “what the hell have these guys been smoking?” when you try to follow the warmers’ arguments.

  6. “False balance” is basically a 20 year-old talking point, possibly invented by IPCC scientist Stephen Schneider ( http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/stephen-schneider-arguing-for-censorship-in-1992/ ). I dived deeper into that particular talking point in my article two years ago, ” ‘Media Too Fair to Climate Skeptics’, say reporters who’ve been unfair to skeptics” http://ow.ly/iWKi6

    Since this infantile ‘don’t listen to corrupt skeptics’ narrative is their only fallback defense position they have, that’s all we will ever see out of AGW promoters.

  7. Survey: xx% BELIEVE (!) …
    Survey: xx% FEEL (!) …

    Mickey Mann must consider himself happy to sit straight face-to-face in front of the camera, otherwise all viewers would have seen his nose grow and grow and grow…

  8. It appears to me that this is an interview with a bunch of crackpot conpiracy theorists. They also appear to be natural climate change deniers, at least when it comes to changes over the last decades.
    Is this what today’s science has come to in academia?
    Answer, yes!

  9. False balance? If there is no sceptic to present their views, then the warmists are just talking to themselves. Considering the suspect mental state of some of them, this should not be unexpected.

  10. I don’t know where they get the figure that 50% of interviews are with sceptics.
    Not on British MSM anyway – more like 3% sceptics to 97% warmists.
    (Now why do those numbers look familiar?)

  11. “…But eventually the truth of what the science had to say became accepted (re tobacco). There are some positive signs that we are moving in that direction…” – M. Mann

    Yes, at last there are some signs we are moving in the right direction – and this is good news to Mann et al?

    These guys use the same old gag: “There we were, two against a hundred. Boy, did we ever kick the s*** out of those two guys.” I’m getting to like this 97% consensus. It will become an object lesson to be delivered to future science students that they should not be complacent being part of a majority, especially an extremely large one. It should signal the need for special due diligence and questioning. Perhaps we can hope we will have a mandatory professorial position in each university teaching how to find the loose threads in an hypothesis. Teaching how to investigate if there might be alternative explanations – historical climate science, like historical astronomy is rich with course material. They would be taught to great advantage that the internet is watching what they do and is merciless in dissection of sloppy work. Bring it on.

  12. And from Al Jazeera, the news corporation with an Eastern bias – we get The Onion, the satirical magazine with an Eastern bias.

    Al Jazeera logo:

    The Onion logo:

    .

  13. Bernie Madoff was respected, admired, and possessed “great integrity” for a solid thirty years . . . . then finally, the scheme was revealed. Check out: http://www.cftc.gov/‎ then put “foreign currency ponzi scheme” in the search box . . . there are plenty of “bad actors” out there.

    All pyrimiding schemes fail when they run out of people (“suckers”) to join . . . . and yup, I mean ALL!

    What’s the solution? . . . How many ever heard of Bernie Madoff before he was exposed? That was a start. . . . . In my annotated humble opinion, of course.

    PS. Al Jazeera exists under a Monarchy, and that is a completely different subject on “subjects”.

  14. GlynnMhor says May 18, 2013 at 9:24 am

    Many AGW alarmists seem obsessed with smoking and tobacco. Did many of them recently quit smoking? Or do they still smoke?

    Makes one wonder … what is these folks stance on “420” (incl legal ization) issues? Even there I think there are ‘issues’ with the lungs taking in ‘smoke’ …

    .

  15. It’s amazing what some data cherry picking and manipulation can get you these days. It’s the golden age of science scams for money.

  16. SCheesman says:
    May 18, 2013 at 10:09 am
    People never stopped getting cancer from smoking, but it did stop getting warmer.
    ========================================================================
    Because BIG OIL is paying the sceptics to stop the warming.

  17. It should surprise no one that the alarmists think 0.22 percent (the actual percentage of scientists who believe in AGW, as measured by the signers of the Oregon Petition vs. the originators of the hoax) is exactly equal to 97 percent. You would expect that from the command of statistics and math that these people have exhibited (devastatingly demonstrated, for instance, by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, as described in A. W. Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion).

  18. One more add on: Our world “Justice System” is so busy trying to unwind the banking pryamid that it’s like their pants are on fire . . . let’s take Cyprus . . . http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/18/us-cyprus-parliament-idUSBRE92G03I20130318

    Euro zone urges Cyprus to spare smaller savers from bank levy

    “Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades, . . . . said . . . the tax was an alternative to a disorderly bankruptcy. It was painful, but “will eventually stabilize the economy and lead it to recovery”.

    But many legislators remain unconvinced.

    “Essentially parliament is called to legalize a decision to rob depositors blind, against every written and unwritten law,” said Yiannakis Omirou”

    The whole article is important to me as many think it’s fine to rob the others, but don’t touch what they “stole fair and square” and amassed in “private”.

    It’s why the what ‘we’ do before during and after Volcanoes, Earthquakes, Floods, Droughts, Tsunamis, Tornado’s, Hurricanes, Blizzards, Mudslides, and even Asteroids . . . is an important subject and an ongoing subject, as they are not going to go away, no matter what the “Climate Controllers” say.

    Our society and ‘our government’ has much more power to regulate our banking systems and our citizen’s well-being than ‘we’ will ever have in regulating the World Climate. . . . In my annotated humble opinion, of course.

  19. I bet the video was seen by more people here than on Al-Jazeera network. If they subscribe to Nielsen’s TV ratings they rarely if ever make them public.

  20. Laurie Bowen says:
    May 18, 2013 at 10:52 am
    “One more add on: Our world “Justice System” is so busy trying to unwind the banking pryamid that it’s like their pants are on fire . . . let’s take Cyprus . . . ”

    What? The system IS the hierarchical system of banks. Besides, the article is two months longs, and I won’t give a spoiler, you’d be surprised what happened in the meantime.

  21. Chad Wozniak says:
    May 18, 2013 at 10:49 am

    It should surprise no one that the alarmists think 0.22 percent (the actual percentage of scientists who believe in AGW, as measured by the signers of the Oregon Petition vs. the originators of the hoax) is exactly equal to 97 percent.

    I always wondered if they concentrated only on the denominator (97) and forgot the numerator (1).

    So in actuality, 1/97 = 1.03%, higher than your 0.22%, but much closer than the number Mikey keeps tossing out without any substantiation whatsoever.

    And these blokes consider themselves scientists! HA!

  22. “…But eventually the truth of what the science had to say became accepted (re tobacco). There are some positive signs that we are moving in that direction…” – M. Mann
    As usual he is talking out of his @rse.
    Everyone accepts that tobacco causes lung cancer, bladder cancer, heart disease in smokers but the holy grail was to prove it caused these diseases in non-smokers, The “scientists” did this with meta studies and bogus science that mixed up lung cancers only found in smokers with the type found in non-smokers and smokers. The motive was to ban smoking in public places which eventually happened.
    So what this proves beyond doubt is that Mann is a supporter of dodgy science and true to form he is producing his own!

  23. DirkH: You miss the point I was trying to make

    . . . . I try to keep up on world economics, currency wars, etc. . . . http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2013/05/14/eu-barnier-says-most-oppose-cyprus-bank-solution/
    It’s not the first financial meltdown.

    Just like climate and seasons; economies, markets, businesses etc. also have cycles, . . . Some cycles are behavioral and can be changed . . . Climatic cycles will not be changed . . . by humans. Even some behavioral cycles are caused by climatic cycles. . . in my observations . . .

    My point . . . . Our societies and ‘our governments’ has much more power to regulate our banking systems and our citizen’s well-being than ‘we’ will ever have in regulating the World Climate. . . .

    . . . .many think it’s fine to rob the others, but don’t touch what they “stole – fair and square” and amassed in “private”. Are you one of those that think that? If not, try not to be sooooo condensending. It is the hallmark of the person trying to “take the candy from the baby”!

  24. kramer says:
    May 18, 2013 at 11:56 am

    kramer: It’s bad all the way around, there are people out there that think the HAARP is a weather control device, that there are devices that can make earthquakes etc. . . and if that were true it would be a “grave” matter of national security. Flip the coin, and there is the story of the long emperor who defeated many because he claimed he could make the sun turn blood red or go dark . . . (an eclipse).

    We all know that famous quote . . . . . . . . . . “Knowledge is Power . . .
    but, not many know the rest of it which is . . . . & Ignorance is Control”

    It’s why there has been so much investment in an accurate climate model, as behaviors like the above continue on . . . for me it’s also way there is so much information on the internet is mis-information.

  25. With Nuccitelli sounding like Daffy Duck (and what will body-language experts make of his constant flick of the eyes to the top left/right?) and Mann showing what a policy advocate he is, rather than scientist, I’m afraid I couldn’t take more than half the video. It was nothing but propaganda – yet I got the feeling that the Al Jazeera anchor was leading them on….

  26. Laurie Bowen says:
    May 18, 2013 at 11:50 am
    “My point . . . . Our societies and ‘our governments’ has much more power to regulate our banking systems and our citizen’s well-being than ‘we’ will ever have in regulating the World Climate. . . .”

    Regulate my well-being, I already have that, it works like a charm -not for me but for the state-, I get paid for work and the state takes half my money (I’m in Germany), that’s before I pay VAT when I buy stuff, thank you very much.

    As for “refulating the banking system”, you could prohibit the central bankers to give free money to the banks, go ahead, I’m all for it (I know what will happen; but it will happen anyway.)

    • DirkH: It’s been a long haul of time when most people were abject peons and peonage was the scam of old, that is if you were not a slave or a subject giving all your productivity to the elite few.

      According to the stats America is now in the same place today. In the USA we have property tax, sales tax, payroll tax, income tax, (which was originally a profit tax that has morphed into a direct tax without apportionment for most people). The USA has a tax for every kind of transaction, and we still suffer from the “Widows Mite Paradox” (the authorities took all of what little she had, which went to the very rich Pharisees – new testament parable, when it was supposed to go to the widows, orphans and poor)

      My assertion is that America abandoned some of the basic principles of our founding documents and mis-educates many so we now suffer what I coin as “Widows Mite Paradox”, because we made our “profit tax” much flatter and not as progressive as it was. In my analysis, it started during the Korean War and culminated at the end of G.W. Bush’s Presidency (2008).

      We have a decent tax system overall but it’s has become unbalanced and corrupted by some who suffer from unfettered Greed which they hail a Capitalism and the gullible that believed them that . . . {suffer from unfettered Greed hailed as Capitalism}.

      The same conditions exists that precipitated the Civil War.

      There are good people trying to find a way out of this mess without precipitating war. Of which seems to be skipping around the globe because of the principles mentioned above.

      http://www.rte.ie/blogs/business/2013/05/17/bank-crisis-rule-book-entirely-rewritten/ seem to be some who are trying to find better answers but, it’s a constant struggle. I am not in charge of anything or anyone but, in my little ways I try to make a difference. I found out a long time ago, many times it’s the little things that can make a big difference in life.

      For that, we could start a conversation about viruses . . . but, CO2 does not belong anywhere in the conversation of causing climate change at this time. . . . .(mentioned that because it is a little thing)

  27. Does appearing on tv to talk about controversial issues make you a public figure?

    Of course, I’m sure mike appeared on tv against his will, he s after all an involuntary public figure.

  28. I hope that those who are new to WUWT will click on the link above labelled “running away” and read that post and its comments, too.

    My small part in verbal jousting with Dr Mann a year ago in Disneyland was great fun.

    I am still amazed that Dr Mann showed the slide of a polar bear sitting on a small ice floe.

  29. Robuk says:
    May 18, 2013 at 1:28 pm
    “sorry wrong link, had trouble with my heating, try this,”

    Thanks. The most amusing part for me was when Kaiser described the big PR machine of the Koch brothers while talking to two Rockefeller Foundation funded salespeople. And for the background of the foundations, just look up Quigley’s Tragedy And Hope.

  30. GlynnMhor says:
    May 18, 2013 at 9:24 am

    “Some of the people who disagree with us today were on the unpopular side of other issues in the past, therefore all of the people who disagree with us today must be wrong”

    I’m not sure to what logical fallacy that corresponds.

    Argumentum ad politicum

  31. Wow … when does the campaign against “Big 420″ advocates start Michael Mann (speaking of ‘smoking’ and citing tobacco vendors as the culprit)?

    According to The American Lung AssociationMarijuana smoke contains a greater amount of carcinogens than tobacco smoke. In addition, marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, further increasing the lungs exposure to carcinogenic smoke.

    Any comment Mann?

    .

  32. The earth is flat…

    The sun revolves around the earth….

    Two of many 97% consensus….

    Climate science is young…

    The number of variables large…

    What are the statistical odds of Mann having gotten the one and only important variable…

    It appears that his own models would say no…

  33. Laurie Bowen says:
    May 18, 2013 at 1:29 pm
    “My assertion is that America abandoned some of the basic principles of our founding documents and mis-educates many so we now suffer what I coin as “Widows Mite Paradox”, because we made our “profit tax” much flatter and not as progressive as it was. In my analysis, it started during the Korean War and culminated at the end of G.W. Bush’s Presidency (2008). ”

    Why don’t you call it by its name; what you are talking about are not “profit taxes” but income taxes. Everyone can look that up. By the way, what’s wrong with profit? You used the word “stealing”; and you put scare quotes around “private”. Now, understand this: My money is my money; it is private; it is not yours for the taking. There is a reason it is mine; I have sold my time and got currency units in exchange; printed paper backed by nothing. Ramp up the theft and I might just decide that it is not worth my time to work for the pittance that your ilk will leave me with.

    As you hate profits, you are probably a huge fan of the USSR. Companies were not outlawed in the USSR; profits were. So they had shortages. Remove the incentive to be productive -that and nothing else is profit- and you get shortages.

  34. The CO2 crowd is far nearer big tobacco – any report indicating that that they have it wrong, or should be questioned, increases the stridency of their replies. It will get worse as the data continues to fail to support their premise. They are institutionalized and have much to lose.

  35. The extreme AGW theory is incorrect.

    Polls, holding ones breath, jumping up and down, manipulating data, blocking the publication of papers that do not support the ‘message’, discussion of the history of tobacco, media specials, personal attacks, or any other lame attempt to distract will not change that fact.
    Quoting the percentage of scientists that believe something – it is not clear specifically what they believe, any warming as opposed to dangerous warming – does not change the fact that current observations concerning planetary temperature change, the paleo climatic record, and related analysis supports the assertion that the majority of the 20th century warming was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes.

    It appears to be a fact that the planet resists (negative feedback) greenhouse gas forcing changes by increasing planetary cloud cover in the tropics. If it is fact that the planet resists rather than amplifies greenhouse gas forcing (any greenhouse gas) then based on the IPCC’s own analysis the warming due to doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be less than 1C. If that is correct, then there is no danger or risk of excessive warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

    In fact, as the majority of the warming due to doubling of atmospheric CO2 will occur at high latitudes the biosphere will expand. There will be an expansion of flora and fauna due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

    Increases in atmospheric CO2 are beneficial to the biosphere. The optimum level of CO2 for plants is 1200 ppm. There is for example a 40% increase in cereal crop yield for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

    The current level of CO2 is 400 ppm. The forcing due to CO2 is logarithmic. Mathematically based on the fact that CO2 forcing is logarithmic (not a theory a fact) it takes twice the increase in CO2 levels to cause the same forcing. The forcing from 280 ppm to 560 ppm is the same as the forcing from 560 ppm to 1150 ppm.

    If we burn all the fossil fuel on the planet atmosphere CO2 will increase to around 1000 ppm. Atmospheric CO2 is currently increasing at 2 ppm per year. At that rate, it would take 300 years to reach 1000 ppm.

    However, it is expected CO2 emissions will increase. Based on growing energy use in third world countries we might reach 1000 ppm in roughly 150 years.

    The following is a brief over view the facts concerning ‘climate’ change.
    1) There is in the paleoclimatic record cyclic warming and cooling which occurs both in the interglacial period and in the glacial period. The paleo climatic specialists call the cyclic warming and cooling a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle. The late Gerald Bond has able to track 23 of the D-O cycles through the interglacial period and into the glacial period. The D-O cycles have a variable periodicity of 950 years, 1450 years, and 1950 years. The late Gerald Bond and other scientists have found that the D-O cycle correlates with solar magnetic cycle changes.

    Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.

    http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond%20et%20al%202001.pdf

    Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene (William: Holocene is the name for this interglacial period)

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml

    Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
    Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.

    https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74103.pdf

    The Sun-Climate Connection by John A. Eddy, National Solar Observatory
    Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate during the Holocene
    A more recent oceanographic study, based on reconstructions of the North Atlantic climate during the Holocene epoch, has found what may be the most compelling link between climate and the changing Sun: in this case an apparent regional climatic response to a series of prolonged episodes of suppressed solar activity, like the Maunder Minimum, each lasting from 50 to 150 years8.

    The paleoclimatic data, covering the full span of the present interglacial epoch, are a record of the concentration of identifiable mineral tracers in layered sediments on the sea floor of the northern North Atlantic Ocean. The tracers originate on the land and are carried out to sea in drift ice. Their presence in seafloor samples at different locations in the surrounding ocean reflects the southward expansion of cooler, ice-bearing water: thus serving as indicators of changing climatic conditions at high Northern latitudes. The study demonstrates that the sub-polar North Atlantic Ocean has experienced nine distinctive expansions of cooler water in the past 11,000 years, occurring roughly every 1000 to 2000 years, with a mean spacing of about 1350 years.

    Each of these cooling events coincides in time with strong, distinctive minima in solar activity, based on contemporaneous records of the production of 14C from tree-ring records and 10Be from deep-sea cores. For reasons cited above, these features, found in both 14C and 10Be records, are of likely solar origin, since the two records are subject to quite different non-solar internal sources of variability. The North Atlantic finding suggests that solar variability exerts a strong effect on climate on centennial to millennial time scales, perhaps through changes in ocean thermohaline circulation that in turn amplify the direct effects of smaller variations in solar irradiance.

    2) The specific regions of the planet that warm and cool the most during the D-O cycle is the Northern hemisphere and particularly high latitudes in the northern hemisphere.

    http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/courselocker/PaleoClimate/Bond%20et%20al%201999%20%20N.%20Atlantic%201-2.PDF

    3) The regions that warmed in the 20th century are the same regions that warmed during the past D-O cycles.

    4) The greenhouse gas forcing mechanism predicted that the majority of the warming would occur in the tropics as this is the region of the planet where there is the most amount of long wave radiation emitted to space and there is a large amount of water in this region to amplify the CO2 forcing.

    5) Lindzen and Choi found by analyzing top of the atmosphere radiation Vs ocean surface temperature changes that the planet resists temperature changes by an increase or decrease in planetary cloud cover in the tropics thereby reflecting more or less radiation off into space. Based on Lindzen and Choi’s results and the fact that there is no observed tropical tropospheric warming (the extreme greenhouse forcing theory requires that greenhouse gas forcing – any greenhouse gas – will cause there to be an increase in water vapor in the tropical troposphere at around 8 km above the surface of the planet. This increase in water vapor will amplify the CO2 forcing. There is no observed tropical tropospheric warming in the last 15 years.

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

    http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf

    6) As there is no observed tropical tropospheric and planetary cloud cover increases and decreases to resist warming, the majority of 20th century warming was caused by something
    else besides the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Shaviv.pdf

    “We examine the results linking cosmic ray flux (CRF) variations to global climate change. …then proceed to study various periods over which there are estimates for radiative forcing, temperature change and CRF variations relative to today. These include the Phanerozoic as a whole, the Cretaceous, the Eocene, the Last Glacial Maximum, the 20th century, as well as the 11 year cycle…
    Subject to the above caveats and those described in the text, the CRF/climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47 +/-0.19C, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes. Without any effect of cosmic rays, the increase in solar luminosity would correspond to an increased temperature 0.16C +/-C.”

    7) There has been 16 years in which atmospheric CO2 has risen and there is not increase in planetary temperature.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/

    8) The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. In the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.

    http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

    Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years by S. K. Solanki, I. G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schussler & J. Beer

    Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades. (William: The authors considered total solar irradiation TSI which is not the major mechanism by which the sun modulate planetary temperature. The mechanism is modulation of low level and high level clouds. During both Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle and the Heinrich events the mechanism is inhibited as the solar magnetic cycle is interrupted. (i.e. Galactic cosmic rays increase however there is not an increase in planetary clouds.))

    9) Solar cycle 24 is an abrupt slow down of the solar magnetic cycle.
    At the above site, the following graph, a comparison of the past solar cycles 21, 22, and 23 to the new cycle 24 is provided. That graph is update every six months or so.

    This is a graph, that is also located at the above site, that compares solar cycle 24 to the weakest solar magnetic cycles in the last 150 years.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0784v1

    When the solar magnetic cycle slows down there is 10 to 12 year delay before there is cooling in the high Arctic regions.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3256

    Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures
    The long temperature series at Svalbard (Longyearbyen) show large variations, and a positive trend since its start in 1912. During this period solar activity has increased, as indicated by shorter solar cycles.

    The temperature at Svalbard is negatively correlated with the length of the solar cycle. The strongest negative correlation is found with lags 10 to 12 years. These models show that 60 per cent of the annual and winter temperature variations are explained by solar activity. For the spring, summer and fall temperatures autocorrelations in the residuals exists, and additional variables may contribute to the variations. These models can be applied as forecasting models.

    We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5 ±2C from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009 to 2020) and a decrease in the winter temperature of ≈6 C.
    A systematic study by Solheim, Stordahl and Humlum [15] (called SSH11 in the following) of the correlation between SCL and temperature lags in 11 years intervals, for 16 data sets (William: solar cycles), revealed that the strongest correlation took place 10 to 12 years after the mid-time of a solar cycle, for most of the locations included. In this study the temperature series from Svalbard (Longyearbyen) was included, and a relation between the previous sunspot cycle length (PSCL) and the temperature in the following cycle was determined. This relation was used to predict that the yearly average temperature, which was -4.2 C in sunspot cycle (SC) 23, was estimated to decrease to -7.8 C in SC24, with a 95% confidence interval of -6.0 to -9.6C [15]. SSH11[15] found that stations in the North Atlantic (Torshavn, Akureyri and Svalbard), had the highest correlations.
    William: Latitude and longitude of Svalbard (Longyearbyen)
    78.2167° N, 15.6333° E Svalbard Longyearbyen, Coordinates
    10) Based on points 1 through 9 the planet will now cool.
    If and when the high Arctic and the Northern hemisphere starts to cool, the general public and the media will be interviewing the so called ‘skeptics’ to discuss the cooling phase of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle or a Heinrich event.

  36. As a fan of free expression, I luv Al Jazeera! Even if it were available where I live, I probably wouldn’t tune in. But then again, I’m probably not in their demographic.

    It’s a product that has a particular bias/target market. Just like the rest of them.

  37. @Rbravery – no doubt another public appearance against his will. It must be awful to keep being forced to jet around the world, to keep being forced to accept large sums of money and/or hospitality, to keep being forced to participate in debates on issues of public concern, and to keep being forced to verbally attack people whose views you disagree with. Poor Michael Mann, he has my deepest sympathy.

  38. My advice to Mikey: Milk the system for all it’s worth while the milking is good. When the general public catches onto the CAGW scam, the scam leaders will turn on each other like co-conspirators being offered immunity. Mikey will need gallons of money to pay the psychiatrists and psychologists to explain to him what happened and to soothe his burdened soul. On second thought, Mikey will only need money for psychiatrists–I’m sure Lewandowsky will provide his services pro bono.

  39. Why would Al-Jazeera, owned by Mid-East Oil powers, provide a platform on their US TV network for anti-fossil fuel activists like Michael Mann and Dana Nuccitelli? It would seem self-defeating until you realize that their real purpose is to defeat or further delay the XL pipeline which will bring Canadian Oil to the US, and delay expansion of domestic US Natural Gas fracking and US Coal production.

    Al-Jazeera understands that the US will continue to use massive quantities of fossil fuels because conservation and carbon-free or carbon-neutral fuels are insufficient and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Thus, it is either Mid-East Oil, which comes at a cost in American blood to defend governments in an unstable region, or US/Canadian Oil, Gas, and Coal that will create jobs here in North America and make us less dependent upon Al-Jazeera’s sponsors.

    In this Al-Jazeera program, Mann and Nuccitelli argue against the XL pipeline and fracking, inadvertently extending US dependence upon Mid-East Oil, and thus helping the owners of Al-Jazeera.

    Ira

  40. The big oil funded slur is so often trotted out with total impunity I continue to be pretty gobsmacked by it. It seems extremely absent to me. Do people correlate this obvious bullshit with the remainder of the assertions of CAGW? b
    Both video’s in the comment stream are almost identical; warmists talking to themselves and wondering why “the public” doesn’t agree with them…it must be the big bad fossil fuel industry and their disinformation campaigns! Not the “Reality Drops” and the “consensus” websites…..doh?!

  41. Does this site get better numbers? Olberman is long gone. He was the number 1 show. So 47,000 is a good target. Depending on the day the show was on counts too. Friday thru Sunday cable news channels have lower ratings.

    ———————————

    If it was not for Olbermann’s show, which averaged a total of 177,000 viewers per night, Current TV likely would have missed Time Warner Cable’s viewership benchmark, said one of the sources.

    The appointment of Spitzer, another outspoken news commentator, led to speculation among Time Warner Cable executives that Current is courting controversy to attract viewers.

    Based on the 47,000 total viewers who tuned into the initial broadcasts of Spitzer’s “Viewpoint,” the source said that “just enough people are tuning in to keep Current over the quota.”

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/05/us-currenttv-timewarnercable-idUSBRE83404P20120405

  42. GlynnMhor;
    The obsession probably comes from the need to reinforce rationalization of the massive disinformation campaign that sold the “second-hand smoke menace”.

  43. Man oh Man

    I could only take 7 minutes or so of this one sided diatribe to give up on it. Balanced debate my eye ! Give me a break.

    I do admire Al Jazeera’s presenter for his Prince Charles’ish British accent, well done, but unfortunately a real turn off to those of us that were born in Blighty but don’t speak like him Old Son.

  44. Tobacco, “global warming” and Al Jazeera. Spot the common factor. Yes, that’s right: Al Gore.

  45. Wasn’t Mann being represented by a “big tobacco” lawyer for one of his suits?

  46. TheInquirer says:
    May 19, 2013 at 2:19 am
    “This site descends further into twisted bitterness and irrelevance by the hour.”

    Well the traffic rank declined over 2 years from 20,000 to 30,000. But I guess that just shows the decline of global warming as a news item. Shall we look at, hm, skepticalscience? They’re somewhere beyond 100,000 so they barely show up in Alexa’s graph:

    http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/skepticalscience.com

    Same for realclimate.

    I think Dana and Gavin will not be amused by your assessment of their relevance.

Comments are closed.