Watch Michael Mann’s self aggrandizing AGU presentation

He’s still pushing the same old stuff; Mannian certified hockey sticks, evil skeptics, and a persecution complex to make up for his own lack of transparency.

This is from the AGU Chapman conference, where most all of the leading alarmists got together and provided a support group for each other. Apparently, they’ll let anyone give a presentation, as such notables a self admitted document thief Peter Gleick, Crock of the Week guy Peter Sinclair, and UK policy wonk Bob Ward all gave presentations.

You can see the complete list here: http://www.youtube.com/user/AGUvideos/videos

I welcome readers extracting some key points of interest.

Of course, I was denied the opportunity to present as I never was notified of the event signup until it was too late, even though I’m a member of AGU. Just as well, they probably would not have let me finish anything I presented.

About these ads

50 thoughts on “Watch Michael Mann’s self aggrandizing AGU presentation

  1. According to a friend of mine who is an atmospheric physicist and AGU member, the general makeup of the membership as a whole is about 1/3 for AGW, 1/3 not buying it, and 1/3 neutral.

  2. I don’t understand how the handle on the hockey stick could ever have been presented as so smooth, it is hard to maintain temperature that flat in a closed room.

  3. “Of course, I was denied the opportunity to present …”

    I guess if ever Anthony will be allowed to speak at the AGU, that day will mark the official end of the CAGW hysteria.

  4. Look out for Rommian extrapolations of the Marcotte&Shakun unrobustick in Mann’s presentation.

  5. I noticed that Mann is getting very hefty. BIG Mann. Most all of us struggle with weight, so I’ll I’m saying that it’s just the hypocrisy of it in Mann’s case. Keeping a small carbon footprint means avoiding all that overindulgence. You could say Mann is one of the biggest proponents of having a small carbon footprint. It’s kind of like Gore and all jetting all over the world and living the high life in their mansions, all the while preaching that the rest of us cut back and live an austere life.

  6. What a waste of a conference registration fee (and my lunch time today). One-third of an hour of self-promotion and ad hominem attacks with no value whatsoever in developing any kind of reasonable discussion on climate change today … What? The science was settled long ago? Sorry, I forgot.

  7. For instance the Central England temperature graph linked below has a range of 0C to -0.5C over the period from 1772 to 1930, then from 1980 to present a peak of +1C followed by a return below +0.5C. Especially when looking at the outliers, there is plenty of hot years near present levels. Mann’s filter seems to be defeated for the last 50-100 years.

    -T

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

  8. Anthony, how could you say the’d let anybody speak…It’s not like a quack shrink like Lew would be given a platform after demonstrating his ignorance, would he?


    cn

    oops, my err.

  9. RE:vukcevic says:
    July 5, 2013 at 10:23 am

    I like your AMO graph. It appears Mann was just finishing his graph when he hiccuped.

    Did Mann mention Briffa’s new graph, or Briffa at all?

  10. Seems Michael man is also now helping out with Campaign contributions now foe a canidat what is all in on Climate Change high. Any climate Scientist that is an activist will never tell the truth and a valid hypothesis.

    Michael E. Mann ‏@MichaelEMann 4 Jul
    Thanks HubbleFan. U can donate to Terry’s campaign right here: https://donate.terrymcauliffe.com/page/contribute/donate … RT @1stHubbleFan @TerryMcAuliffe How can I donate?

  11. DJ writes

    According to a friend of mine who is an atmospheric physicist and AGU member, the general makeup of the membership as a whole is about 1/3 for AGW, 1/3 not buying it, and 1/3 neutral.

    I’m a long-time AGU member, and I have no idea how anyone would know the breakdown of who-thinks-what in the AGU, as it is too large an organization to understand that without a decent survey, which I haven’t seen. That said, what is quite clear is that virtually 100% of the folks running AGU are at least nominally convinced that AGW is a serious problem. EOS reflects such views, although not all the journals are so obviously committed to the propaganda.

    I am actually embarrassed to be associated with AGU these days.

  12. “This isn’t controversial science, this is just nearly two-century-old physics and chemistry”.
    Big fat lie, told by (what else) a big fat liar. I can’t stand listening to him. He repulses me.

  13. I looked at the spaghetti derivatives of the hockey stick in this article

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/26/noticeable-climate-change/

    Unfortunately, using 40 year smoothed figures means the Spaghetti completely misses the huge decadal variability. See figure 4.

    The spaghetti only shows variability when the instrumental temperature age is spliced on.

    I am trying to apply the data to the original Hockey stick but I cant find the raw data. Anyone know where it might be found?
    tonyb

  14. Chuck Nolan says:
    July 5, 2013 at 10:56 am

    Lewandowsky: I’m going to start out with my conclusions

    Is that how he does all his research?

  15. From the Urban Dictionary:
    “circle-jerk
    The practice of expressing emotions, feelings, and impractical sentiments as a means of bonding or gaining appreciation for the members of your team. Related activities may include, but are not limited to making lists, repeatedly affirming one’s consent with another persons already expressed opinion, etc.
    Oftentimes ‘circle-jerking’ will occur during meeting times when people feel the need to express their own opinions over and over for the sake of hearing their own voice.”

    When the shoe fits……..

  16. Life is too short to watch these clowns: yamal supertree is dead, so Mann’s Hockey stick.

  17. @Billy Liar

    Brilliant. Thank you. I have forwarded it as a closing comment to the dialogue I have been having with a rep of the University of Bristol regarding this charlatan.

  18. Vacuous presentation. This is a meeting of the AGU? Mann’s presentation is about Mann coupled with a roaming historical review of newspaper editorial pages . Members of the AGU paid money to hear this guy editorialize about old editorials? Where’s the science…Oh I forgot…it’s settled based upon consensus…according to that logic three math professors sat in the faculty lounge one day. The first math prof said, ” 2+2=5″. The second math professor said,”2+2=22″. The third math professor said lets all agree that the correct answer is the average of the two results. So rather than argue and offend each other or explore other possibilities, they form a consensus that 2+2=13.5 and went on to the next topic…if the consensus is right then how come all the models obtain differing results? And oh by the way show me one , just one model today that has done any regression testing that succeeded in validating any model…hasn’t happened.

  19. Caleb says: July 5, 2013 at 11:03 am
    It appears Mann was just finishing his graph when he hiccuped.
    Did Mann mention Briffa’s new graph, or Briffa at all?

    Hi
    Not, in the reference documents

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2009b/mann2009b.html

    I ‘de-trended’ his data from 1860 onwards

    http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iamo_manna.txt

    it wasn’t a hiccup, more likely a ‘defibrillator shock’

    http://climexp.knmi.nl/ps2pdf.cgi?file=data/iamo_mann.eps.gz

  20. Michael who?

    Wasn’t there a climatologist by that name who did something bizarre and unnatural with trees a while back? Also played hockey I think.

    I wonder whatever happened to him – vanished without trace …..

  21. “lack of transparency.”
    poor choice of words. lack of ability and/or lack of intellect would be far more accurate.
    disgraceful individual is their Mr Mann..
    regards

  22. Thank you. Eight minutes was as much as I could manage.

    “..so this curve which is essentially irrelevant.” He asserted that more than once, then continued to present it as meaningful “as far back as we can go”.

    “unprecedented”

    “unprecedented”

    “as far back as we can go”

    drone drone drone…

    tobacco industry

    drone drone drone…

  23. Although in the midst of a holiday weekend in the U.S., I think it revealing that only 32 comments have appeared as of this posting in response to this thread on Mann and colleagues’s presentations. Might this portend a growing insignificance of this physicist, in the eyes of those who frequent this and similar sites?

  24. Yes, I often hear the science is settled. I’ve asked different people to quantify the “amount” settled and have gotten from 75% and up. However, no corresponding decrease in funding is considered necessary.

    If the science is settled, where is all the money going?

  25. If you put 20 screaming fanatics in a room with 80 calm balanced and reasonable people, the screaming fanatics are likely to end up running the show.

  26. Dr. Mann was given an opportunity for a presentation by the AGU. He used this opportunity to present a political diatribe.

    Where was the science?

    Sad that scientists were exposed to this drivel and even sadder that some applauded at the end.

  27. I wonder the same thing, Steven Curry. He’s not getting support from the clean-up hitters, just the low end of the lineup amongst the alarmist commentariat.
    ==================

  28. I can’t listen. How can a so called scientist drone on without any reference to data or evidence? He is completely irrelevant.

  29. Has Mann not yet noticed that the future temperatures predicted by his hockey stick have failed to materialise? It was OK when he was predicting the future but now that that time has come and gone….!!
    Just one of those unlucky soldiers who were on the “Front lines” during the “climate wars” and never quite got over it. Forever yearning for the good old days when the year 2000 was in the future.

  30. I turned off as soon as he started claiming that people were denying climate change is occurring. How can we get it into the thick skulls of these people that very, very few of us deny that the climate is changing; I have little doubt we all acknowledge that it is changing – as it has over the many millennia of the life of this planet – what we doubt (i.e. are sceptical about) is that this change has been caused solely by human use of fossil fuels. If they cannot get that simple fact right, how can we trust them to get more complicated facts right?

  31. Well, he’s getting better at this. I could see how someone unfamiliar with the subject matter could be sucked in.

    For any “newbies” to the subject that might be lurking about here’s a few of the things wrong with the presentation (yes, I watched the whole thing):

    1) He misrepresents the consensus from the general to the specific and even onto the desired response. Yes, there is a consensus based on physics and chemistry that generally increased CO2 should cause some warming, but there’s no consensus that that warming would be of any particular magnitude or how much warming is truly attributable to man’s activities or certainly not what (if anything) we should do about it.

    2) He continues to promulgate the myth that there is a well-organized and funded climate denial machine funded by of all things the fossil fuel industry. The fossil fuel industry couldn’t care less; they will not be harmed by any sort of regulations attempting to curb CO2. They’ll just transfer the cost to customers. No, the real losers in these schemes to reduce CO2 emissions are always the poor. The people standing up against this nonsense are champions for the poor and get little to no (most likely negative) payment for their trouble, not to mention ridiculed fallaciously.

    3) He confounds tobacco smoking with second hand smoke. Patrick Michaels and some others that are saying global warming isn’t as bad as some people are making it out to be rightly pointed out that second (and third) hand smoke isn’t as bad as some people make it out to be.

    4) He doesn’t mention the Wegman report which completely destroys the methodology used to produce the hockey stick. A solid report “discredited” by finding some material irrelevant to the conclusions within its introduction that wasn’t properly cited.

    5) He keeps using the word unprecedented with respect to at most a couple thousand years as if it has any meaning in geologic time scales. Come on. It’s not even a blink of an eye to the grand scheme of things.

    6) He characterizes Oklahoma as the “hottest state”. Uh, no, it doesn’t even make the top ten. Perhaps it has had the greatest anomaly from some previous period, but that’s not what he says; that’s demonstrated inaccuracy in communication of facts (not trustworthy).

  32. Undoubtedly, Mann supports Obama’s climate change policies which will probably add a couple of trillion dollars to the national debt. Out grand children will be faced with not only a hundred thousand broken, unrepairable windmills and millions of worn out solar cells, but they will be so far in debt that they won’t be able to afford coal. And after the last windmill breaks down, will your grand children ever see birds again?

  33. Bob Hope’s signature song was “Thanks for the Memories.” Bing Crosby’s signature song was “I’m Dreaming of a White Christmas.” Without a doubt, Michael Mann’s signature and theme song, which should be played prior to one of his speeches, is “Send in the Clowns.” Now I ask you, could any lyrics more accurately introduce a Mikey presentation than those of Send in the Clowns?

    Don’t you love farce? My fault I fear
    I thought that you’d want what I want
    Sorry my dear but where are the clowns?
    There ought to be clowns, quick send in the clowns

    What a surprise, who could foresee?
    I’ve come to feel about you what you felt about me
    Why only now when I see that you’ve drifted away
    What a surprise, what a cliché?

    Isn’t it rich, isn’t it queer?
    Losing my timing this late in my career
    And where are the clowns? Quick send in the clowns
    Don’t bother they’re here

  34. Russell says:

    “What you say is largely contradicted by the video”

    Technically, what I said largely contradicts the video. There’s a difference.

    Please provide citation or link to where Delingpole calls for Mann’s execution as Mann claims in the video. You realize, of course, the absence of such a citation or link would contradict the video or as you seem to view the world be contradicted by the video.

    [Reply: Sorry, but 'Russell' will not be providing any citations. He is persona non grata here due to his many vile comments in the past. ~mod.]

  35. Thanks, for posting how scientists, and science in general, has been under assault. Interference of personal beliefs, and politics, should not factor in how the science is conducted and debated. And the persecution of these scientists is ridiculous.

  36. Dr. Mann reminds me of some college acquaintences, the ubiquitous “smartest guy in the room”, well presented in the movie Good Will Hunting, available at the above link.

  37. This a late post, so maybe no one will notice it.

    In the Mann AGU presentation, he presents his infamous 1998/99 hockey-stick graph alongside Marcott and Sakun’s recent graph derived from ocean and lake sediments, which also has a sharp 20th-century hockey stick. However, Steve MacIntryre demolished M & S’s paper thoroughly a couple of months ago. I guess Mikey didn’t notice.

Comments are closed.