Robert Scheaffer reports from the meeting via email:
Mann just told TAM (The Amazing Meeting of the Skeptics Society) that there has been no pause in Global Warming, and says claims that there has been are just ‘Cherry Picking’.
Also he used Marcott et al. as proof that his Hockey Stick is valid.
Surely he must know that the authors themselves disavow that conclusion!! Like a creationist, he uses arguments he knows to be false, but the audience doesn’t.
He did not take any questions, however very few of the other speakers did either.
Hopefully we’ll have video to post here soon.
No word yet what Penn and Teller think.
UPDATE: here is a photo of James Randi and Mike Mann. Mike looks a bit starstruck.
This might make a good caption contest.
UPDATE2: I’m actually in Houston tonight, and dashed off this posting earlier on my way to a meeting, and in my haste neglected to mention that the report was from Robert Scheaffer, one of the speakers there and I added the links to WUWT articles. That oversight has since been fixed. The photo above is also his. -Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Is he deliberately lying? Or is he delusional? Does he think the pause is a temporary, difficult to explain phenomenon, but he will be proven right in the end? Or does he genuinely deny the evidence in front of him? Perhaps he believes declining temperatures are a big oil conspiracy?
When does he predict it will no longer be possible to show declining temperatures since 2002?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/trend
Inquiring minds would like to know.
What is going through his head when he says things like that? Does he think the pause is a temporary blip, that all he has to do is bluff it out until it ends?
The bully says “Yor stoopid you arrr”.. Imagine, who is really the stupid one.
The bully accuses his victim what he, himself is, (or does).
Tap dancing waiting for proof which never comes. The sign of some one desperate to have his dogma accepted as proof which flies in the face of empirical evidence. Pretty sad that he continues to discount real world evidence and instead demands that his belief in a failed set of models is all that is needed to change the entire worlds opinion. – Sir Boab Tree.
He might also have a problem with Brasil’s airline http://www.tam.com.br/b2c/vgn/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=97981ed526b72210VgnVCM1000003752070aRCRD
When it will be called the Mannopause, he might accept the inconvenient facts. His name will live on for ever then, just like the Maunder Minimum or Dalton Minimum! What else could he possibly want? (Besides a genuine Nobel Price maybe?)
To warm, or not to warm, that is the question.
After the last grand El Niño, on 1998 the Earth stopped warming and started to stay put, statistical analysis shows no significant warming for a longer period, 13 to 16 years?
He’s a buffoon… nothing more, nothing less.
He leaps and squeals for a banana. Don’t feed him, you’ll just encourage him.
How long can he maintain the big lie? Like all pathological liars, the doo-doo will eventually hit the fan. What is needed is for quick witted, well informed people to go to these meetings and interject when a blatant falsehood comes up.This should hopefully occur about a third of the way in to the presentation. A group of us overheard the backroom crew of a warmist love-fest event say “Those deniers, they are so well informed and just one good throw away line ruins the whole evening.” Even better is if you “just happened to have” your own supporting document with you. The offending speaker of the BS would not have a leg to stand on. If they are truly an expert, it would be assumed by the audience that they have read your supporting/argument destroying article. The credibility of everything that speaker has said before or after will then be brought in to question. Remember, the Left are paranoid about being found out.
It is remarkable that he sticks to his fiction/fantasy in the face of facts and data. I guess he’ll be the last one left on AGW ship.
What Mann is displaying unfortunately is common to all mankind and it’s not him being a sneaky toad – it’s cognitive dissonance. Like most people, Mann believes himself to be capable and competent and to believe evidence disproving CAGW would mean he isn’t capable and competent; therefore to reduce the dissonance he ignores that the contrary evidence doesn’t exist and that people who are against the CAGW hypothesis are in the employ of Big Oil.
We like to believe that scientists are all about the data but believing that is shortsighted – scientists are people first and as such have all the human failings. This is how science has been from the very beginning. Max Planck famously said science advances one funeral at a time – those expecting Michael Mann to suddenly see the light I expect will be disappointed. Well after the CAGW phenomenon has passed from the public eye, Mann will still maintain that it’s real and it’s just a matter of time (see Ehrlich, Paul). All the evidence to the contrary will never convince him otherwise. I almost feel bad for the guy… almost.
If we don’t feed the monkey, won’t it just throw feces at us?
GlynnMhor says: “If we don’t feed the monkey, won’t it just throw [poop] at us?
If you don’t feed him, he’ll run out sooner or later.
With fingers in ears, shouting “Nya nya nya, I can’t hear you”, he denies the reality. Would this classify him as an evildoer denier?
” says claims that there has been are just ‘Cherry Picking’.”
lol. Yes, if by “cherry picking”, he means the 15+ most recent years, during which carbon levels continued to rise.
Even the NCDC shows a -0.02°C/Decade trend since 2001 to 2012.
11 years of very slight cooling.
See http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/13/1880-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=2001&endtrendyear=2012
And the hockey stick wasn’t cherry picking? Also I said that global warming wasn’t happening and for the last 17 years it hasn’t, so, do I get Mann’s salary and funding?
Do you think that he might suffer mild Tourette Syndrome ?
Richard Alley’s AGU video has a nice bit on the lies about a pause. Mann is correct, warming does continue.
Looks Michael Mann has been taking lessons from the Argument Clinic:
(See beginning at about 1:20)
“Like a creationist, he uses arguments he knows to be false, but the audience doesn’t.”
Anthony, I must protest. Any creationist in particular? Any argument in particular? This seems an overgeneralization and, well, a cheap shot.
I am a creationist in that I believe in special creation. I do not lie to my audience (don’t really have one though I don’t shy away from discussing the subject), don’t dogmatically believe in a young earth or a creation process devoid of evolutionary elements. There are certainly many creationists like me, and I’m sure many are frequent readers and contributors to your excellent blog. It is unfair to characterize us as Mann-like. Not to say there are NO creationists who fit your description.
How about: “Like SOME creationists…”, or, yet more apropos, “Like MANY POLITICIANS…”?
Is he in danger of becoming the Marian Keech (Dorothy Martin) of climate change?
The TAM folks fancy themselves as skeptics and critical thinkers, and in many ways they are, but they have a curious blind spot when it comes to doubting their own abilities and questioning their prejudices. I read it as the hubris of very intelligent people being too impressed with their abilities and needing to have their own special club.
“Surely he must know that the authors themselves disavow that conclusion!! Like a creationist, he uses arguments he knows to be false, but the audience doesn’t.”
The authors of M. et al actually said that their reconstruction was indistinguishable from some of Mann’s, and there are many other modern-reaching reconstructions that have confirmed the hockey stick. If you want to throw out the relative uniqueness of the modern temperature spike, you have to do stupid things like assuming CET is representative of global temps.
I do appreciate your acknowledgment of creationists as the bottom-feeders of even the pseudoscientist community, but how do you think Denning and Spencer are going to take that?
Mann has a bad case of confirmation bias.
He gives a speech in which he states what he wants to believe, sends himself a copy and says: “See! I told you I was right!”
The Mann isn’t a scientist. He’s a hack.