Dr. Michael Mann’s dishonest political messaging

When something is this ridiculous, all you can do is point and laugh. Michael Mann lends his image for political purposes in campaign video for called “Crusades Against Science 101″ with Professor Michael Mann”. Here’s the laughable imagery:

Norfolk_sea_level_flood

The imagery is dishonest. I challenge Dr. Mann to find any home in Norfolk that looks like that due to sea level rise. Just one will do. And no, a photoshop tricked-out house like your buds at NCDC used won’t qualify.

Dr. Mann seems to have no problem lending his image for political purposes, as this frame from the video shows: 

mann_vote_VA

The video footnote says:

Dr. Michael Mann is a world-renowned climate scientist and former University of Virginia professor. This animated interview recounts the grievances Prof. Mann faced at the hand of gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli, and details the threats to all Virginians caused by climate change.

“Vote climate in this election, Virginia’s future depends on it.”
http://bit.ly/1aghYBs

Anything for “the cause” I suppose. Dr. Mann once referred to me as a “denier for dollars” (he imagines huge budgets at my disposal, but reality differs), I suppose it is only fair to return the favor by pointing out his involvement as a political science shill for VA gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe.

Here is the video:

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

141 Responses to Dr. Michael Mann’s dishonest political messaging

  1. KNR says:

    Mann , doing good for years ,undermining ‘the cause ‘ that is . If he did not exist, sceptics have a much harder time . Keep him in the spot light, keep him under pressure and watch him blow .

    One of must interesting things that will occur when ‘the cause ‘ falls will be to see who by and how often Mann is thrown under the bus to save themselves. Could not happen to a ‘nicer ‘ guy

  2. theyouk says:

    And had that sea level rise continued on its pace from 1930-1940 the number would have been substantially higher–but it flattened, then resumed, then flattened, etc. Also, anyone know what is happening to the ground where this gauge is sited? Is it subsiding?

    “Oh Mann, that’s a lot of hype!” Grrrr….

  3. Pippen Kool says:

    I think it is pretty fitting that Mann is going after Cuccinelli after Cuccinelli basically said Mann was guilty of scientific fraud. This is even _after_ study after study keeps reaffirming the hockey stick. Pick your enemies carefully.

    REPLY: So that makes it OK to lie with fake imagery then in your opinion? – Anthony

  4. gensci says:

    How can Norfolk, VA have a larger sea level rise than other places? That doesn’t make any sense. Sounds to me like a big component of the so-called “sea level rise” is actually subsidence.

  5. vukcevic says:

    North East Canada was the centre of a huge glacier, known as the Laurentide ice sheet, with a thickness of several kilometres. The weight of the ice bowed the Earth’s surface down.
    The vast majority of the ice eventually melted at the end of the Ice Age, leaving a depression in its
    wake. While this depression has endured for thousands of years, it has been gradually recovering or
    “flattening itself out.” The term “glacial rebound” refers to this exact behaviour, whereby the land in
    formerly glaciated areas rises after the ice load has disappeared. The Hudson Bay uplift is about 2-3 meters/century.
    Consequently areas further south (mainly along the east USA coastline) are slowly sinking as the continental balance is maintained, the consequence of th last Ice age and nothing to do with the s.c. AGW.

  6. Wally626 says:

    Norfolk does have a flooding problem, as it is not a very high elevation and has poor drainage. Except for under passes the water seldom gets more than a foot or two high in the streets. I believe the rise in tide level is mostly due to the land sinking.

  7. If one averages the temperatures for the weather stations in Virginia (see Bit Tooth Energy-Virginia”) you will find that there was a significant temperature drop in the period from 1950 to 1968 that the state average temperature has yet to recover from. Thus the statements concerning average state temperatures are incorrect.

  8. coalsoffire says:

    What is a “relative increase” in sea level? Is that different from an actual increase?

  9. John M says:

    I guess short and squat folks can get away with low ceilings.

  10. omnologos says:

    Once upon a time Gavin was the skeptic’s best friend. Now it’s Mann’s turn, since it’s just too easy to point out how counterproductive/stupid/silly his initiatives are.

  11. Matthew W says:

    “Here’s the video…”
    Ah, no thanks, no interest in seeing or hearing what that fool has to say.

  12. milodonharlani says:

    Pippen Kool says:
    October 8, 2013 at 3:02 pm

    Please cite the studies which you imagine support the bogus Hockey Stick.

    Mann is a blatant fraudster, as shown by the HS itself, hiding the decline in Briffa’s line behind a mass of spaghetti.

    Cuccinelli was right to seek the emails he wrote on a work computer while a VA public employee.

  13. Jimbo says:

    Michael Mann does not like publicity.

    More than a year removed from that controversy and with a book on climate change now under his belt, Mann reflected on the experience in an interview before his speaking engagements.

    “I’ll often characterize myself as a reluctant and accidental public figure,” he said. “I found myself at the center of this debate because of the efforts of some to discredit my science, and I had to make a decision. What am I going to do with that?”
    http://articles.dailypress.com/2013-05-08/news/dp-nws-climate-change-talk-20130508_1_climate-change-mann-change-scientist

    Michael Mann loves nothing more that to debate his critics. :-)
    http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/07/inside-michael-mann-bunker-he-carefully.html

  14. albertalad says:

    Mann is great in the art of selling disaster. Perhaps I’m wrong here, but this seems to be his sole purpose, selling fear. Science was never the intent.

  15. Bob says:

    Pippen Kool, “study after study keeps reaffirming the hockey stick.”

    You just destroyed any scientific credibility you might have had. Mann’s hockey stick has been refuted numerous by the best minds in the world. It is not any longer kool to try to defend that fraud. Don’t embarrass yourself.

  16. Gary Pearse says:

    As an earth sciences professor, it is tantamount to fraud to exploit a natural sinking of the coast caused by a down-flexure in response to the rise in land surface in Canada from glacial rebound. These guys have no shame. Useful idiots like Pippen Kool at least have ignorance on their side.

  17. Lawrence says:

    Bloody hell. The more I hear the real Michael Mann , the more I realise he’s bluffing in the lucrative wind. Really, really desperate b*llocks. So bad I’m shocked.

  18. dp says:

    He has fallen down a Mann hole and is surely in over his head on sea level rise. A fitting mental image suitable for a coffee mug cartoon.

  19. Lady Life Grows says:

    I couldn’t finish it. The number of flat-out lies outraged me too much.
    One–he never admitted that even he had to retract his original hockey stick.

  20. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Pippen Kool on October 8, 2013 at 3:02 pm:

    I think it is pretty fitting that Mann is going after Cuccinelli after Cuccinelli basically said Mann was guilty of scientific fraud. This is even _after_ study after study keeps reaffirming the hockey stick.

    You’ll have to specify if you mean the earlier “weak” version with the visible Medieval Warm Period, the flat-handled “there were no high temperatures until now” highly-discredited one the IPCC no longer can use, or one of the newer “obfuscated spaghetti” versions.

    Wednesday, August 14, 2013
    “Mr Mann’s graph is perhaps the most laughable and widely-discredited object in the history of bad science supporting worse politics.”

    Thursday, April 15, 2010
    There He Goes Again: Mann Claims His Hockey Stick was Given “Clean Bill of Health”

    Monday, September 26, 2011
    There He Goes Again, Version 4.0: Mann Claims His Hockey Stick was Affirmed by the NAS

    Monday, December 5, 2011
    There He Goes Again, Version 5.0: Mann Claims His Hockey Stick was Affirmed by the NAS

    If he keeps getting reaffirmed like this, there’ll be no need for the formality of official falsification.

  21. ZootCadillac says:

    Anthony: This not photoshopped image shows that Mann clearly knows what he is talking about.

    http://brackishfaq.webspace.virginmedia.com/Projects/Resources/04_20_evidence_of_things_not_seen.jpg

  22. Jeremy says:

    With friends like Dr. Mann, who needs enemies. Keep up the good work, Dr Mann, you are helping to expose man-made global warming scientists as fraudulent hucksters.

  23. Shock news. Mann links subsidence to . So predictable it’s boring.

  24. Txomin says:

    Mann is the sad fool that did not know when to shut up and run with the money. This is one of the few guys that will eventually pay for this mess.

  25. Mardler says:

    Two Norfolks (VA and UK) with a similar problem, isostatic depression completely unrelated to CAGW but that won’t stop Mann et al claiming otherwise. Question is: how to debunk him and his charlatan friends so thoroughly and publicly that no-one will ever take the blindest bit of notice of them again?

    Coaloffire, as Vukcevic says, isostacy explains the relative increase in sea level i.e. the land is falling in relation to a fairly static sea.

  26. Janice Moore says:

    The Tale of Two Desperados:

    one so badly in need of ANYONE to say he’s fit to govern a state that he’ll hire a known fraud to endorse him;

    the other so desperate for money he’ll even expose himself to get it.

    Pitiful.

    Heh.

  27. morgo says:

    the main problem with Mann he will not take this medication

  28. Hey, at least he isn’t a “Nobel Laureate” any longer. There has been progress!

  29. CodeTech says:

    I despise “single issue voters”, they completely destroy the entire democratic process.

    Popular single issue voter issues:
    * Abortion
    * Gay marriage
    * Minorities
    * For the children
    * Climate change
    * Immigration
    * War in Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam/Korea

    None of these, or the many other single-issue hot buttons are important enough to disrupt our entire society to “address”, and yet voters will completely ignore all of the catastrophic and often fatal flaws of a candidate if they appear to support their single issue.

    Today the most viable campaign method is to determine which single-issues your electorate will be most passionate about, announce that you’re on their side for those issues, and watch your opponent drown. Then, once elected, either completely ignore the issue or do some token thing toward it and laugh at how stupid people are.

  30. dbstealey says:

    Anthony’s “reality differs” link showing Mann’s reaction to an inexpensive gift is priceless.

    And Pippenfool, please. Mann is absolutely part of the scientific misconduct endemic to alarmist climate ‘science’. Once someone reads the Climategate emails, there is no doubt about Mann. You should try it sometime; learn something truthful about your bogus HE-RO. In reality, Michael Mann is a scoundrel. His own words convict him.

  31. Niff says:

    Unfortunately its NOT funny. Lie big enough, often enough and you can bluster it through. I am sure he is a real believer and thinks he is an eco-warrior for the ’cause’. But he also knows that its about the power to compel others to your argument by using an elected office. We should all be aware and concerned that these people will pervert public office to pursue their views. Science?
    Come on…people don’t believe it any more so they have to abandon that and change tack.

  32. Blade says:

    Climate kook Michael Mann apparently cannot even read a simple Wikipedia page, most likely because this one deals with actual science. Glacial Rebound

    The Great Lakes of North America lie approximately on the ‘pivot’ line between rising and sinking land. Lake Superior was formerly part of a much larger lake together with Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, but post-glacial rebound raised land dividing the three lakes about 2100 years ago.[9] Today, southern shorelines of the lakes continue to experience rising water levels while northern shorelines see falling levels.”

    So, from about the USA-Canada border to all points North, the land is rising, and below that it is sinking. So where do the climate kooks decide to go to cherry pick sea-level? Yep, coastal cities in the USA which are doing precisely what they are supposed to be doing, sinking. Climate kooks are liars and scoundrels of the highest order.

    It is entirely possible that sea-level ‘should be’ rising even faster than we currently see. In other words it may not be rising fast enough to still confirm our place in an interglacial. This is troubling because it’s very likely that the only detectable warning indicating the winding down of the current Holocene interglacial will be the slowing of sea-level rise before it turns the corner and sea-level begins to decline ( that would be truly alarming news ).

    All someone needs to do is ask Mann, McKibben, Romm and the other kooks one simple question … What should sea-level be doing on the USA coasts?. Demand that they answer it.

  33. David L. says:

    ZootCadillac on October 8, 2013 at 3:38 pm

    That’s excellent!!!

  34. Janice Moore says:

    lol, “14.5 inches” and the water’s about 8 feet up on the house. Anyone fooled by that is either:

    1. Not eligible to vote for another 10 years or more; or
    2. Never has been eligible to vote.

    (yeah, a Dem would vote “for” that person, but why waste money on the video; well, okay, McA. isn’t the sharpest tool in the drawer… hm. Looks like we’ve just uncovered the lastest Mann scam, promo-gate.)

    Result: no net gain for McA. — Mann scams some more cash: robbing slumlord to pay loan shark. Shrug.

  35. John Whitman says:

    “Crusades Against Science 101″ with Professor Michael Mann”.

    – – – – – – – –

    Mann is the crusader for ideology à la the IPCC quest for alarm. During his crusade we see Mann sitting faced backward astride his ignoble steed, the donkey of statistical ignorance, armed with a fearsome lance made from the lone miraculous Yamal tree.

    Skeptics, behold the Crusader Mann and shake with fear a little loathing and a lot of giggling.

    Pimping for campaign cash, is he.

    John

  36. Janice Moore says:

    Mann needs a ton of cash to fund his frivolous lawsuit against Mark Steyn, National Review, and CEI in D.C. Courts right now. Can’t have the DNC directly funding him… .

  37. Amber says:

    I hope Mann keeps opening his mouth and digs a deep deep hole for the global warming cult . What scientist came into his /her field thinking propaganda was part of the job description? He must be considered a goof within the climate industry .

  38. Alvin says:

    Excuse me, what study reaffirms the hockey stick?

  39. Janice Moore says:

    True, Amber. But, a USEFUL goof. (% o/) He’s long past his sell-by date, though. The IPCC crowd aren’t having a whole lot to do with him, these days. Now, Ma-n-n (arrgh! no more m-dr-ation on this thread for me!) is (unbeknownst to him) on OUR side, lol.

    As Jeremy said at 3:39pm, “keep up the good work”!

    *************
    Nice list, there, Kevin Knoebel — I tried to create just such post and gave up the research after 15 minutes of trying.

    ******************
    LOL, John at 4:32pm — fun imagery (much better than above vid). Backward. Exactly.

  40. DAV says:

    Hard to see how anyone would fall for the house shot. The house photo has no reflection of the house in the water and we can see the full house through the water. Real water wouldn’t be that clear.

  41. Janice Moore says:

    @ Alvin — A “study.”

  42. Jquip says:

    All is right with the world. Saw the picture of the house under water and wondered for a moment why you would be rewriting about subprime mortgages.

  43. Janice Moore says:

    Jquip — lol. You’re right — that image will only confuse a semi-intelligent voter. The intelligent ones won’t fall for it; the low-intelligence ones won’t vote (well, as I mentioned, yes, they may “vote” — but, no need for vid for them).

  44. Janice Moore says:

    Further to 4:47pm — and “a confused mind says, ‘No,'” i.e., rejects the proffered information or “sale.”

    Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaa!

  45. Brian says:

    Heh … A crook campaigning for a crook.

    Imagine that.I doubt that it’ll do any good. Anyone stupid enough to consider herself a “climate voter” is already going to vote the Democratic ticket anyway. If this has any effect whatsoever, it will probably just help to energize Cuccinelli’s base, which could be an important factor in this race. Keep in mind that turnout for this election is going to be very low, because most of the voters in Virginia don’t like either candidate. Their ratings are in the basement.

  46. It’s true, the hockey stick keeps coming back. Every time one of Mann’s assistants uses poor proxies, throws out the proxies that don’t fit their predetermined results, uses wrong statistical processes to graph those proxies then grafts a high resolution temperature record on the low resolution junk result they get a hockey stick.

  47. Luke Warmist says:

    Dang video wouldn’t load. I suspect the site is overwhelmed by WUWT folks. Just as well I guess, it’s nearly dinner time.
    …and like Mann, P. Kool has never heard of the Urban Heat Island effect, AKA ‘The Hockey Stick’.

  48. michaelspj says:

    Anyone who doesn’t believe in isostatic rebound ought to look at the massive sea level FALL in southeast Alaska (see Juneau, for example) associated with the rapid glacial recession in Glacier Bay.

  49. Mann is now claiming he’s got 14.5 inches and a hockey stick! Is this science or an unbelievable advertisement in a seedy publication? No it’s a headline in The Washington Post! Sad but true!

  50. elmer says:

    Does a rising oceans rise faster in some parts than others? How can this be?

  51. Janice Moore says:

    Just put a tablecloth on his head and he’s….. Yeah-sserr Arrr–a-fat

    Mann in another video (more cashola – kah-ching!)

  52. Oh, goodie! Portrait of the Artist as an Aggrieved Mann: The Movie.

    And, as has become his standard practice, the “David <I see you, I sue you> Irving” of climate science misrepresents – again!

    Frankly, I’m not sure which is worse: Canada’s Andrew Weaver (IPCC-nik and climate modeller, turned politico, and now newly minted Green Party MLA) acting as a PR shill for Greenpeace, or Michael Mann (IPCC-nik and climate modeller) selling his “soul” [if he actually has one!] by acting as the shameless PR shill for a candidate for political office.

    Oh, well … birds of a feather, and all that, I suppose!

  53. @njsnowfan says:

    True Sea level can never be recorded on earth ANWHERE!!! Land masses are always moving from the plates of earth. Norfolk VA is built on soft soil, it is like a giant sponge, more weight it sinks. New Orleans is 10+ feet below sea level. A city built on a swamp.

  54. Pippen Kool says:

    So that makes it OK to lie with fake imagery then in your opinion? – Anthony
    Gary Pearse says: “it is tantamount to fraud to exploit a natural sinking of the coast caused by a down-flexure in response to the rise in land surface in Canada from glacial rebound.”

    In my opinion? Are people really swayed or fooled or surprised or do they even notice overdone photos? And I don’t even have live TV or FOX news in the house.

    milodonharlani says: “Please cite the studies which….”
    Bob says: “You just destroyed any scientific credibility you might have had….”
    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says: “You’ll have to specify if you mean the earlier “weak” version with the visible Medieval Warm Period, the flat-handled “there were no high temperatures until now” highly-discredited one the IPCC no longer can use, or one of the newer “obfuscated spaghetti” versions.”

    one boring ref: A noodle, hockey stick, and spaghetti plate: a perspective on high-resolution paleoclimatology, Frank, Esper, Zorita & Wilson
    but in the last year there’s the BEST study and Walcott et al. Pick your poison.

    If there is a scientific published study that refutes the hockey stitch, cite it! You know, like real skeptics…even McIntyre critiques were eventually cut down. But the damning evidence is seeing the same hockey stick over and over again.

    dbstealey says:m ” In reality, Michael Mann is a scoundrel.”

    Like Geick, one man’s freedom freedom fighter is another’s scoundrel. Opinion is just opinion.

  55. Yet another Mike from the Carson Valley where we deal with cold a lot and heat says:

    Michael Mann has discovered the missing heat all locked up in a lock box discarded off the Virginia coast. Something left over from the VP Gore era perhaps ?

  56. gensci says:

    Gary Pearse claims Canadian ice sheet rebound is not the cause for the “rise” in sea level in the Norfolk area, but offers no alternatives as to why one city along the Atlantic seaboard would have more “rise” than other areas. There must be more subsidence here relative to other places, right? If not from post Ice Age phenomena, then what? Seems like it is fraud to claim the “rise” is from sea level alone.

  57. wayne says:

    Without a doubt Dr. Michael Mann is a propagandist, not a scientist. Would he even know of subsidence? Doubtful.

    So Dr. Michael Mann, learn something new, I know you read this site… subsidence is the motion of a surface (usually, the Earth’s surface) as it shifts downward relative to a datum such as sea-level and can give the appearance of sea level rise where actual sea level rise does not exist. Good boy!

  58. Bill Illis says:

    The last thing that Mann wants is Cuccinelli as governor. The extra powers would allow him to get into the underlying stuff Mann did with the Hockey Stick and whatever else at UVA.

    Unfortunately, the polls are not going Cuccinelli’s way.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2013/governor/va/virginia_governor_cuccinelli_vs_mcauliffe-3033.html

  59. Pamela Gray says:

    So. What distorted picture is in the water this time? Get rid of the text so we can see it!

  60. Darren Potter says:

    Pippen Kool says: “… basically said Mann was guilty of scientific fraud. This is even _after_ study after study keeps reaffirming the hockey stick.”
    Bummer, but studies performed by Global Warmers rubber stamping Mann’s Hokey Schtick do not carry any weight, especially Scientific.

  61. dbstealey says:

    Regarding Mann’s debunked Hokey Stick chart, Pippen Kool says:

    “…the damning evidence is seeing the same hockey stick over and over again.”

    Just because you see the same thing is no evidence that it is factual. I see pictures of Santa over and over again.

    Mann’s chart cannot be used by the IPCC any more. Why not? Because it has been thoroughly debunked.

    And regarding “fake imagery”, see here. That gif shows La Jolla, California more than a hunderd years ago — and now. Explain to us how that is “fake”.

    If it is not fake, then the whole ‘sea level’ scare is once again falsified, just like every other alarmist prediction.

  62. milodonharlani says:

    Pippen Kool says:
    October 8, 2013 at 5:39 pm

    It’s not a matter of opinion. Either there are studies supporting the fraudulent HS or there are not. Again I ask, please trot out those you imagine support the chicanery.

    If Gleick (whom I assume you meant) is a freedom fighter, then so was that other well known Big Liar Goebbels.

  63. Grant says:

    If Pippin the Kook-Aid drinker wants to delude himself into thinking that Mann’s hockey stick was something more than bad science coupled with a willful disregard for contradicting data, have at it. But he’ll have a difficult time peddling that crap here.

  64. pat says:

    u want humour?

    8 Oct: HuffingtonPost: My Reaction to the IPCC Climate Report
    by Dominique Browning, Author; Editor; Co-founder, Moms Clean Air Force; Blogger, slowlovelife.com
    I’ll be blunt. My first response to the new climate report from the world’s top climate scientists was to climb into bed and pull the covers up over my head. Which I did.
    While I was there I thought things over, knowing I would have to get out of bed soon enough. It was hard to breathe, anyway. The certainty in the scientific community made me ill: We are on the way to catastrophic warming — and human-made pollution is speeding us there. This is way beyond nature’s eternal cycles of warming and cooling. Climate scientists can read the chemical fingerprints of the carbon we are emitting.
    Then the good news struck me. This isn’t God, changing our climate. This is us…
    So let’s all do our parts. It is the only way to be able to get out of bed, and breathe easier. It is the only way to feel hope.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dominique-browning/my-reaction-to-the-ipcc-c_b_4065105.html

  65. pat says:

    (2 pages) 8 Oct: Forbes: Larry Bell: Will Cooling Temperature And Economic Climates Finally Take The Wind Out Of Failed Energy Policies?
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/10/08/will-cooling-temperature-and-economic-climates-finally-take-the-wind-out-of-failed-energy-policies/

    6 Oct: BBC: Spain’s sunshine toll: Row over proposed solar tax
    “We will be the only country in the world charging for the use of the sun,” says Jaume Serrasolses.
    “Strange things are happening in Spain. This is one of them.”…
    But while the government may have been heavily promoting solar energy six years ago, those who followed that lead may now pay dearly for their investment…
    “Many of these people are going to lose their houses (that they used as collateral to buy solar panels). They are unable to pay back at the bank. They can’t sell the installations, because the government has made them toxic assets,” Mr Holtrop says…
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24272061

  66. David Weber says:

    I live in Virginia Beach, which borders Norfolk (and we have about 10x more coast/shoreline) My family were Lynnhaven watermen from the late 19th century until the late 20th century. I can tell you with no uncertainty that there has been no 14″ sea level rise there – that would easily put high tide to the bulkhead my great grandfather built some 70+ years ago. I was born in 1964 and from the last time I was spending a lot of time at grandma’s (just a couple of years ago before she passed) I would say high tide is the same place on the shore it has been my whole life (and I worked that inlet for my most of my childhood/teen years – I know the Lynnhaven fairly well). I could maybe believe a couple of inches as that might be hard to discern, but a foot + ???

    And Norfolk does not have a flooding problem, it has a drainage problem that my mother assures me goes way back to at least when she was a young girl listening to WGH in the 50’s

  67. Pippen Kool says:

    dbstealey says: “Just because you see the same thing is no evidence that it is factual.”
    Grant says: “that Mann’s hockey stick was something more than bad science”

    When some skeptic provides published scientific data that refutes the hockey stick, then maybe you have something to say. But as of now you only have blog entries.

  68. geran says:

    Pippen Kool says:
    October 8, 2013 at 5:39 pm

    Pippen–we truly enjoy the comedy of trolls, but you seem to have lost your touch.

    Not once have you mentioned the drowning polar bears, for example.

    Please, more of the good stuff….

  69. TomRude says:

    This guy is “for hire”… I wonder if he does it upside down too since it did not matter at Tijander…

  70. Pippen Kool,

    Check the IPCC AR5 chapter 5, figure 5.8. No current paleoclimate reconstructions are hockey sticks. So the reference is all of them.

    Mann used proxies that didn’t match the temperature record. If your proxy can’t match the record now it can’t be a proxy for temperature in the past. He then picked only results that fit his predetermined result and tossed out others for no reason. Then he incorrectly calculated the statistics and to hide the proxy divergence by covering them with temperature records. The Wegman report covered all this. Mann’s defense was that by fixing his statistical analysis he could still get a hockey stick-like graph and two of his assistants tried just that. But simply fixing the statistical error does not fix the bad proxies, cherry picked proxies and divergence problem. Yes, if you take his data you will get a hockey stick, the problem is his data.

    The hockey stick can never (and has never) come back because it disputes empirical evidence. There was no LIA or MWP in his analyses. If your proxy data disputes emperical evidence than your proxy is bad not the emperical evidence.

  71. milodonharlani says:

    Pippen Kool says:
    October 8, 2013 at 6:22 pm

    Where have you been since 2003, when the HS was broken into laughable little pieces by Singer, Soon, Baliunas, McIntyre, McKittrick, von Storch, et al?

  72. BTW, Did anyone notice in figure 5.8 of AR5 it shows the MWP warmer than now?

  73. wws says:

    yeah, geran, pippen’s just trolling, and it’s a pretty incoherent troll at that. It looks like he’s trying to work the “appeal to authority” and the supposed Ex Cathedra value of blurbs that have been “published” in all of the Politically Correct news outlets, but he’s not even doing a very good job of that. You’re right, boooooring.

  74. philjourdan says:

    Sad, but the carpet bagger will probably win – in spite of Mann and his stupidity.

  75. dbstealey says:

    Pippen Kool says:

    “When some skeptic provides published scientific data that refutes the hockey stick, then maybe you have something to say. But as of now you only have blog entries.”

    Wrong as usual, Pippen. Wrong as usual.

    Shenanigans24 and others have cited a number of very credible scientists who thoroughly debunked Mann’s hockey stick chart.

    Mann hid his data in an ftp file labeled “censored”. It contained data that would have destroyed his hockey stick, so he didn’t use it. He cherry-picked whatever data fabricated his ‘stick, and hid the rest.

    Scientific misconduct, no?

    Yes.

  76. Tom J says:

    Just out of curiosity, what does anybody think the likelihood is that the sponsors of this political ad, the NextGen Climate Action Committee, has been subjected to an IRS audit or been denied tax exempt status if they applied for such an exemption?

    Ok, I know, stupid question.

  77. John Runberg says:

    Norfolk floods best with heavy rains that over tax it’s old storm sewer system. Add to that high tide when Nor’easter conditions send the Chesapeake Bay into the Elisabeth River and you see flooding. More then a little bit of the water front is on filled marsh or wet-lands that have been repurposed from “docks and storage” to multi-story buildings. No rebound required for subsidence.

  78. Pippen Kool says:

    dbstealey says: ” It contained data that would have destroyed his hockey stick, so he didn’t use it.”

    We don’t need the “Mann” hockey stick anymore. There are too many others.

  79. Fernando (in Brazil) says:

    Evidence that CO2 increases sea level.
    perhaps an island will disappear.

    “The island is really just a big pile of mud from the seafloor that got pushed up. This area of the world seems to see so many of these features because the geology is correct for their formation. You need a shallow, buried layer of pressurized gas—methane, carbon dioxide, or something else—and fluids. When that layer becomes disturbed by seismic waves (like an earthquake), the gases and fluids become buoyant and rush to the surface, bringing the rock and mud with them,” Bill Barnhart, a geologist at the US Geological Survey told NASA’s Earth Observatory.

    http://rt.com/news/island-earthquake-space-pictures-518/

  80. OssQss says:

    Another horrific example of what most folks, no matter your GPS location, are fed by the MSM daily.

    Ideological desperation as a result of an uncooperative “Mother Nature” , is what we see!

    ;-)

  81. geran says:

    Pippen Kool says:
    October 8, 2013 at 7:13 pm

    We don’t need the “Mann” hockey stick anymore. There are too many others.
    >>>>>>>>

    Very good pippin, eject the hockey stick when it no longer brings laughs.

    How about the “heat is hiding in the oceans”?

    That always gets a laugh.

    (But, one of my favorites is still the drowning polar bears. See if you can work them into your routine.)

  82. milodonharlani says:

    Pippen Kool says:
    October 8, 2013 at 7:13 pm

    You’ve been asked politely repeatedly to name these alleged other HSs. Please do so instead of asserting baseless claims.

    Thanks.

  83. Physics Major says:

    ANTHONY – HELP
    I’m afraid that your recent decision to allow more un-moderated comments has resulted in comment threads like this one. It is full of gibberish that adds nothing to the discussion of the original post.

    Please consider reinstating the old moderation rules. I want to be able to read well-reasoned comments that stick to the topic of the original post.

    Thanks for all you do.

    Robert Simpson (Physics Major)

    [Your comment is noted. But, as a political advertisement on political matters in a political election in a state where he is being sued by one of the political candidates involved, Mann's claims ARE in the political arena, not an arbitrary or rational scientific arena. Mod.]

  84. Fernando (in Brazil) says:

    Paranormal science
    trees from hell
    the devil is still at large.
    Lies require commitment,

  85. page488 says:

    I look forward to the day when Michael Mann will be regarded as scientifically irrelevant by everyone!

  86. Janice Moore says:

    OssQss! — so glad you are “back.” I’ve missed all your fun video clips. Thanks for that one, lol. I never liked that lady when you and I (how’s it goin’ post-birthday? — I was afraid you’d gotten so depressed you couldn’t search for vids anymore) were kids. She was so smug — I was GLAD she was fooled (hm, guess that was the whole idea – but it never made me want to eat margarine) — just like those annoying “Trix are for kids” brats — I wanted the rabbit to keep the cereal, selfish little jerks. The Lucky Charms leprechaun worked pretty good, those kids weren’t creeps, just trying to enjoy some cereal. Sure wish I could still eat all that stuff. If I did — I’d start to look like M.M.! And remember Saturday morning cartoons? And “Funorama” and… sigh. Those were the days.

    Just for auld lang syne…

    Ooooo-kay! Pippen! That was your cue! ON WITH THE SHOW… …….. Pippen?

  87. page488 says:

    I look forward to the day when Michael Mann will be regarded as scientifically irrelevant by everyone!

  88. Janice Moore says:

    You spelled out M-an-n and got into mo-dr-ation, huh, Page #488 (what song is that, anyway?)? Happened to me twice on this thread before I figured it out. Arrgh.

    Oh, btw, rejoice! M.M. IS regarded as “scientifically irrelevant” by everyone who knows enough to have an intelligent opinion on the matter.

  89. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Pippen Kool on October 8, 2013 at 5:39 pm:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says: “You’ll have to specify if you mean the earlier “weak” version with the visible Medieval Warm Period, the flat-handled “there were no high temperatures until now” highly-discredited one the IPCC no longer can use, or one of the newer “obfuscated spaghetti” versions.”

    one boring ref: A noodle, hockey stick, and spaghetti plate: a perspective on high-resolution paleoclimatology, Frank, Esper, Zorita & Wilson

    From the Abstract:

    Icons of past temperature variability, as featured in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports over nearly two decades, have changed from a schematic sketch in 1990, to a seemingly well‐solved story in 2001, to more explicit recognition of significant uncertainties in 2007.

    Voila! Uncertainties suppressed for a “well-solved story”, and under pressure from the likes of McIntyre and McKitrick (2003), they had to admit things weren’t so neat and tidy.

    Suppressing information on uncertainties? Huge no-no in medical research to the financial sector. Deliberately use of such faked-up certainties when soliciting funds, that is frequently known as fraudulent behavior. And the maker of the presentation is an accessory to fraud, at least. Such behavior tends to be prosecutable too, in all but the hallowed halls of academia where they dismiss such discrepancies as “normal scientific discourse”.

  90. CodeTech says:

    Physics Major, I think you’re mistaken. The only difference between current moderation policies and previous ones are “trust based”, where known acceptable commenters comments are allowed immediately unless they contain certain key phrases that require eyeballs to approve.

    I don’t think there is any change whatsoever, since previous moderation did not block any but the most grevious disrespecting of the rules, as now.

    I think your complaint might better be directed at the current crop of trolls, who are absolutely CLUELESS, but convinced that climate “scientists” are gods.

  91. F. Ross says:

    Pippen Kool says:
    [several places]

    Rule #1 for holes: When you’re in one, stop digging.

  92. Ted Getzel says:

    The mouth of the Chesapeake Bay off Newport News and Hampton Bay was hit by a huge Bolide 35 million years ago. The impact left a crater 85 KM in diameter and shattered the underlying bedrock to a depth of 8 Km. That part of Virginia slumping into the ancient crater. To use an area of land that has been sinking for 35 million years as an argument for catastrophic sea rise is devious, but what would we expect from Mann.

  93. Janice Moore says:

    Dear Phrustrated Physics Major,

    Try to just scroll on by those who annoy you. Remember, one Robert Simpson’s “gibberish” is another Geran’s (and me, too, in this case — LOL, Pippen is hilarious) — “…work them into your routine…” entertainment.

    It was a cool thing that real scientists above, I recall Gary Pearse as one, brought genuine science into the discussion. Sometimes, when a post has more than one sub-topic, the main point of the post (conman M.M.’s P.R. career, here) continues on down the thread along with a more important one (subsidence, etc…). Try to laugh and just focus on what interests you.

    In your admirable, serious, quest for science truth, do keep in mind (it makes life so much more worth living) that physics is phun!

    Janice
    (one of those whose posts you likely will want to avoid)

  94. harkin says:

    Maybe this is just a make believe flood at the make believe building where he was awarded his make believe Nobel Prize.

  95. Janice Moore says:

    Don’t follow this Dope’s example, Pippen:

    “Rule #1 for holes: When you’re in one, stop digging.” (F. Ross — listen to him, P.K.)

  96. Janice Moore says:

    harkin — lol.

  97. A.D. Everard says:

    Pippen Kool says:
    October 8, 2013 at 3:02 pm

    I think it is pretty fitting that Mann is going after Cuccinelli after Cuccinelli basically said Mann was guilty of scientific fraud. This is even _after_ study after study keeps reaffirming the hockey stick. Pick your enemies carefully.

    *

    I know the above quote was right up at the beginning, but I’m still trying to get over “Pick your enemies carefully.”

    Sorry, Pippen, you’ve lost me. Just how – in any way, shape or form – is Mann an intellectual threat to anyone here? Are you familiar with this site? At all?

  98. Bill Jamison says:

    According to the Army Corp of Engineers in 2010 “about 53% of the RSL rise measured at bay water level stations is, on average, due to local subsidence.” around the Chesapeake Bay. In addition, the absolute sea level rise is about 60% of the global average: “evidence suggests an ASL rise rate of about 1.8 mm/yr in Chesapeake Bay over the 1976-2007 period.”.

    http://web.vims.edu/GreyLit/VIMS/sramsoe425.pdf

    Dishonest indeed.

  99. Reed Coray says:

    Janice Moore says: October 8, 2013 at 4:23 pm
    lol, “14.5 inches” and the water’s about 8 feet up on the house. Anyone fooled by that is either:
    1. Not eligible to vote for another 10 years or more; or
    2. Never has been eligible to vote.

    Janice, the house in Mann’s picture is livable for people of Mann’s physical and mental stature–physically short, mentally non-existent. For such a house water levels approaching the second floor are to be expected.

  100. Txomin says:

    @CodeTech

    I don’t despise them but, yep, it is a fair observation.

  101. RACookPE1978 says:

    Now, now.

    Subsidence is real, very real.

    Just, not, however, subsidence from global warming. That’s a political lie.

    But subsidence from local withdrawal of water from the nearby aquifers has happened in Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, and – closer to home – Baytown TX.

    http://googleearthtimemachine.blogspot.com/2011/07/baytown-texas.html

    But notice the years: 1955 – 1960 (construction), Hurricane Carla, local water pumping, local reaction, local correction to the problem. NO CAGW INVOLVED. But – it was not 1 mm/year over 20 year (less than an inch) rates of water level increase This was more than five feet in less than 20 years.

    Global warming “may” affect water levels in Virginia in the “1 inch per 20 year” range.

    But, does Mann want to talk about real trends, or does he want to engage in the politics that puts money in his wallet? That protects his political teammates and pays his own lawyers?

  102. Gail Combs says:

    What Cuccinelli needs is Mother Nature on his side. That is a really cold snowy season before election.

    I wonder if Mann triggers the Gore Effect?

  103. Thomas says:

    Michael Mann is a profoundly dishonest person.

  104. oakwood says:

    The election is on 5th November. In England, we have a rhyme for this date:
    Remember, remember the 5th of November – Gunpowder, treason and plot.
    (Relates to the date Guy Fawkes tried to blow up parliament)

  105. CodeTech says:

    oakwood, and also my birthday :)

    When I was a kid my mom would tell me about Guy Fawkes day, but I could never figure out who this Fox guy was.

  106. David L. says:

    If they are worried about flooding, how about stop building in flood plains? When my house on the beautiful Delaware river flooded every year for 4 years, I moved to 1000ft elevation. No more flooding!

  107. Patrick says:

    Robert Catesby was the “ring leader” in the plot to kill James the 1st. Fawkes just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. In modern times, in the UK, its a fun occasion!

  108. rogerknights says:

    Here are some old WUWT comments on the hockey stick’s replication–or not:
    ————————-

    Manfred says:
    October 25, 2012 at 10:27 pm
    All so familiar…from the Wegman Report:

    “…Generally speaking, the paleoclimatology community has not recognized the validity of the [McIntyre and McKitrick] papers and has tended dismiss their results as being developed by biased amateurs. The paleoclimatology community seems to be tightly coupled as indicated by our social network analysis, has rallied around the [Mann] position, and has issued an extensive series of alternative assessments most of which appear to support the conclusions of MBH98/99… Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.

    It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent.

    Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on [Mann's work]. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility…”

    http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/06/the-wegman-and-north-reports-for-newbies/

    Craig Loehle says:
    October 23, 2012 at 3:04 pm

    According to Mann, a study is only science if it comes to the same conclusion as his own work, so by definition all subsequent work has “replicated” his results, since if it did not it does not exist. Thus multiple reconstructions that come to different conclusions were left out of IPCC reports, and in Mann’s book he claims that “NO studies” show a warmer MWP, when I have personally a whole file drawer full of papers indicating a warm MWP.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/18/yet-another-paper-demonstrates-warmer-temperatures-1000-years-ago-and-even-2000-years-ago/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/new-paper-confirms-the-climate-was-warmer-1000-years-ago/
    [powerful]

    http://climateaudit.org/2012/10/16/forensic-bioinformatics/#more-17077
    [Steve notes parallels to the case of Mann in a recent scientific scandal.]

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/17/another-paper-refutes-the-mann-made-hockey-stick-mwp-was-1c-warmer-than-current-temperatures/
    [Actually, it says the temp was the same.]

    Smokey says:
    You are absolutely correct about the upside-down Tiljander proxy. But you are too kind in allowing that Mann ‘made a mistake’. Dr Tiljander had informed Mann before he published that she discovered that her sediment proxy was corrupted. But MANN USED IT ANYWAY because it gave him the hockey stick shape he wanted.

    Mann did not make a ‘mistake’. He deliberatly engaged in scientific misconduct.

    ferdberple says:
    July 9, 2012 at 6:37 pm

    The divergence problem is a mathematical artifact of calibration. Formally known as “selection on the dependent variable”, it is a statistical flaw in the methodology that creates bias in the results. This bias leads to divergence at the calibration boundaries, and misleading results over the proxy period.

    In other words, it isn’t the trees that are at fault. It is the knuckleheads looking at the tree cores that have improperly applied amplifier technology to statistics, thinking they were inventing a better way to look at noisy data. What they invented instead was a way to amplify noise, while making it look like signal. They fooled not only themselves, but most of the world as well.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/12/the-longest-most-high-resolution-most-inconvenient-paleoclimate-data-that-hasnt-been-published/
    [Anatarctica shows MWP, declining long-term temp. Law Dome date—from Climate audit. Very important.]

    Bill Illis says:
    June 13, 2012 at 5:46 am

    The do18 proxy is the best temperature proxy we have. Yet the pro-AGW posters do their best to denigrate it.

    On the other hand, tree-rings are the worst temperature proxy that we have and the pro-AGW posters believe the tree ring data without question.

    This whole science is like that. It’s not science, it’s choosing which data to believe. It’s a “belief system”.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/09/jo-nova-chronicles-the-snapping-of-the-gergis-hockey-stick/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/08/american-meteorological-society-disappears-gergis-et-al-paper-on-proxy-temperature-reconstruction-after-post-peer-review-finds-fatal-flaws/

    richard verney says:
    June 9, 2012 at 2:33 am
    John Bills says:
    June 8, 2012 at 3:56 pm
    ///////////////////////////////////////////
    As you rightly infer, it is a damning indictment of both the quality of the science and of the quality of peer review. If it was not for pal review, the errors ought to have beem picked up prioer to publication and the paper either corrected or rejected.

    This affiar is an endorsement of the need to provide all code and data sets whenever a paper is published, it is also an endorsement of the effectiveness of independent review by ‘amateur’ scientists and demonstrates the value of their independent input and review.

    To read about how the takedown came about, I suggest this excellent summary from Bishop Hill as the technical details are rather thick: Another Hockey Stick broken

    The problems with the paper in a nutshell:

    upside down proxy data again
    preselection of data, ignoring the whole set in many cases
    though they tried to justify preselection, the paper’s methodology doesn’t hold up (circular reasoning)
    inability to replicate given the data and methods used

    mpaul says:
    May 8, 2012 at 7:39 am

    For people who want a more accessible explanation of Mann’s statistical parlor tricks, I would suggests Andrew Montford’s book “The Hockey Stick Illusion”. Montford does a good job of detailing how the Yamal and Tiljander tricks work. The reason the Press hasn’t gotten on to is because the math that Mann uses is somewhat sophisticated. Most journalists have simply never encountered math at this level and they are intimidated by it. The short summary is that Mann has invented a variant of a well known statistical tool known as PCA. Mann’s version of PCA has never been reviewed in the statistical literature. McIntyre has demonstrated conclusively that Mannian PCA mines for the presence of hockey stick shapes within the data and then imposes those shapes onto the composite of all data. So if you have thousands of time series (proxies) all showing no trend and you add just one series that has a hockey stick shape to the mix, Mann’s PCA method will output a hockey stick shape as a high order principle component for the entire composite of all proxies. So all Mann [or a replicator] needs to do to manufacture hockey sticks from any data is to always include at least one series with a hockey stick shape.

    David A says:
    March 11, 2012 at 1:57 pm

    Which of the folowing has Mann not done?
    From the National Association of Scholars website:

    “How to detect an obvious fraud:”

    • If a researcher will not show their raw data.
    • If a researcher will not show the “adjustments” they have made to their raw data.
    • If the researchers historical “adjusted data” conflict rather dramatically with other generally accepted data sets without any rational explanation.
    • If a researcher will not show the internals of the model that processes their adjusted data to produce their results.
    • If a researcher attempts to destroy anybody who disagrees with them, instead of attempting to refute their position.
    • If a researcher attempts to destroy their raw data/adjustments/models rather than have them released.
    • If a researcher attempts to destroy their communications with other researchers rather than have them released.”

    JJ says:
    March 11, 2012 at 2:58 pm

    It isn’t just stupid logic. It is a particular brand of stupid logic: consensus logic. According to consensus logic, Mann is correct because his results agree with Wahl, and Wahl is correct because his results agree with Mann. They are both correct, because they agree. This bootstrap loop can be expanded to include anyone who agrees, and the number who agree becomes further “proof” of correctness, to be used to obtain yet more agreement. Rinse, repeat.

  109. Kaboom says:

    I think it is progress for Mann that he finally openly associates with crusades against science. Before now he just did that in a clandestine way. Maybe he soon will be able to get professional help and makes a tearful confession about his motivations for damaging science on some afternoon talkshow.

  110. Alan the Brit says:

    I can understand that when faced with desperate situation, e.g. time of war, lying to the enemy. However the bottom line is, some people believe it is ok toile, especially for a “noble” cause whatever that may be, but for me, brought up with Judaic-Christian beliefs, a lie, is a lie, is a lie when all said & done!

  111. John Endicott says:

    “Crusades Against Science 101″ with Professor Michael Mann

    very apt title, as Mr Mann has been crusading against science ever since he came up with his “trick”.

  112. H.R. says:

    @Alan the Brit says:
    October 9, 2013 at 3:19 am

    “I can understand that when faced with desperate situation, e.g. time of war, lying to the enemy. However the bottom line is, some people believe it is ok toile, especially for a “noble” cause whatever that may be, but for me, brought up with Judaic-Christian beliefs, a lie, is a lie, is a lie when all said & done!”

    So… how do you handle that dreaded question, “Does this outfit make me look fat?”

  113. John Whitman says:

    Thomas on October 8, 2013 at 10:43 pm

    Michael Mann is a profoundly dishonest person.

    – – – – – – – –

    Thomas,

    In Mann’s crusading mindset, if you try to skeptically / critically analyze the intellectual integrity of his paleoproxy work then you also must oppose the IPCC ideology that it was created to support.

    The bigger problem for the IPCC ideology is that he is not just an inept crusader in their quest for alarm, he is now publicly exposed as their dutiful jester who is seen as just spitting at the feet of skeptics who have integrity.

    John

  114. Jonathan says:

    How do you know it’s not a doll’s house?

  115. hunter says:

    Dr. Mann has made his fame and fortune off of contrived images designed to mislead people about climate. Why should he change now?

  116. wws says:

    “So… how do you handle that dreaded question, “Does this outfit make me look fat?””

    You tell the truth! “No, it’s your fat that makes you look fat!”

    Well, maybe not. But at least it *does* show how you can justify just saying “no, not at all” and leave it at that. It’s a part of the truth, just not the whole truth. and you know why?

    BECAUSE WE CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!! /jack nicholson off/

  117. Lonanlad says:

    Perhaps poor Michael has spent too much time listening to that old Johnny Cash song – How
    high’s the water Mama, it’s 5feet high & rising etc.

  118. Colin says:

    Dear Pippen Kool says:
    October 8, 2013 at 6:22 pm
    There doesn’t need to be scientific data to refute the hockey stick. Its that the data used to support the hockey stick doesn’t exist. This graph has been refuted because there is no substance behind it. Simple – or should be.

  119. dbstealey says:

    rogerknights says @October 9, 2013 at 2:42 am [ ... ]

    Excellent post!

    I would not expect Pippen Kool to read it, or to even understand it if he did. I know his type: a religious cult acolyte who has seen the light, and no scientific evidence can possibly refute his True Belief, as pronounced by Michael Mann from on high.

    But others who read it may be swayed by the points you raised. We are fighting for those in the middle, those who are still undecided. True Believers like Pippen Kool can never be convinced, no matter how many facts, and no matter how much evidence is presented. It is an unusual result of natural selection, that some folks can be totally convinced that black is white, war is peace, ignorance is strength, and CO2 causes runaway global warming.

    They Believe it. That is enough for them. But for scientific skeptics, evidence and facts are necessary to support a conjecture like AGW — evidence and facts which are sorely lacking. In fact, there is no empirical evidence linking human-emitted CO2 to global warming. If CO2 has any effect on temperature, it is too small to measure. We know this, because there are no such measurements anywhere.

    Since 1998, Michael Mann has consistently refused to provide the data, methodology, metadata and other information he used to fabricate his hockey stick chart. That refusal is enough for any true skeptic to question his claims. But Pippen Kool doesn’t care. His True Belief is sufficient. He is no skeptic. He simply Believes.

  120. milodonharlani says:

    Bill Illis says:
    October 8, 2013 at 5:45 pm

    This PPP survey of likely voters is the first to show McAuliffe over 50%. Cuccinelli is hurt by the Libertarian candidate, but that won’t matter if the Democrat can stay over 50%.

    VA has a lot of furloughed federal workers, although how can they really object now that they’re getting paid not to work?

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/politico-poll-government-shutdown-backlash-terry-mcauliffe-ken-cuccinelli-virginia-governor-election-97953.html

    PPP is a Democrat polling firm, but other surveys find Cuccinelli behind, too, as McAuliffe has worked the “War on Women” theme so popular & effective in recent elections.

    Mann may never be called to task for his frauds.

  121. lurker, passing through laughing says:

    @ Bill Jamison says:

    “October 8, 2013 at 9:27 pm
    According to the Army Corp of Engineers in 2010 “about 53% of the RSL rise measured at bay water level stations is, on average, due to local subsidence.” around the Chesapeake Bay. In addition, the absolute sea level rise is about 60% of the global average: “evidence suggests an ASL rise rate of about 1.8 mm/yr in Chesapeake Bay over the 1976-2007 period.”.
    http://web.vims.edu/GreyLit/VIMS/sramsoe425.pdf
    Dishonest indeed.”

    This is worth repeating, imho.
    You offer documetary evidence that Dr. Mann is so blatantly wrong in his assertion as to raise questions about either his integrity, his knowledge base, or both.
    Excellent post, Bill Jamison.

  122. Chad Wozniak says:

    @Jimbo –
    Actually, I thought Mann was scared to death of going up against a skeptic in a real debate.
    @andrewmharding –
    Well, the Washington Post is a seedy publication, right?

  123. Lauren R. says:

    Comment on the errors in the YouTube video by signing in and posting something like the following. Keep it short because there is a 500 character limit.

    For more on Atlantic coast and Chesapeake Bay subsidence, which is the main reason for sea level rise of coastal cities, see pg. 18-22 of “Chesapeake Bay Land Subsidence and Sea Level Change” by Virginia Institute of Marine Science. For analysis and repudiation of Mann’s “hockey stick” temperature graph, search for “University of Guelph hockey stick debate”. The IPCC’s latest report, AR5 acknowledges no measurable increase globally in extreme weather; see Chapter 2 (pg. 5).

    Warning: your comments will eventually be deleted and you will be blocked from posting on that video but at least for a little while your comments can be seen.

  124. Janice Moore says:

    Roger Knights (2:42am today) WELL DONE! Thank you for all that research. That must have taken quite awhile. I sure admire your perseverance. As D. B. (a.k.a. “Smokey) said, well worth the effort for it may help a genuine seeker of science truth to reject the lies and distortions of AGW.

    *****************************
    [WARNING TO ALL "Physics Major" (see Robert Simpson's above comment) types who detest such things -- OFF TOPIC -- GO TO NEXT POST if not interested]

    Re: “Does this make me look fat?”

    WWS is precisely right — the honest, but unhelpful, answer is, “No.”
    If you want to be helpful to her (always a “her,” I think, lol) when it DOES “make” her look fat:

    1) put down the paper or whatever and actually look carefully at her (and maintain your focus on HER throughout the entire conversation — you can do it! — less than 5 minutes will be necessary);
    2) don’t hesitate too long;
    3) say:
    A. “I don’t like it. It’s not you, it’s the skirt (or whatever). That style would make ANY healthy woman and especially a woman with such lovely, feminine, curves (yes, this would actually, in some cases mean “fat,” but say it anyway because part of that fat IS her lovely curves) like yours look heavy because of the way it’s cut. Only a way-too-skinny woman could wear that. It must have been designed by a man.” Then, remind her of clothing she DOES look good in (NO NOT A SWIMSUIT OR NEGLIGEE — she knows why you think she looks good in that kind of apparel — THAT is all about (in her mind, anyway) YOU and this conversation, just for 5 minutes, needs to be all about her), e.g., “if that skirt were like the black, swingy, one you wore…” or “you look GREAT in those navy trousers; those are a first class design and well-made, not cheap-looking like those… .”

    B. Then, if you are her husband …. show her that she is, indeed, physically attractive to you (THAT is what she is really worried about, you know) in whatever way you think will be effective (but, NOT something that she will quickly realize is purely self-gratification — just something little, like stroking her cheek with the back of your fingers and saying, “It’s hard for me to give you fashion advice; you are always beautiful in my eyes.” — at some level, she is, you know; if you do NOT know that, then, work on realizing it! There is NO non-evil woman in this world who isn’t beautiful in some way.).

    Rule for marriage happiness #1: “It’s my job to love __, it’s God’s job to make __ good (or improve, etc…).” Leave it to her sister or a magazine to help her with her physical appearance. She knows her flaws, believe me. She needs all the support she can get from you.

    OKAY, OKAY, I know there will be someone who thinks, “But, there are women (and men) who really NEED and would welcome a hint.” Let them ask for the advice. You knew what a slob or poor dresser he or she was before you married her or him. (if he or she has put on a lot of weight after marriage, approach it as a health issue) Communicate, i.e., come up with a deal where they agree to ask when in doubt, so you can help them walk about town not looking like they just got off the little bus from the mental institution (not because appearance is important per se, but because how one dresses affects how people treat you and you want your loved one to be respected and valued — you can use this to help them to be willing to ask for that advice…).

  125. Gunga Din says:

    Reminds me of this quote.

    “The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.” Thomas Sowell

    I wonder how Little Mikey’s followers would “feel” about that image if it was Anthony’s house?

    PS I wonder if the real owners of that house have grounds to sue Mikey for damages? (Even if they are imaginary. That never stopped him.)

  126. Janice Moore says:

    Re: Reed Coray (9:45pm, 10/9/13) – lol.

    Like these fellas? #(:))
    “Whoa! Tide’s coming in — time to move all our furniture up to the second story!”
    (A real data – – faked data comparison from Michael Mann’s Munchkin Science Land)

  127. Janice Moore says:

    “I wonder if the real owners of that house have grounds to sue Mikey… .” (Gunga Din at 11:18am)

    I think they do! Look (below) at all the WORK they put into building it. Where’s the top story, now? Oh, they used that in the “Hurricane” Sandy schtick last year.

    (Mikey Mann is the guy in the middle in the blue suit (the one with his mouth open — he’s saying, “turn on the water” and, well, you can see in the above post what happened…..))

  128. Janice Moore says:

    Sorry for the obnoxious failed link. If you want to see the build, go to youtube.com and use “Toy Story 3 Barbie house” for a search term. Sigh.

  129. paddylol says:

    I lived in Norfolk, VA from 1943 to mid-1946 in the Larchmont neighborhood. There was a man-made lagoon along the shore of the James river formed by a concrete seawall about 200 yards form our home.

    I had an opportunity to revisit the area few years ago. Nothing had changed other than the large elm trees on parking strips had all died and were gone. I went down to the lagoon an noted that the tide level marks on the seawall were about the same as in the 1940s.

    I submit that my anecdotal observations refute Mann’s hypothesis.

  130. Gunga Din says:

    A.D. Everard says:
    October 8, 2013 at 9:02 pm

    Pippen Kool says:
    October 8, 2013 at 3:02 pm

    I think it is pretty fitting that Mann is going after Cuccinelli after Cuccinelli basically said Mann was guilty of scientific fraud. This is even _after_ study after study keeps reaffirming the hockey stick. Pick your enemies carefully.

    *

    I know the above quote was right up at the beginning, but I’m still trying to get over “Pick your enemies carefully.”

    Sorry, Pippen, you’ve lost me. Just how – in any way, shape or form – is Mann an intellectual threat to anyone here? Are you familiar with this site? At all?

    ==========================================================================
    He reminds me of that scene from Lord of the Rings just after Elrond lets Pippin and Merry join the quest. Pippin says, “Great! Where are we going?”

  131. tom0mason says:

    65% of tide gauges have shown no sea level rise at all

    http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdfels/wpapers/Tide%20gauge%20location.pdf

  132. Slartibartfast says:

    the highest relative increase in sea level

    This should be exhibit A in how to lie with statistics: use a parameter that sounds like the one you want, but isn’t.

    Mann is too well educated to be making an error of this kind accidentally, so I conclude he is lying deliberately and with malice aforethought.

  133. Keitho says:

    Go Mickey, you the man. Thank you for your untiring efforts on our sceptical behalf.

  134. bit chilly says:

    am i the only one that wished the IPCC rigidly adhered to the hockey stick image ? their demise would be so much quicker if they had.
    pippenfool,you need to take a lie down in a dark room ,then go read the 5th assessment,particularly the physical science section,then come back and tell us about hockey sticks.LMFAO

  135. Janice Moore says:

    Gunga Din! LAUGH-OUT-LOUD.

    Pippin: Great! — Where are we going?

    And I do hope that little Pippen also has a heart like Pippin’s. If he or she has, there is hope that Pippen will find the truth.

  136. Michael says:

    Surely no one is stupid enough to think that this is an actually a picture of a house in Norfolk, rather than a graphic?

  137. Brian H says:

    “World renowned”. Yep. But not what he thinks it’s for.

  138. Downdraft says:

    I see that at least one other poster has referenced the study below, but incase anyone missed it, here it is again.
    More than half the apparent sea level rise in the Virginia area is due to subsidence. The actual seal level rise is less in that area that the global average claimed by IPCC. http://web.vims.edu/GreyLit/VIMS/sramsoe425.pdf (81 page report). Looks like Mann is on the path to another Nobel prize. He really is a disgrace.

  139. Janice Moore says:

    Just FYI, Downdraft, (the basic point of your post was great):

    Mann has never been the recipient of a Nobel Prize. If he ever gets one, it would be his first.

  140. TonyG says:

    A suggestion to Pippin: calm down a bit before responding. Your posts are bordering on incoherent, and not necessarily on the correct side of it.

  141. Martin Lack says:

    @Oakwood What happened to that Richard Parker alias you had to create after the Geological Society of London politely asked you to stop using your professional qualifications anonymously?

Comments are closed.