Gosh, what does one do to become a “professional climate change denier”? Does Penn State offer that course? Heh.
He does look happy though. Plus, he has an interesting choice of wall art, I thought sure he’d frame his famous graph. Maybe he has a special room for that. Despite this “exoneration” that according to Sir Muir, didn’t examine the science, his hockey stick still doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
It’s dead. Jeff Id does a great review of what Muir missed, simple, basic, things that anyone who can read can see for themselves.
Here’s the link to the video interview, about 10 minutes long, if you can stand to watch that long.
About 6:45 into the interview Mann blames the current (east coast) heat wave on manmade warming. Of course we all know (because we are repeatedly beaten over the head with the phrase like we’re stupid or something) that “weather is not climate”. Me thinks it’s more about asphalt.
‘Scuse me while I go look for an antiemetic. (mmpf!)
h/t to WUWT reader Loodt Pretorius
Update: From WUWT comments (Philip Foster) we have this.
If anyone is moved to write to Sir Muir Russell, here is his office address:
Sir Muir Russell
Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland
38-39 Drumsheugh Gardens
Edinburgh
EH3 7SW
Scotland
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How sad you all are falling over yourselves to agree with Anthony Watts ….ooh I could only watch the vid for six minutes …. No !! I could only watch for six seconds …. well I could not watch it at ALL … that sort of thing , and you talk of AWG true believers it seems as if a cult is building around WUWT and Anthony Watts .
I come here for alternative views on climate science but have to wade through so many comments just stating how its common sense that there is no AWG and that others must be stupid or be of malevolent mind to even suggest it . Its repeated on every page ad nauseum to the point that one wonders if its just to reinforce their own belief .
John McManus,
You clearly don’t know the players.
Winston Smith,
Please provide any real world evidence of AGW, if you can. See, that’s the problem: climate alarmists insist AGW exists… but they are unable to provide testable evidence. So they demand that we take it on faith. But faith is not science, except in the deluded minds of fictional Orwell characters.☺
Every inquiry into the invasion of Iraq and the “intelligence” behind it, directed at the UK politicians and elites involved at the time has exonerated all of them.
Blair, Straw et al. are obviously completely innocent. I remember the front page of The Independent after one of the inquiries – just one word, “whitewash”. Who are these people to deny the evidence of an official investigation eh?
Maybe this site should tag the “attack” threads in some way, so you can avoid them. But there are plenty of sciency threads. Click on the “Categories” header in the sidebar, then click on a topic of interest.
Smokey
I dont demand that anyone takes AWG on faith , I would like that people look at all sides , but there are some people here that only accept anti AGW science and demand to take on faith that all pro AGW science is corrupt , to me anything that fit with my world view I am even more skeptical of becuase I recognise an inbuilt bias , therefore I seek out alternative views , Iam no scientist or even academic so I could not give a qualified answer to “Please provide any real world evidence of AGW, if you can” . I dont have the skillls to engage debate at that level of climate science .
“deluded minds of fictional Orwell characters.” Ah but Winston wasnt deluded he always new 2+2=4 and the only reason he believed 2+2=5 in the end was because he new it would bring death his only escape .
remember if someone agrees with you its not because they think your right its becuase they think their right….. lol that sounds crappy but its late
Northern Exposure says: July 8, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Hey, did you guys get your big oil cheque in the mail this month ?
I still haven’t received mine yet…
Didn’t you hear, BP was forced to suspend dividends.
“”” Winston Smith says:
July 9, 2010 at 6:49 am
How sad you all are falling over yourselves to agree with Anthony Watts ….ooh I could only watch the vid for six minutes …. No !! I could only watch for six seconds …. well I could not watch it at ALL … that sort of thing , and you talk of AWG true believers it seems as if a cult is building around WUWT and Anthony Watts .
I come here for alternative views on climate science but have to wade through so many comments just stating how its common sense that there is no AWG and that others must be stupid or be of malevolent mind to even suggest it . Its repeated on every page ad nauseum to the point that one wonders if its just to reinforce their own belief . “””
Well Winston; I can’t say that I have seen any of your previous posts here; if I have missed them, then perhaps I should go and search better.
But if this one here represents your view of this site; then I think you probably need to go to Real Climate or some other place that doesn’t allow ANY “alternative views”; which is apparently what you seek.
It would seem that you had some preconceived notion of what an “alternative view” might comprise.
My experience here has been quite different from yours evidently. As near as I can tell, Anthony and other guests provide articles and stories from other sources; or from their own works; and they are presented here for us to read; and comment on should we choose.
I don’t see Anthony in an “editorial role” pushing what may be his view of any of these articles; they usually are just here for us to do with as we choose (or not).
There are plenty of quite serious posters who present views, and arguments, and papers and other data; that would generally be construed as supportive of a man made global warming climate change scenario; but don’t really take a “political” position on that issue; just offer real science in that vein. I’m not going to name names; because those who come here often know who some of those are.
And the inputs of those posters, are quite thought provoking and often instructive, and illuminating too.
So if you think this is one monolithic road block to the ascendancy of AGW philosophy; then I think you just haven’t beeen reading here long enough.
Unless I have slipped up (and I do that), you won’t find anything from me, denying that CO2 intercepts LWIR radiation as is claimed; that’s an indefensible position. Nor that there wasn’t a recent period of warming; and ice melting and that part of that may be ongoing. You won’t find me claiming that man doesn’t affect his environment by his actions.
But neither do I believe that a case has been made that these changes are significant; or under our control; or that the result of any such changes will be catastrophic for the planet or for humans.
And I base that position on just what I know of some elements of the pertinent science. Much of it, I have no knowledge of, and no interest in either; since largely it is entirely peripheral to the main issue of whether planet earth is on a collision course with an unsurvivable future that we are creating (climatically).
We certainly seem to be doing that politically; but I think political errors and folly will get us long before the climate becomes unliveable.
I have only one interest in this subject; and that is to see that they get the science correct; and frankly I don’t think they are even close to explaining what really controls the planet’s climate; which I think is quite stable and quite out of our control.
And no I don’t get one brass razoo for saying so or believing so. My work is in no way involved in either climate or energy or other consumable raw material resources; not have I ever worked for any enterprise or company; that has any such interests; well I should change that; I did once work for Monsanto Chemical Company; and when I worked for them; they made Sacharine, Aspirin, Soap powder (ALL of them), Non-flammable Hydraulic fluids, Astro-Turf, Single Crystal Silicon, Exotic III-V semi-conductor materials; and fertilizers. That was 45 years ago, and all I did for them was design digital electronic Instruments (which they sold), and Optical Semi-conductor products.
Since then, of course they have become big in genetic modified products. At no time have I ever owned any of their stock; or had any other fiduciary interest in them.
So I’m interested in just the science; well the facts of the science; and frankly I see quite a lot of what is non-science , masquerading as science.
But Winston; you know better than we do; how it was that you got here to WUWT. That same process, can take you to many other places where you can find “alternative views” that are much more in tune with your expectations.
So you are not locked in just because you found this place.
It will be interesting to watch Dr. Mann’s career trajectory.
Let’s call it a useful idiot case study and we’ll see what happens now that he’s no longer useful.
“899 says:
July 8, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Mr. Michael Mann’s CV (resumé) may be read here:”
I fixed your link for you, 899.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/cv/cv.html
The hockey stick hasn’t been debunked.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676#description
Winston Smith says:
July 9, 2010 at 6:49 am
I come here for alternative views on climate science
You’ve come to the right place, then. For the “settled science” see RC Koolaid, DeSmog Bilge, or WikiConnelly.
Many of us used to believe the “consensus”. Many skeptics/climate realists in fact come from the liberal side of the political spectrum, where, in fact the concept of manmade global warming does fit their built-in bias. It was, in fact only once we started looking at the actual evidence that we began to see there was a lot of hype, smoke and mirrors, exaggeration, and outright lies. It’s a simple matter of pulling the blinders off a smidge. Try it.
“Jules,
You’re right… We are bigoted…
We are bigoted against ignorance, malfeasance, incompetence, intentional stupidity, violation of the scientific method, and fixing evidence to make ones hypotheses to fit the data, rather than making sure the data fits the hypothesis, to those who think their place in education or politics allows them to circumvent the law of education and the laws of the land, then pat us on the head like morons when ones politico buddies white wash the information and totally overlook the obvious facts.”
**********************************************************************
I don’t believe I used the word “bigoted.” But I do think I argued that the good people here have a simplified, antagonistic, one-sided, hardened mindset that repeatedly goes against both the science (at least the science done by the professional scientists) and the official version of events. I look at your comment excerpted above and cannot conceive of the paranoia and aggression toward these people.
There may be a reason that none of the “skeptics” were called to testify (other than a lack of credentials for most skeptics) and that very well may be the juvenile nature generally found in the the skeptical opinion.
Jules, do you have a grasp on the backstory? Did you read any of the emails in question? As a person concerned about the integrity of science, are you satisfied with the investigations?
Marge says:
July 9, 2010 at 10:21 am:
“The hockey stick hasn’t been debunked.”
What?? Michael Mann’s Hokey Stick chart has been thoroughly debunked. That is the reason why the IPCC can no longer use it in their assessment reports. They can only use pale imitations now, which do not have nearly the visual impact of Mann’s deconstructed chart. The IPCC would love to continue using the MBH99 chart — but if they did, what is left of their evaporating credibility would drop even further.
Jules,
Putting quotation marks around the word skeptics is disingenuous, because the only honest scientists are skeptics first, last, and always.
You state:
“There may be a reason that none of the “skeptics” were called to testify (other than a lack of credentials for most skeptics) and that very well may be the juvenile nature generally found in the the skeptical opinion.”
That baseless assumption fails the smell test. Marge was good enough to re-post Mann’s CV. Compare it with this. Then think about who is being juvenile.
@Jules says: July 9, 2010 at 11:22 am
Jules, your contributions here are a bit like urinating in your trousers.
I’m sure your pithy comments feel really hot to you!
For the rest of us, they’re just rather sad and embarassing.
Other than the usual arguments from “authority” (“science done by the professional scientists”, “lack of credentials for most skeptics”) it is you have absolutely no point to make.
I have read the emails – and I could find very little that was truly damning. Skeptics tend to read a great deal into the illegally released emails where there is very little actual smoke. Climategate has become something of an obsession with the skeptics even as the scandal (created on sites like this one) is slowly beginning to simmer down.
And yes, Smokey, I am very well aware of Dr. Lindzen. He is usually trotted out at a point like this, almost as if he were a talisman of sorts or perhaps the big brother that is gonna get everyone after school. I was not aware that he worked for the CRU, however, and I am aware that he is one of the relatively few qualified voices (very few qualified voices, actually) in the climate science world to doubt the effects of CO2. I am also aware that there is a great deal of criticism about his version of the science (essentially that he cherry-picks his data and arguments) which is something that the skeptics tend to overlook while charging Mann et al with exactly this sort of malfeasance. There is, I suspect, good science that counters AGW theory, but that is not necessarily what one finds in the skeptic camps.
And what is juvenile about the skeptics is not necessarily that they doubt the prevalent science – and there is a prevalent scientific viewpoint – it is the manner in which skeptics attack and malign the scientists which is rather distinctly anti-scientific and very much a mob-mentality.
REPLY: read these related to Mann and Briffa, comment on them, and explain yourself
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/01/mirror-posting-yad06-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/30/agu-presentation-backs-up-mcintyres-findings-that-there-is-no-hockey-stick-in-yamal/
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html
Also since your posts are coming from with a University network, tell us: student or faculty? -A
“Jules, your contributions here are a bit like urinating in your trousers.
“I’m sure your pithy comments feel really hot to you!”
As I posted earlier: juvenile.
Jules,
Re-framing the argument is typical of the alarmist crowd. You originally stated that no skeptics were called to testify.
Now you have moved the goal posts, and say that no CRU skeptics were called. FYI, CRU has no skeptical scientists [the only honest kind of scientist, BTW]. They only have varying degrees of alarmists on staff.
Since you’re now talking about the CRU, Dr Kelly was on the MR committee, and he wrote:
The Muir Russell committee completely disregarded Kelly’s input. Why? For the very same reason no skeptical scientist was allowed to give any input: the Russell report was a whitewash.
Jules, considering whats at stake, wouldn’t you say that just the smell of improper conduct warrants an investigation? Or are you suggesting the general public should give scientific authorities a pass?
Jules, whether you are a student or a real, “professional climate scientist” academic, chances are that I’m old enough to be your father.
If you think I’m juvenile then.that’s OK with me.
I don’t have to hide behind a pseudonym whilst preening my enormous ego.
Student or Academic, there is a very high probability that you are happily taking tax payer’s dollars or pounds whilst you attempt to prop up the cAGW scam, not only despite any evidence (NOT computer models) that CO2 is a problem and despite clear evidence from real observations that CO2 levels are NOT a problem and that the models upon which you rely are fatally flawed.
Nonetheless you are seemingly quite content that both the US and Europe will press on spending trillions on “solving” a non-problem by pouring resources into “alternatives” which simply don’t work. The waste is mind- boggling. The effect on the lives of the poorest and most disadvantaged in Society will be devastating. Let alone the effect on the people of the third world.
But, hey, being really important and grown up as you obviously are, no doubt you couldn’t care less.
Even if the new globe were Mann made some day, there is a God!
… oooarchestrated by PIGGG OIL AND TUBBACCEOU ??…
It’s the old Oreskes Mantra, of course. But now, the ivory tower really stinks while “big oil” of the real world may have a good laugh at this video since they market “global warming solutions” themselves … Anyway, I managed to watch it till the end before I took some fresh air.
Here are some facts regarding vindication and denialism:
“independent” CRE Review
Chapter 1.3.2 Temperature Reconstructions from Tree Ring Analysis
The vindication:
That was after the remake of Mann, take 1, HOWEWER,
AND
Welcome to the new world, Mr. Mann!
I am extremely childish at times. And I probably have a little too much time on my hands.
Jules since you’ve removed the gloves and the banner of peace and decency, I must say that you are quite the moron.
You say that you have read the crutape emails and don’t find anything damning in them.
You have proven that you are an AGW religion zealot by your ignorant words and ad homonym attacks.
Go play in your sandbox and leave us alone. Go skip pebbles on a lake or play with your marbles or play your nintendo or whatever modern day children do when they are bored but just go away.
You haven’t said one intelligent thing since you’ve been in here.
At least when I go to AGW sites like Skeptical Science when they disagree with me they quote from papers and make logical arguments that are wrong but well thought out.
You are just spurting garbage from your keyboard.
If you think you are going to impress us by your ad homonym attacks and slinging of red herrings you are sadly mistaken.
You are getting your 15 minutes of fame. 1 of 2 things will happen…
1. you will settle down and begin discussions in a logical, critical thinking manner and we will partake in intellectual intercourse with you. One thing you will find here is that Anthony Watts (Aka Great Bwanna of scientific reasoning) lets everyone talk. He may argue with you if he thinks you’re wrong, but he’s the blog owner and it’s his right to do so. I’ve tried to comment on blogs like realclimate.com and they are so insecure and smug they snip every comment and most AGW zealot sites are like that.
2. you will continue in your ways and we will just ignore you for the troglidyte that you most likely are and you will slink back into your cave.
Since we are avid researchers, seekers of the truth and some actual scientists, we (speaking for myself and most likely everyone here) would rather you be intelligent and discuss in a crticial thinking manner. I have actually learned things from the AGW side.
Knowledge is Power, use it wisely.
One thing that no one (Mosher and Fuller in the Crutape letters) or Mann or Jones or Briffa or even WUWT have ever talked about is the validity of the email evidence.
Mann et al. forgets one very important fact here.
Even if a burglar had broken into a hotel room and reported to the police the strange behavior of lights in the Watergate offices and then the Watergate crew had been arrested and then Nixon fell…. It would make no difference who it was that made the police report on the phone, they were still caught red handed, still guilty, still prosecuted. Chuck Colson never complained about someone squeeling on him, he admited he was wrong and guilty and did his time, he’s a man.
Mann, Jones et al. have never denied the emails. They have made the email’s validity real by saying that they have been taken out of context and never should have been made public, and the terrible evil hacker made them public. So the focus has been made on the hacker rather than the illegal, immoral, unethical practices that went on within them.
Personally I think they know full well who released them, but the admission that one of their own saw the light and couldn’t stand the guilt, and the lies, and the stress any more, and desired freedom from the opression of secrets and lies, would be far worse than the embarassment of them being released in the first place.
This is what happens in every “internal investigation.”
Jules,
By the By,
“Nothing personal against Mr. Lindzen, but we don’t need to trot him out to make a valid case for ourselves.”
I am a student myself. However, I have been studying things for a very long time before I entered the University level of education.
The difference between me and you is the fact that I am 50 yrs. old. I have been around the block a time or two and I have been through the school of hard knocks.
It would appear that you are one of those half armed opponents in a battle of wits, who chronically have nothing better to do than go to the opposing side and cause problems and distract. The problem with attempting that with people like us is that we are multi-taskers. We can still focus on the important things while engaging in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents.
So you are not only being incredibly foolish and appearing ignorant, but you are wasting your time as well.